Il prigioniero di Zenda

Sir Anthony Hope Hawkins was a successful London barrister, who got his measure of permanent fame as the author of several novels. Some were quite popular in their day, like "The Dolly Dialogues" and "The Man In The Car" (which bases it's central figure on Cecil Rhodes). But it is his two "Ruritanian" Romances, "The Prisoner Of Zenda" and "Rupert Of Hentzau" that are the main novels he is recalled for, especially "The Prisoner Of Zenda". Set in a middle European kingdom, it was (for it's day in the last decades of the 19th Century) an updating of the swashbuckling novels of Alexandre Dumas. Dumas had some stories set in "modern Europe" ("The Count Of Monte Cristo" is set in the period of 1815 - 1830, and was written in 1844 - 1845), but most were in earlier periods, such as the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. Hope Hawkins (who wrote under the name Anthony Hope) figured that there was sufficient intrigue and deviltry in modern Europe to transplant the plot style to the 1870s - 1890s.

And there was considerable intrigue, especially in Eastern Europe. In the 1880s Prince Alexander of Battenberg seemed set to become first Prince or King of Bulgaria. He had won admiration in Europe for his stunning victories over the armies of the Kingdom of Serbia in a war of 1885 (the war that was the background to Shaw's ARMS AND THE MAN), and was poised to get his crown, when the Russian Empire balked. They thought Alexander was too pro-German, and too close (due to family relationships) to Great Britain. So Alexander was toppled, and forced to leave Bulgaria under very humiliating circumstances. Eventually Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg got the Bulgarian throne.

"The Prisoner Of Zenda" is not based on the story of Alexander of Battenberg, but it shows the type of conspiracy atmosphere that pervaded the area. Basically the plot is an old one of substitutions concerning political figures. Dumas had used one in "The Vicomte De Bragalone", a huge multi-volume novel that included "The Man In The Iron Mask". One of the theories about the Iron Mask (the one that Dumas used)was that it was the twin brother of King Louis XIV. In that novel D'Artagnan has to thwart a plot to replace the Sun King with his brother - a plot that almost succeeds. Hope changed this slightly. Here the King is threatened by his ambitious half-brother, and the King's distant twin cousin replaces him to save the throne.

The 1937 film version of the novel is usually considered the best of several (including the 1951 version with Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr, and a comic version with Peter Sellers and Lionel Jeffries in 1978). David Selznick was the producer, this being part of his series of movies-based-on-famous-novels that included "A Tale Of Two Cities" (also with Colman), "David Copperfield" (with W.C.Fields), and finally "Gone With The Wind". His casting was top notch, with Colman supported by Madeleine Carroll, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Raymond Massey, Mary Astor, C. Aubrey Smith, and David Niven. It is an exciting and well made film, and definitely worth watching.

Selznick hoped to do the sequel "Rupert Of Hentzau", but that book is a comparative downer. Several of the main characters from the first novel are killed, and one of them shows a less likable side to his personality than in the first story. He toyed with a total rewrite of the story, to try to make Fairbanks a hero instead of a villain. The project never reached fruition. Probably just as well. It is rare for a successful film production to be replicated in a sequel.

Mixed identities, castles, swords, fancy uniforms, Ruritanian romance, royal intrigues -- it's all here. What a lot of fun.

I could never really figure out Ronald Coleman's appeal. He's likable enough but from what I gather women used to swoon over him. Is he really handsome? If so, the quality slips past my perceptive apparatus. I do like his voice, though, so theatrically nasal and so hard to take seriously. Raymond Massey is Black Michael, he of the monocle and the perpetual sneer. Mary Astor and Madeleine Carrol are decorative and provide the men with motives. Outstanding, though, is Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., as Rupert of Hentzau. It's often said that a movie is as good as its villain, and that's as true here as in any other film. He laughs, he oozes charm, he beats people over the head with iron pipes, he stabs unarmed noblemen, he seduces women, he drugs kings, seems to enjoy betrayal, smokes too much, lies as easily as the rest of us breathe, and instead of fighting to the end like a man he jumps out a window and runs away, or rather swims away. He quotes poetry: "Oh, woman, in our hour of ease/ uncertain, coy, and hard to please./ When pain and anguish wring the brow/ a ministering angel, thou." David Niven is a lighthearted friend of the hero. C. Aubrey Smith is -- well, C. Aubrey Smith.

Niven hadn't gotten very far in Hollywood until he landed this role, which he was able to do only through the influence of Hollywood's "British colony." He began the shoot by playing the part in the breezy manner we now see on screen. This displeased the director and the producer, who wanted it dramatic, but when they saw how it looked on film they were tickled pink. (Both Niven and Fairbanks were to go on to meritorious service in World War II.)

The movie is so undemanding and so rewarding that it was remade several times, twice as a spoof. The 1950s version with Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr is about as good as this one, only of course splashier.

The climax involves a nicely done fight with sabres between Coleman and Fairbanks. Coleman wasn't a physical actor and Fairbanks not a fencer, so doubles are used extensively, but without doing much damage. And it's curious to note that this was released in the same year as "The Adventures of Robin Hood," and both films use some of the same conventions, fighting with furniture, trading wisecracks during the fight, and the use of shadows swashbuckling away on the castle walls. This despite the fact that different directors were in charge. Hard to tell whether this is an instance of independent invention or some historical adhesion left over from one of Fairbanks' dad's early silents.

