Below are images from "SUNDAY IN NEW YORK", the 1963 adaptation of Norman Krasna's 1961 Broadway play. Directed by Peter Tewksbury, the movie starred Rod Taylor, Jane Fonda and Cliff Robertson:
"SUNDAY IN NEW YORK" (1963) Photo Gallery
.jpg)
Showing posts with label old hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label old hollywood. Show all posts
Friday, August 22, 2025
Tuesday, August 12, 2025
"JANE EYRE" (1970) Photo Gallery
Below are images from "JANE EYRE", the 1970 movie and television adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel. Directed by Delbert Mann, the movie starred George C. Scott and Susannah York:
"JANE EYRE" (1970) Photo Gallery
Sunday, February 16, 2025
"GREAT EXPECTATIONS" Adaptations
Charles Dickens' 1861 novel, "Great Expections" is highly regarded as one of the author's best works. Although there have been numerous adaptations, I have seen only three of them. Needless to say, I have mixed feelings about them:
"GREAT EXPECTATIONS" ADAPTATIONS
1. "Great Expectations" (1946) - Directed by David Lean and starring John Mills, this adaptation from 1946 seemed to be regarded as the benchmark all versions of Dickens' novel are compared. And for the likes of me, I cannot see why. Thanks to Guy Green and Robert Krasker's photography, it is a beautiful looking movie. The movie also featured some excellent performances, especially from Jean Simmons, Finlay Currie and Alec Guinness. However, I ended up feeling less than satisfied with the screenplay written by Lean and co-screenwriters Anthony Havelock-Allan and Ronald Neame. I found the movie’s second half rushed and unfulfilling.
2. "Great Expectations" (1999) - Directed by Julian Jarrold and starring Ioan Gruffudd, this television adaptation seemed to be an improvement over the 1946 movie. I thought it did an excellent job of conveying Pip’s obsession with Estella and in becoming a gentleman. And I loved Odile Dicks-Mireaux's costume designs, along with Ian McDiarmid as the attorney Jaggers. I was also impressed by Gruffudd’s portrayal of Philip "Pip" Pirrip. However . . . I thought Charlotte Rampling had been miscast as Miss Haversham. Her take on the character seemed to lack bite. And I did not care for the miniseries' ending. Following a major character's death, the narrative's ending seemed to peter out in a vague manner.
3. "Great Expectations" (2023) - Directed by Brady Hood and Samira Radsi, and starring Fionn Whitehead; this television adaptation was loathed by the critics. I actually enjoyed it, but I had some quibbles that included the heavy and unnecessary use of profanity, the resolution of Magwitch's arc occurring at Miss Haversham’s home, instead of the Thames River; and Pip's fate regarding his profession. On the other hand, I really liked the performances, especially those from Olivia Colman as Miss Haversham and Ashley Thomas as Jaggers. I also liked how the miniseries conveyed Pip's obsession with Estella and in becoming a gentleman, along with how the access of easy money came dangerously close to corrupting him.
But if I must be frank, the above adaptations had failed to knock my socks off. In other words, I have yet to see an adaptation of "Great Expectations" that has impressed me. Considering the numerous adaptations I have yet to see, there is the chance I might come across that exceptional adaptation.
"GREAT EXPECTATIONS" ADAPTATIONS
1. "Great Expectations" (1946) - Directed by David Lean and starring John Mills, this adaptation from 1946 seemed to be regarded as the benchmark all versions of Dickens' novel are compared. And for the likes of me, I cannot see why. Thanks to Guy Green and Robert Krasker's photography, it is a beautiful looking movie. The movie also featured some excellent performances, especially from Jean Simmons, Finlay Currie and Alec Guinness. However, I ended up feeling less than satisfied with the screenplay written by Lean and co-screenwriters Anthony Havelock-Allan and Ronald Neame. I found the movie’s second half rushed and unfulfilling.
