El pimpinela triunfante

David Niven takes on the mantle of Baroness Orczy's hero in this classy but a little lightweight take on the escapades of the "Scarlet Pimpernel". Hugely successful at smuggling doomed artisto's from under the nose of the Reign of Terror, the French authorities charge "Chauvelin" (Cyril Cusack) to track down the culprit. He has some leverage with the new and glamorous "Lady Blakeney" (Margaret Leighton) and so offers her the life of her brother if she will agree to help him. She just happens to be married to the foppish "Sir Percy", but is he so useless as his persona suggests? Niven is on quite good form in this; there is enough intrigue to keep it moving along well and Leighton can always be relied upon to deliver competently (even if this is far from her best effort). It's not the best Powell & Pressberger film, but it is still a polished adventure with a soupçon of humour as we head to an exciting last fifteen minutes. Perhaps not as good as Leslie Howard's 1934 iteration, but Niven looks like he enjoyed making it and I enjoyed watching it, too.

Having recently seen the 1934 Alexander Korda version of "The Scarlet Pimpernel", I found it almost impossible to consider this film other than in relation to its predecessor. It is quite clear in any case that the Powell & Pressburger version is based firmly upon the earlier script rather than upon Baroness Orczy's famous novel "The Scarlet Pimpernel" - or even its sequel, "The Elusive Pimpernel"... Not only do the two films share a number of scenes which have no origin in the novel - the episode of the Prince Regent's coat, Marguerite's own victimisation by the St Cyr family, the firing squad and the ghost, among others - but the dialogue in several of these scenes is word-for-word identical to that of the earlier screenplay.

As such, I consider that the 1950 production may fairly be considered a remake; and like so many remakes of well-known stories, I fear it is not a great success. The changes made for the later production clearly betray nothing more than the advances in cinematography over the intervening years, coupled with what I suspect to have been a bigger budget. In place of blurred sound - the surviving 1934 print is of very poor quality - monochrome film and static, staged studio exteriors, we are treated to Technicolour costumes and numerous location sequences including stately homes on both sides of the Channel, a curricle race on the Brighton road, a full-size sailing vessel and a climax shot on and around Mont St Michel. The action, unfortunately, does not gain thereby. All too often plot elements give the impression of being introduced in order to showcase the lavish production values, rather than the latter enhancing the former.

Neither production is particularly faithful to the original text; but then few great literary adaptations ever are. It is the earlier script, however, for all its occasionally stilted quality, that manages to come closer to the spirit of the novel. Oddly enough, it is where the later script picks up dialogue verbatim, either from its predecessor or direct from the novel, that it generally sounds weakest; out of context, the old dialogue sits ill with the more 'modern' visual style.

Armand St-Just, as a character, is reduced to an unappealing cameo that deprives Marguerite's later actions in his defence of their essential emotional force - the audience has no reason to care about his fate. Likewise, we lose the poignant moment introduced by Korda's script where Sir Percy allows the mask of marital indifference to slip a fraction in the face of Marguerite's unspoken distress, only for her to shut him out from her confidence and resort instead to Chauvelin's devil's bargain - with almost fatal consequences for both of them.

Despite its longer running-time, the remake also contrives to lose many of the effective 'character scenes' that set the mood of the piece; the aristocrats being called out one by one to the tumbrils; Armand's relationship with his sister; the prattle of the bored ladies of fashion as Marguerite poses for her portrait; the affected, artificial attitudes of the circles in which her husband moves; the baffled Chauvelin and the sleeping Sir Percy; and even revolutionary Calais in a snatched peaceful moment, as seen by the 'soldiers' in disguise. As a result, shorn of all this even the main characters seem strangely two-dimensional, and the moments of subtle humour are almost totally lost in favour of a few bald gags towards the end - although the introduction of the unloaded pistol with which Sir Percy so carefully induces his adversary to arm himself is a nice touch.

