L'inafferabile primula rossa

Baroness Emma Orczy's "The Scarlet Pimpernel" is one of those stories that seem to attract actors, directors and producers to want to make it again and again. The story was first produced as a 1905 stage play in London, even before the novel was published. The huge success of the play and subsequent book inspired Orczy to write several sequel novels. Most of these in time were made into films. The first films were silent productions in 1917 and 1919. Then, in 1934, London Film Productions made the first sound film. That remains the model with which to compare all film remakes since.

Leslie Howard, Merle Oberon and Raymond Massey headed the superb cast of the 1934 film. The screenplay, filming, sets and scenes were outstanding. The quality of that black and white masterpiece hasn't faded these many decades later. Of all the remakes for the silver screen and TV, only one is equal to the sound original. That's the splendid 1982 film, "The Scarlet Pimpernel," made by the same company.

The 1982 movie is in color and has a cast equal to the first film. Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen give superb performances. The screenplay in this version delves more into Percy's time in Paris and the love and marriage of Percy and Marguerite at the beginning of the French Revolution. Otherwise, both films give considerable screen time to some of the many clever ways that Sir Percy had for freeing and smuggling prisoners out of France. Especially good are the disguises that heroes don in each of these films. The audience gets to see them change, and it's a good look at how one can change one's physical appearance and not be recognized. I had to strain to see the two actors in their various makeups. So, it's understandable how disguises can work so well when those being fooled aren't folks who know the disguised person well.

In between and after the two excellent movies, there have been a number of remakes for the movie theaters and for TV. None comes close to matching the outstanding 1934 and 1982 films.

This film, "The Elusive Pimpernel" (aka, "The Fighting Pimpernel"), is one of those other films. After the 1934 success, it took 16 years before someone got the itch or courage to attempt a film remake. London Films again did the job. But, a new bevy of actors was there from which to pluck a new Percy and others. They mostly were stage and screen stars who were young wannabe stars at the time of the 1934 film. So, one can understand a David Niven, Margaret Leighton and Cyril Cusack wanting to tackle the Pimpernel story. And, of course, London Films would always like to have another hit on its hands.

But, such was not the case with this remake. It was originally planned as a musical. The producer, director and other backers squabbled over the film from start to finish. David Niven didn't want to do it, and Margaret Leighton was given the female lead against the director's wishes (Michael Powell). Samuel Goldwyn and Alexander Korda were at odds. The finished product is very rough with holes in places and poor editing and splicing in other places. The film seems to have bombed in the UK, barely earning 25 percent of its cost (£477,000) at the box office.

Still, this is the Scarlet Pimpernel, and the film has some of the intrigue and a little action of the original. Leighton's part is very minimal and almost blasé. But Niven seems to have put some energy and effort into his role as Sir Percy Blakeney. So, this 1950 Pimpernel isn't a total wash. For the few good acting efforts, and for Madame Orczy's story, it gets six stars.

Here are some favorite lines from the film.

Prince of Wales, "Damn it, Percy. You may be brainless, spineless and useless, but, uh, ha, you do know clothes."

Sir Percy Blakeney, "The hours past are numbered against us."

Marguerite Blakeney, "Are we really free, Percy? Sir Percy Blakeney, "Not you, my darling. Chauvelin said that you would be free the moment that I die. Not a moment sooner."

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!

David Niven must have had so much fun making The Fighting Pimpernel! He got to work with inventive directors Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, who directed him in A Matter of Life and Death, and he got to put on so many different disguises throughout the film. He plays the famous Scarlet Pimpernel, and as he goes incognito planning out various schemes to aid in the French Revolution, he always makes sure his costume, face, and accent are different. Can't picture him with missing teeth and a thick Cockney accent? Can't see him with patches in his trousers and a wild reg wig? Can't imagine him as a hag? You certainly can, if you rent The Fighting Pimpernel.

Without The Niv, this movie wouldn't be anything to write home about. It has a very European feel to it, and the supporting actors are often over-the-top or just plain strange. Thankfully, there is my beloved Niv, to make everything all better. He may not be insanely handsome in this one, since he spends most of his time making his face unrecognizable, but he gets to show off a lot of hidden talents. It's always fun to see an actor let his or her hair down, isn't it? If you liked him in this, next up is Candleshoe, where he also gets to wear many different hats.

I would wholeheartedly have to concur with the previous - and main, to date - reviewer of this mish-mosh remake: it's a hybrid of the 1934 Howard classic and Orczy's original novel, which does justice to neither. As a gesture of independence, the plot is given irrelevant twists, such as renaming the family betrayed (or not, once again) by Marguerite, introducing a London to Brighton carriage race, and switching Howard's 'Who, Sir? You, Sir' dialogue from a London club to a Turkish bath (a minor complaint of the latter detail being that Niven's physique in no way stands up to such scrutiny!)

David Niven's strongest moments are his flashes of 'Carry On'-style wit as the Pimpernel's various assumed personas, particularly the Cock-er-nee who baits Chauvelin's staff. As the foppish Sir Percy, he sounds, probably unintentionally, like a London bobby instead of a dandy from the ton; as the Pimpernel, sans disguise, he is rather forgettable, blending in with the rest of the confused sea of League characters. Margaret Leighton, with the aesthetic distinction of being the only blonde film version of the character, neither looks nor acts the part. She delivers Merle Oberon's lines - word for word, an annoying laziness on behalf of Powell and Pressburger - as though reading from a cue card, and does not spark with Niven. She also looks considerably too old for the role, and is not helped by the smearing of Technicolour-red lipstick she shares with every other woman in this production. Cyril Cusack as Chauvelin, however, is the real monstrosity - a cross between a stage Hamlet and Marlon Brando as the Godfather, he speaks with a lisping Closeau accent and somnolently glides through the film like the Prince of Darkness.

If this film had been allowed to continue as a musical, it would perhaps have been excusable as a light-hearted, brightly coloured spin on the earlier Howard-Oberon version (it is possible to spot where some of the songs might have slotted in, particularly when Sir Percy and the Prince of Wales recite the famous 'We seek him here' doggerel, and the 'chorus' burst into spontaneous mime to the tune of 'Little Brown Jug', as it sounds like!) The (intentional) comedy is quirky, if a little corny (the effeminate French captain who realises he has been duped into thinking the Pimpernel is Chauvelin), and the beautiful external locations add a touch of authenticity that would have boded well for any other film. But as it stands, this is only a shoddily constructed parody/remake, with inferior stars and unnecessary changes to the story. My final sentence on 'The Elusive Pimpernel' (I also have no idea why they chose this title): I think the 1998 series must have confused this with the 1934 material, when sourcing a 'modern' interpretation! Take that as you will.

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.