2. "Great Expectations" (1999) - Directed by Julian Jarrold and starring Ioan Gruffudd, this television adaptation seemed to be an improvement over the 1946 movie. I thought it did an excellent job of conveying Pip’s obsession with Estella and in becoming a gentleman. And I loved Odile Dicks-Mireaux's costume designs, along with Ian McDiarmid as the attorney Jaggers. I was also impressed by Gruffudd’s portrayal of Philip "Pip" Pirrip. However . . . I thought Charlotte Rampling had been miscast as Miss Haversham. Her take on the character seemed to lack bite. And I did not care for the miniseries' ending. Following a major character's death, the narrative's ending seemed to peter out in a vague manner.
3. "Great Expectations" (2023) - Directed by Brady Hood and Samira Radsi, and starring Fionn Whitehead; this television adaptation was loathed by the critics. I actually enjoyed it, but I had some quibbles that included the heavy and unnecessary use of profanity, the resolution of Magwitch's arc occurring at Miss Haversham’s home, instead of the Thames River; and Pip's fate regarding his profession. On the other hand, I really liked the performances, especially those from Olivia Colman as Miss Haversham and Ashley Thomas as Jaggers. I also liked how the miniseries conveyed Pip's obsession with Estella and in becoming a gentleman, along with how the access of easy money came dangerously close to corrupting him.
But if I must be frank, the above adaptations had failed to knock my socks off. In other words, I have yet to see an adaptation of "Great Expectations" that has impressed me. Considering the numerous adaptations I have yet to see, there is the chance I might come across that exceptional adaptation.
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
"ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" (1961) Review
"ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" (1961) Review
Sixty-four years ago, Paramount Pictures released a quirky romantic comedy directed by a journeyman director named Joseph Anthony. The movie had been released during a period in Hollywood that saw the release of a good number of films known as "bedroom comedies". The most famous of these movies featured the Doris Day/Rock Hudson screen team from Universal Pictures. But one of the most unlikely bedroom comedies I have come across was Anthony's 1961 flick, "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK".
The movie begins with the death of a wealthy magazine publisher inside a Palms Beach, Florida hotel. The dead man's playboy nephew, Tony Ryder, inherits the company; but is left with a board of directors whose members believe he is unsuited for the task of managing it. Even worse, the Palm Beach hotel's detective, Mr. Lasker, informs Tony and the board of the young woman he had spotted running away from his uncle's hotel room, wearing nothing but a Turkish towel and an earring, on the night of Colonel Ryder's death. Both Tony and Lasker discover that the young woman in question is Katie Robbins, a Ryder employee who works for the magazine's research department. Anticipating a bank loan, Tony and the Board members fear Katie might blackmail the company or expose the Colonel's promiscuous past. They, along with Lasker, resort to learning the truth about Katie's encounter with Colonel Ryder or ensure her marriage to her strait-laced veterinarian fiancé in order to silence her about the Colonel's death at all costs.
That is correct folks. "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" is basically a comedy about mistaken identity. You see, Tony Ryder and the Board members mistakenly believe she may have been the Colonel's past mistress. The reality is that Katie had found herself in the magnate's hotel room by mistake and under different circumstances. She had been fleeing from a drunken millionaire whom she had saved from drowning in the hotel's swimming pool . . . and who had repaid her Good Samaritan act with an aggressive attempt at seduction. So much for good deeds. Because Tony and the Board need funds to finance the magazine's expansion, they view Katie's encounter with the dead Colonel as a potential threat.
Superficially, "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" seemed like one of those typical sex comedies that Hollywood studios made by the dozens from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s. I certainly would not describe the 1961 comedy as the best of the bunch. Its portrayal of Midwesterners struck me as bit one-dimensional. And modern-day filmgoers might find some of its attitude toward women slightly offensive. I refer to one scene in which Tony not only admire Katie for her brains, but also admire her ability to hide her brains. Like . . . what the hell? Regardless of those little peccadilloes and the fact that I do not regard it as one of the best mid-century sex comedies I have seen . . . I rather enjoyed "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK". In fact, I more than enjoyed it. I found it slightly unusual from the usual flicks of its genre.