But most crucially of all, David Niven, who should have been no novice in the art of buckling his swash, totally fails to outshine the memory of Leslie Howard's performance in the part of the actual Scarlet Pimpernel. It is chiefly Howard's portrayal of the title character that raises "The Scarlet Pimpernel" somewhat above the status of dated period piece it would otherwise hold. 'Fair and foolish', he carries off Sir Percy Blakeney to perfection as an eighteenth-century Lord Peter Wimsey, a babbling silly-ass-about-town in public but a quick-witted and resourceful man of action when it counts. Admittedly the script does Niven no favours; but he is neither convincingly languid in the part of the fop (the doggerel scene in the steam-bath, transposed from its original setting in a hide-bound gentlemen's club, becomes simply embarrassing, with Niven popping up through the steam like a pantomime demon) nor sufficiently dashing in his other role. This is simply not a Scarlet Pimpernel that female viewers can hero-worship, or male viewers long to emulate. And sad to say, Niven doesn't really have the looks for the part.

Merle Oberon's quick-tongued and imperious Lady Blakeney was also more appropriate to her part than Margaret Leighton's more colourless blonde rendition, although again the script must take much of the blame. As for the appalling French accents inflicted on Marguerite, Chauvelin, and every other Francophone character in the film... one becomes almost grateful for the frequency with which Margaret Leighton, at least, forgets to maintain hers.

"The Scarlet Pimpernel" was a minor historical drama, mainly notable for an outstanding performance from Leslie Howard. "The Elusive Pimpernel", on the other hand, ranks alongside the 1970s remake of "The Mark of Zorro" - that is, despite added colour and action sequences, somewhere along the line they have managed to lose the essential heart of the story. This version was supposedly planned as a musical - the mind boggles!

Some films it seems are destined to be dreadful. Here the whole enterprise was beset with production problems and it shows. Every film-maker is entitled to the occasional aberration but despite Michael Powell's lunatic notion of making this a musical being thankfully knocked on the head, the finished product retains the feel of a second rate operetta without the music. It does at least look pretty, courtesy of Christpher Challis' cinematography and Hein Heckroth's sets but the acting by some of the supporting cast is amateurish and the editing simply atrocious.

Although David Niven, on loan from MGM is affable as the title character this role once again reveals his limitations as an actor whilst Margaret Leighton is alas miscast as Lady Blakeney. It might at one stage have been the genuinely gallic Madeleine le Beau but Powell was overrruled. Cyril Cusack as Chauvelin is a pantomime villain and Sir Percy's aristo confederates resemble members of a rugby team on a weekend jaunt to France. It is best to draw a discreet veil over Jack Hawkins' Prince of Wales.

Mr. Powell at least possessed sufficient humility to acknowledge that "it was a terrible mess".

After their triumphs of the Forties, this and his subsequent films with Emeric Pressburger were hopelessly out of step with a Fifties audience but out on his own his 'Peeping Tom' from 1960, despite the chorus of disapproval that met its release, proved to be years ahead of its time.

Given that "The Elusive Pimpernel" was a Powell-Pressburger production, I expected the film to be top-notch. Instead, sadly, it's just okay...and I really think the made for TV version with Anthony Andrews from 1982 is a much more enjoyable film. Why? Well, I think a lot of the fault is casting David Niven in the lead. While an amazingly good actor, here he just seems way too subdued and his character should have been more foppish and effete.

The story is set during the worst days of the French Revolution. It's the so-called 'Reign of Terror' and the country's bloodlust seems unquenchable. Again and again, aristocrats and their entire families are being beheaded all in the name of justice! The Scarlet Pimpernel and his small group of friends are doing their best to save a few families here and there...and they are as a result, among the country's most wanted men...though their actual identities are unknown.

The story covers most of the basic elements of the book but just feels flat. I think part of it is that the TV film works better because it's longer...and can take a more leisurely pace in covering the material. This and Niven's performance really harm this film...which is watchable but lacking. The same can be said when comparing it to the 1934 Alexander Korda version...one that isn't quite as good as the miniseries but nonetheless is an exceptional film. The leads were better and the story seemed much cleverer and lighthearted.

