Il prigioniero di Zenda

I bought a duel set of "The Prisoner of Zenda" that contains both 1937 and 1952 versions, and like the 1952 version much more. First of all, Granger's handsomeness and style fits more to the fairy-tale adventure story of prince and princess, Coleman is too sophisticated for the Rassendyall character. Other casts are better also; Kerr is much prettier and princess like, and Mason is a more impressive villain. I also think that the fighting scenes are better, more elegant and better choreographed. With no less significance is the color ,makes the costume and characters look more sensational, and gives more feeling for the romantic fairy tale .

This movie is pure entertainment, I first saw it in high school, loved it, I still enjoy it 30 years later .

Seems to me that if you're going to do a re-make of an earlier film, you need to have a better approach than just to refilm it, scene-by-scene, from its immediate predecessor.

Watching this 1952 version of "The Prisoner of Zenda," it emerges an astonishing "carbon copy" of its 15-year-old vintage model, only with different actors and in color.

What was most surprising was using Alfred Newman's 1937 music almost note-for-note. Conrad Salinger, MGM arranger-orchestrator-composer, seemed to have merely pulled out the old score, dusted off the parts, and passed them out to the MGM Orchestra to re-record.

Since this was also the music used for the now historic early December '39 sneak-preview of "Gone With the Wind" (outside of Los Angeles prior to its premiere before Max Steiner finished his work) it's even more strange to hear it here.

While the '52 cast was talented and the production values intact, there were no particularly fresh insights or viewpoints offered here, resulting in an efficiently "cloned" confection.

Less that an auspicious feather in MGM's cinematic folio, it still probably went over well with a new "generation" unfamiliar with either the '37 film or the original novel.

The old swashbuckling mythology in capital letters: King, Country, Duty, Courage, and Honor, featuring a handsome, fearless Hero; a beautiful and perfectly behaved Princess; a stalwart Elderly Advisor; a grasping Villain; his insinuating Right Hand; and so on. It's so stereotyped that it could take up a whole chapter of Carl Jung.

So it's amazing that this production manages to pull it off so well. Maybe it's the unusually effective screenplay, which doesn't waste a line, and somehow manages not to rehash creaky dialogue. Maybe it's the actors, who carry their roles with as much dignity as if this is the first time anyone's ever done them. Or maybe it's James Mason as the only recognizable human in the story, a charming and calculating psychopath with razor-sharp wit and stunning powers of manipulation.

However they did it, the results are a joy. Swordplay, love affairs, grand balls, royalty, and political intrigue - it all works. Put your brain in low gear, sit back, and enjoy the ride.

Hollywood has always had a philosophy, that if a film makes money, either do a sequel, or remake it! While sequels are most common (offering original cast members, older and less believable in their roles, performing variations of the same plot that made the original film popular...usually less successfully...), remakes have a long history, as well, with some remakes an improvement over the original (John Huston's THE MALTESE FALCON far outshines both of the earlier sound versions), some just as good (1939's BEAU GESTE, with Gary Cooper, has as loyal an audience as Ronald Colman's silent version), and some truly disastrous (why anyone would even CONSIDER remaking Frank Capra's LOST HORIZON, much less turning it into a 70s MUSICAL, defies comprehension!)

MGM, in their 1952 remake of 1937's classic THE PRISONER OF ZENDA, tried to surpass the earlier version by creating a 'scene-for-scene' duplicate of the film, while utilizing some of their biggest stars in each role, reworking Alfred Newman's original score, and shooting it all in glorious Technicolor. The end result, however, was a mixed bag...

Stewart Granger, MGM's resident 50s swashbuckler, certainly was more athletic than Ronald Colman in the lead, but lacked the older actor's panache, and more importantly, 'The Voice', that distinctive, oft-imitated but never duplicated speaking voice that made Colman so unique. It still wins hearts, nearly 50 years after his death, and was the reason Colman made the transition from a star of silent pictures to sound so effortlessly. While Deborah Kerr was as regally beautiful as Madeleine Carroll, she lacked the fragile quality that made Carroll's doomed love of the commoner Colman so heartbreaking. Louis Calhern, in C. Aubrey Smith's role, as Col. Zapt? No way! Robert Coote replacing David Niven as Fritz had some novelty value, as both would costar, twelve years later, in the television series, THE ROGUES, but the younger Niven was far more appropriate in the role of a young but loyal assistant to Zapt. While Robert Douglas was every bit as sinister as Raymond Massey as Black Michael, the most disastrous miscasting came with the film's other major villain, Rupert of Hentzau. While James Mason was a truly gifted actor, he was too old, and actually too villainous in the role! While the character has to be truly jaded and unscrupulous, he also has to be such a young, likable scoundrel that his escape, after the climactic duel, disappoints no one, not even the hero he nearly defeats. The role ideally suited Douglas Fairbanks Jr., whose prowess with a sword was unmatched, and whose scenes with Colman were instant classics of sophisticated wit. When Granger and Mason repeated the same lines, their exchanges came across as typical 'good guy vs. bad guy' dialog, lacking the unique chemistry Colman and Fairbanks brought to the roles.

As for shooting the film in Technicolor...While the regal color photography certainly made the Palace scenes more impressive (don't forget, Great Britain was crowning Elizabeth as Queen when the remake was released, and American audiences were rabid Anglophiles, totally enthralled by all the Pomp and Circumstance), it also 'dated' the story, making the adventure seem quaint and old-fashioned in the Cold War era. The black-and-white photography of 1937, with it's masterful use of light and shadow, gave the earlier version a timeless quality it still carries to this day.

David Niven, in his autobiography ('The Moon's a Balloon'), said he thought MGM's remake was a ridiculous idea, and that he was pleased that the newer production, even as a scene-for-scene copy, failed. While I think he was, perhaps, too hard on the Granger film, I have to agree that no other version has ever even come close to the magic of Ronald Colman's 1937 classic!

Knowing nothing of this film, the book or previous versions, I watched TPOZ expecting nothing but a star-studded cast. I sat enchanted throughout, undisturbed by thoughts of "carbon copy" scenes, recycled musical scores and previous performances. For me the movie was timeless, not a word nor scene wasted, Granger and Kerr were engaging lovers. The sword fight was one of the best. The only "glaring" production fault was the 300 watt shadow. Otherwise, fantastic cinematography and score, and wonderful Granger, Kerr and Mason.