What was it about "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" that I found unusual? For me, the real humor stemmed from the corruption that reeked in the film's narrative. Whether that corruption came from the countless men who try to proposition Katie - including Tony, to the Board and Lasker's assumption that Katie was the Colonel's mistress without really knowing her story. In one funny sequence, Katie has a disastrous evening on the town with her fiancé Dr. Warren Kingsley, Jr. and his visiting Kansas parents, thanks to Tony's interference at two nightclubs and Mrs. Kingsley's negative judgmental attitude toward her. Yet, the most hilarious example of the corruption that permeated the film came from the topic of greed in the form of the Board of Directors. Desperate to acquire the bank loan to expand the magazine, they not only bemoaned the possibility of Katie blackmailing them but discussed various ways to silence her and ensure that loan. They were absolutely hilarious. The only other sex comedy that I believe permeated with corruption in the form of business survival was the 1961 Doris Day/Rock Hudson film, "LOVER COME BACK". Nineteen sixty-one was an interesting year.
Am much as I had enjoyed the movie's narrative, what I really enjoyed about "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" was its cast. The movie featured first-rate performances from supporting cast members like Norma Crane, Rosemarie Stack, Ian Wolfe, John Hudson and a very funny Jack Weston, who portrayed the Palm Beach hotel detective who had first spotted Katie leaving Colonel Ryder's suite. Cliff Robertson gave solid support as Katie's upright fiancé Dr. Warren Kingsley Jr. Mable Albertson was appropriately prim and oppressive as young Warren's priggish mother. On the other hand, Charles Ruggles gave a very charming performance as Dr. Warren Kinglsey Sr., the only member of the Kingsley family who knew how to enjoy a good time.
However, there were at least five performances that I truly enjoyed. Three of them came from Gale Gordon, Jerome Cowan and Ralph Dumke; who portrayed the senior members of the Board Members. Watching them bemoan over the possibility of Katie being Colonel Ryder's mistress and plot to find ways to keep her silent were among the true highlights of the film. And then we have our two leads - Dean Martin and Shirley MacLaine. I just realized the pair had made six films together. Six. I suppose I should not have been surprised. Martin and MacLaine had great screen chemistry. And this was apparent in their scenes together. Martin's smooth charm and subtle sense of humor contrasted perfectly with MacLaine's more nervous and kinetic performance as the much put upon Katie. I also enjoyed Martin's subtle, yet sly reactions to the Board Members' bombastic plotting against the movie's leading lady. And what I also enjoyed about MacLaine's performance is how she managed to convey Katie's worldliness beneath a seemingly naive persona - especially when dealing with over amorous men.
Earlier, I had stated that I did not consider "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" as one of the best sex comedies from the mid-20th century. Perhaps it is not one of the best. But I now believe it is one of the most original I have ever come across. It might also be one of my favorites from that particular era in Hollywood history, thanks to Joseph Anthony's solid direction; a first-rate screenplay written by Edmund Beloin, Maurice Richlin and the legendary Sidney Sheldon; and superb comedic performances from a cast led by Dean Martin and Shirley MacLaine. What else can I say?
Sixty-four years ago, Paramount Pictures released a quirky romantic comedy directed by a journeyman director named Joseph Anthony. The movie had been released during a period in Hollywood that saw the release of a good number of films known as "bedroom comedies". The most famous of these movies featured the Doris Day/Rock Hudson screen team from Universal Pictures. But one of the most unlikely bedroom comedies I have come across was Anthony's 1961 flick, "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK".