What if Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made a Batman movie? Well, it'd probably turn out a whole lot like The Elusive Pimpernel. It'd be full of pretty gowns, balls, and more focused on Bruce Wayne's dandy cover than his skills as Batman. I mean, there's not one swordfight in this film. I was really not expecting that. Still, it's moderately entertaining but not entirely successful. Thriller mechanics are simply different from most dramatics, and I think many filmmakers who dip their toes into the thriller or adventure genre underestimate the challenges inherent in the genres, preferring to treat their exercises as extensions of drama rather than something with a different structural need to deliver a different audience experience. The creative pair manage to pull it together for the most part by the end, but it's not quite enough to save the film as a whole.

Revolution has engulfed France, and the mysterious figure of the Scarlet Pimpernel has been saving French nobles targeted by the mob and the Committee of Public Safety, represented by Citizen Chauvelin (Cyril Cusack). One of the early issues I have with this film is...I don't know where Chauvelin actually is. His early scenes I'm pretty sure are in Paris, but then he makes a decision to go to London because there's a party that very night he needs to attend...which he gets to without issue. So, was he always in London, and his discussion with Armand St. Juste (Edmond Audran) was at his house there, even though the plot, when it eventually manifests, is about saving Armand in Paris? I bet there's a scene missing.

Anyway, St. Juste (I have issues with the use of this name) is the brother to Marguerite (Margaret Leighton) who is married to the dandy Sir Percy Blankeney (David Niven) who is, of course, The Scarlet Pimpernel. He finds excuses of needing to recuperate at baths around England to sneak to France and do his work. He also spends times in real baths with the other elite of British society, including the Prince of Wales (Jack Hawkins), with whom he has a playfully antagonistic relationship, mostly around fashion.

The first half of this film is really largely plotless. We get two separate and repetitive examples of the Pimpernel rescuing people in France (I would recommend either combining them into one sequence or just cutting the first outright) and then a lot of focus on Marguerite. Her and Percy's relationship has soured heavily since they left France and she denounced some figures who went to the guillotine. He can't forgive her for that, and the refugees he brings back from France want nothing to do with her. I mean, this is solid stuff (I imagine it comes from the source novels by the Baroness Orczy), but it's presented in this dramatic idiom that when given such prominence in an adventure tale mostly just drags things down. The pacing (something I don't often gripe about) is just wrong here.

The weird thing is that the central plot, rescuing Armand, is introduced early. It just gets no attention for a long stretch, replaced, eventually, by some business around Chauvelin using a letter Armand had sent that contained some anti-revolutionary rhetoric as leverage over Marguerite to try and figure out who the Pimpernel is. So, essentially it's a distraction as Percy has to put on disguises to try and get his hand on the letter instead of going to France to save his wife's brother.

It's at about the halfway point where the film actually gains the overall character of an adventure story instead of a drama with some exciting bits thrown in here and there. It starts with the sudden need to make it to France, Chauvelin figuring out where and when the Pimpernel is going to depart for France from, Percy and the Prince of Wales getting into a race to Dover from London, and more. It suddenly has this drive, and we discover that some things set up in the first act shenanigans actually pay off in the final act, in particular the use of Mont St. Michel and its tides. I'm still disappointed that there isn't a single crossed sword, but Percy using his wits to win against Chauvelin is not unsatisfactory.

So, really, the film is alright. It's outside of Powell and Pressburger's wheelhouse, so the fit into the thrilling adventure is not quite right. However, they seem to be students of cinema enough to be able to adapt in the final act. Niven is the anchor of it all, and he's obviously just there to have some fun. He alternates between his dandy personality and that of the harder Pimpernel with ease, carrying the film on his back as best he can.

I wish Powell and Pressburger had studied adventure stories a bit more before finalizing their draft before filming, restructuring things and reprioritizing plot a bit more in the first half to give the film a clearer drive. It's never dull, though, it just never quite comes together despite the efforts of the final act.