And enjoyable tale, not meant to be taken seriously.

As my summary line might suggest, this is a movie that I have tremendous affection for and is one of the few movies I can watch again and again without a twinge of boredom.

This particular version of Hope's novel has to be the most supremely romantic film of all time. The combination of seven fantastic lead actors, a very witty script, excellent production values, tight direction, and good taste from all concerned make this a film that *must* be seen, and can be enjoyed by anyone of any age. It is, simply, a timeless masterpiece.

It must be said that the monumental achievement is Colman's for his brilliant portrayal of King and commoner. It is true that there are some parts of this film that have not aged well, and the story itself is only a thin (though classic!) adventure yarn, but out of this Colman has created a masterful portrait of a humane and dutiful hero and his flawed but equally interesting counterpart. It is Colman's quiet and absolutely accurate acting that stirs me most, although one cannot ignore the talents of his superlative co-stars. All in all, it is an ensemble acting film with Colman at the top--as it should be.

I envy anyone their first viewing of this remarkable film. It will not soon be forgotten even as flashier and louder thrillers invade our filmgoing consciousness.

Of the at least eight film versions of Anthony Hope's famous novel, this is the best. There is a fairly decent silent version starring Ramon Navarro and a flashier 1950's version with Stewart Granger but this one leads the pack as the most entertaining and the best directed. Dashing Douglas Fairbanks Jr. always in the shadow of his famous father gives the role of Rupert all he's got and that's a lot. He steals every scene he's in, even from the likes of Ronald Coleman and Raymond Massey. He gives treachery and deceit not to mention opportunism new meanings in his double dealings. Few today have even heard of Junior, though most movie buffs have heard of his father silent star Douglas Fairbanks and step mother for a time Mary Pickford. Senior divorced Junior's mother to marry Pickford. Junior gave other outstanding performances on the big screen especially in "Gunga Din" in 1939 opposite Cary Grant and Victor McLaglen. He went on to have a popular television show in the early days of that medium "Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Presents." He gradually retired from films. Sadly when he passed away in the year 2000 very few knew who he was.

Ronald Coleman gets to play two parts Maj. Rudolf Rassendyll and King Rudolf V, two lookalike cousins from a family indiscretion several generations back. He does so admirably. Though Madeleine Carroll as Princess Flavia who loves one cousin but is tied to the other out of duty and patriotism is a hard act to follow as always, Mary Astor gives her a good run for the money as Black Michael's (Raymond Massey)lady love. The two ladies counterbalance each other well as stand by your man women but for different reasons. The always underrated and under-appreciated actor Raymond Massey makes the character of Michael come alive with jealousy and vainglory but with true love in his heart for his Antoinette. The grand old man of early cinema C. Aubrey Smith is around to make sure all is done correctly according to pomp and circumstance. David Niven in an early screen role gives his portrayal of Capt. Fritz Von Tarlenheim the easy touch, almost tongue in cheek at times, which lightens the heavy load for the viewers. He is a good counterbalance for the dour C. Aubrey Smith. Silent screen veteran actor Montagu Love is present to show them all how it's done. What a troupe of Thespians to savor!

John Cromwell directs with flair and makes the film move at a fast pace especially near the end. The action sequence when the castle is stormed following the lowering of the draw bridge is intense. The rapier fight between Coleman and Fairbanks is still exciting to watch. The crisp black and white photography makes one forget that the film is not in color. For excitement, adventure, and romance by all means see the 1937 version of "The Prisoner of Zenda."

If I were to be left on a deserted island and had but one film to watch while I passed the time of day, "Prisoner of Zenda" would be that movie.

Of course it is not perfect. Some of the dialog and scenes seem dated by today's more cynical standards, and perhaps the characters lack the complexity seen in more contemporary films.

But I know of no other movie that tells its rousing story with such dash and style, while at the same time glorifying nobility of character, loyalty, honor, decency, tradition and self-sacrifice. Altogether, this is the film that shows the Old Hollywood skill of story telling at its very best, and leaves you feeling better for the opportunity to watch the great adventure and romance unfold before your very eyes.

Ronald Colman is virtually unknown today----and his presentation of the gentleman hero is decidedly old fashioned. But you believed in him and the innate integrity he brought to all his characterizations. Madeleine Carroll is a classic blond beauty perfectly cast as the princess destined to marry a king but who gives her heart to his look alike commoner cousin.

The rest of the stellar cast is outstanding. Many have pointed out how Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as Rupert of Hentzau stole the picture as the charming villain, and they may well be right. Too bad that he got so few opportunities to show the full range of his acting ability. This is probably his best role.

Many---perhaps most of the values demonstrated in "Prisoner of Zenda" may appear rather quaint to us today. This is not because they are irrelevant. Our present society has significantly lowered the bar for what constitutes good behavior and more readily accepts and forgives what amounts to bad behavior. So-----be transported in time to a world where chivalry was still in style and honor was a virtue to be cherished. You will not be disappointed!

This is one of the truly great films to come out of the Golden Age of Hollywood.