The movie begins with the death of a wealthy magazine publisher inside a Palms Beach, Florida hotel. The dead man's playboy nephew, Tony Ryder, inherits the company; but is left with a board of directors whose members believe he is unsuited for the task of managing it. Even worse, the Palm Beach hotel's detective, Mr. Lasker, informs Tony and the board of the young woman he had spotted running away from his uncle's hotel room, wearing nothing but a Turkish towel and an earring, on the night of Colonel Ryder's death. Both Tony and Lasker discover that the young woman in question is Katie Robbins, a Ryder employee who works for the magazine's research department. Anticipating a bank loan, Tony and the Board members fear Katie might blackmail the company or expose the Colonel's promiscuous past. They, along with Lasker, resort to learning the truth about Katie's encounter with Colonel Ryder or ensure her marriage to her strait-laced veterinarian fiancé in order to silence her about the Colonel's death at all costs.
That is correct folks. "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" is basically a comedy about mistaken identity. You see, Tony Ryder and the Board members mistakenly believe she may have been the Colonel's past mistress. The reality is that Katie had found herself in the magnate's hotel room by mistake and under different circumstances. She had been fleeing from a drunken millionaire whom she had saved from drowning in the hotel's swimming pool . . . and who had repaid her Good Samaritan act with an aggressive attempt at seduction. So much for good deeds. Because Tony and the Board need funds to finance the magazine's expansion, they view Katie's encounter with the dead Colonel as a potential threat.
Superficially, "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" seemed like one of those typical sex comedies that Hollywood studios made by the dozens from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s. I certainly would not describe the 1961 comedy as the best of the bunch. Its portrayal of Midwesterners struck me as bit one-dimensional. And modern-day filmgoers might find some of its attitude toward women slightly offensive. I refer to one scene in which Tony not only admire Katie for her brains, but also admire her ability to hide her brains. Like . . . what the hell? Regardless of those little peccadilloes and the fact that I do not regard it as one of the best mid-century sex comedies I have seen . . . I rather enjoyed "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK". In fact, I more than enjoyed it. I found it slightly unusual from the usual flicks of its genre.
What was it about "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" that I found unusual? For me, the real humor stemmed from the corruption that reeked in the film's narrative. Whether that corruption came from the countless men who try to proposition Katie - including Tony, to the Board and Lasker's assumption that Katie was the Colonel's mistress without really knowing her story. In one funny sequence, Katie has a disastrous evening on the town with her fiancé Dr. Warren Kingsley, Jr. and his visiting Kansas parents, thanks to Tony's interference at two nightclubs and Mrs. Kingsley's negative judgmental attitude toward her. Yet, the most hilarious example of the corruption that permeated the film came from the topic of greed in the form of the Board of Directors. Desperate to acquire the bank loan to expand the magazine, they not only bemoaned the possibility of Katie blackmailing them but discussed various ways to silence her and ensure that loan. They were absolutely hilarious. The only other sex comedy that I believe permeated with corruption in the form of business survival was the 1961 Doris Day/Rock Hudson film, "LOVER COME BACK". Nineteen sixty-one was an interesting year.
Am much as I had enjoyed the movie's narrative, what I really enjoyed about "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" was its cast. The movie featured first-rate performances from supporting cast members like Norma Crane, Rosemarie Stack, Ian Wolfe, John Hudson and a very funny Jack Weston, who portrayed the Palm Beach hotel detective who had first spotted Katie leaving Colonel Ryder's suite. Cliff Robertson gave solid support as Katie's upright fiancé Dr. Warren Kingsley Jr. Mable Albertson was appropriately prim and oppressive as young Warren's priggish mother. On the other hand, Charles Ruggles gave a very charming performance as Dr. Warren Kinglsey Sr., the only member of the Kingsley family who knew how to enjoy a good time.
However, there were at least five performances that I truly enjoyed. Three of them came from Gale Gordon, Jerome Cowan and Ralph Dumke; who portrayed the senior members of the Board Members. Watching them bemoan over the possibility of Katie being Colonel Ryder's mistress and plot to find ways to keep her silent were among the true highlights of the film. And then we have our two leads - Dean Martin and Shirley MacLaine. I just realized the pair had made six films together. Six. I suppose I should not have been surprised. Martin and MacLaine had great screen chemistry. And this was apparent in their scenes together. Martin's smooth charm and subtle sense of humor contrasted perfectly with MacLaine's more nervous and kinetic performance as the much put upon Katie. I also enjoyed Martin's subtle, yet sly reactions to the Board Members' bombastic plotting against the movie's leading lady. And what I also enjoyed about MacLaine's performance is how she managed to convey Katie's worldliness beneath a seemingly naive persona - especially when dealing with over amorous men.
Earlier, I had stated that I did not consider "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" as one of the best sex comedies from the mid-20th century. Perhaps it is not one of the best. But I now believe it is one of the most original I have ever come across. It might also be one of my favorites from that particular era in Hollywood history, thanks to Joseph Anthony's solid direction; a first-rate screenplay written by Edmund Beloin, Maurice Richlin and the legendary Sidney Sheldon; and superb comedic performances from a cast led by Dean Martin and Shirley MacLaine. What else can I say?
Friday, December 13, 2024
"THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" (1952) Review
"THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" (1952) Review
Back in the early 1950s, the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Studios had purchased the screen rights to "The Prisoner of Zenda", Anthony Hope's 1894 novel. Only the studio had purchased these rights from producer David O. Selznick, who had produced his own adaptation of the film back in 1937. This new adaptation proved to be very surprising not only to moviegoers familiar with the 1937 version, but to film critics as well.
Let me start from the beginning. Anyone familiar with Hope's novel would know that "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" began with the arrival of a high-born Englishman named Rudolf Rassendyll to the kingdom of Ruritania in time for the coronation of its new king, Rudolf V. The English visitor's looks attract a great deal of attention from some of the country's populace and eventually from the new king and the latter's two aides. The reason behind this attention is due to the fact that not only were the Briton and the Ruritanian monarch distant cousins, but also look-alikes. They could easily pass for twins. King Rudolf invites Rassendyll to the royal hunting lodge for dinner with him and his aides - Colonel Sapt and Captain Fritz von Tarlenheim. They celebrate this new acquaintance by drinking late into the night. Rudolf is particularly delighted with the bottle of wine sent to him by his half-brother, Duke Michael, and drinks it all himself. The next morning brings disastrous discoveries - the wine had been drugged, and King Rudolf cannot be awakened in time to attend his coronation. Fearing that Duke Michael will try to usurp the throne, Colonel Zapt convinces a reluctant Rassendyll to impersonate Rudolf for the ceremony.
"THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" had a lot going for it. I can only assume that MGM had decided to make the film in order to cash in on the popularity of Queen Elizabeth II's ascension to the throne in 1952. Director Richard Thorpe shot the film in Technicolor. And the cast featured first-rate performers like Deborah Kerr, Louis Calhern, James Mason, Jane Greer, Robert Douglas, Robert Coote and leading man Stewart Granger. In fact, MGM had specifically acquired the film rights as a project for Granger, following his success with the Oscar nominated "KING SOLOMON'S MINES". "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" proved to be a big hit for MGM. But there is one aspect of the movie that I find mind boggling . . . producer Pandro S. Berman or perhaps studio chief Dore Schary had decided to shoot the film almost identical to the 1937 version. I kid you not.
My question is why? Why did the studio suits had decided to do a scene-by-scene remake of David Selznick's 1937 adaptation. For what reason? "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" had so much going for it. Why did MGM decided to take this unoriginal route? Granted, this decision did not harm the movie's prospects at the box office. But surely the MGM suits must have realized that someone would recognize the production's lack of originality? Because of this, "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" shared not only the 1937 movie's virtues, but also some of its flaws.
The 1952 adaptation featured great production values. With the contribution of a first-rate crew, Dave Friedman did an excellent job serving as the film's production designer and re-creating the opulence of any Central European royal palace, castle or lodging. MGM's legendary art director Cedric Gibbons, along with Hans Peters had created some sumptuous sets the conveyed the movie's setting. Richard Pefferle and Edwin B. Willis' set decorations aptly supported their efforts. Another Hollywood legend, Walter Plunkett, served as the movie's costume designer. Although Plunkett's creations were not an exact replica of mid-1890s Central European fashion, I thought he managed to create some beautiful costumes. I found myself slightly put off at the sight of Jane Greer wearing a pair of early 1950s shoes, despite the lovely costume she wore. The movie also featured what I believe where the 1937 movie's main flaws - namely the uneven balance of drama and action, along with the annoying dialogue that punctuated the major sword fight in the film's climatic action scene.
The cast for "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" had provided some first-rate performances. Supporting players like Robert Coote, Kathleen Freeman, Peter Brocco, Francis Pierlot and Lewis Stone. The latter's performance as the Cardinal proved to be his second to last. Stone had also appeared in the 1922 silent adaptation of Hope's novel in the starring role. Jane Greer was very effective as Duke Michael of Strelsau's mysterious, yet passionate mistress, Antoinette de Mauban. Robert Douglas proved to be sufficiently villainous as Duke Michael, the half-brother whose resentment of King Rudolf set the whole story in motion. Deborah Kerr gave a lovely performance as the King's lovelorn and emotional cousin and betrothal, Princess Flavia. I thought Louis Calhern gave one of the film's best performance as the loyal, yet tough-minded Colonel Zapt. James Mason gave a very witty and menacing performance as Duke Michael's ruthless right-hand man, Rupert of Hentzau. However, I do have one issue regarding Mason. I thought he was slightly too old for the role at age 42-43. But the movie's star proved to be Stewart Granger, whom I believe was superb in the duel role of the charming and heroic Rudolf Rassendyll and the slightly dissolute King Rudolf V.
This brings me back to my original thought about the movie's remake of the 1937 adaptation. The production had everything right. It had an excellent cast led by an actor who seemed more suited for this story - at least to me - than the leading actor from the 1930s adaptation. Director Richard Thorpe shot the movie in Technicolor, something that producer David O. Selznick should have done back in 1937. "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" also featured excellent production values that included beautiful costumes by the legendary Walter Plunkett. So . . . WHY? Why do a shot-by-shot remake of the 1937 film? Not only did the film feature the same or similar shots from the previous adaptation, it also featured a screenplay that proved to be word-for-word identical to the 1937 adaptation. Why did Dore Schary and Pandro S. Berman make such an unoriginal decision? In doing so, both men had exposed the film to potential disdain from film critics - past, present and future.
I would say that Schary and Berman's decision to make "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" an exact replica of the 1937 version was a major mistake. On an artistic level, I believe it was. But the movie managed to be a hit back in 1952. And if I must be honest, thanks to Richard Hope's direction and the performances led the talented Stewart Granger, I managed to enjoy it in the end . . . despite itself.
Back in the early 1950s, the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Studios had purchased the screen rights to "The Prisoner of Zenda", Anthony Hope's 1894 novel. Only the studio had purchased these rights from producer David O. Selznick, who had produced his own adaptation of the film back in 1937. This new adaptation proved to be very surprising not only to moviegoers familiar with the 1937 version, but to film critics as well.
Let me start from the beginning. Anyone familiar with Hope's novel would know that "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" began with the arrival of a high-born Englishman named Rudolf Rassendyll to the kingdom of Ruritania in time for the coronation of its new king, Rudolf V. The English visitor's looks attract a great deal of attention from some of the country's populace and eventually from the new king and the latter's two aides. The reason behind this attention is due to the fact that not only were the Briton and the Ruritanian monarch distant cousins, but also look-alikes. They could easily pass for twins. King Rudolf invites Rassendyll to the royal hunting lodge for dinner with him and his aides - Colonel Sapt and Captain Fritz von Tarlenheim. They celebrate this new acquaintance by drinking late into the night. Rudolf is particularly delighted with the bottle of wine sent to him by his half-brother, Duke Michael, and drinks it all himself. The next morning brings disastrous discoveries - the wine had been drugged, and King Rudolf cannot be awakened in time to attend his coronation. Fearing that Duke Michael will try to usurp the throne, Colonel Zapt convinces a reluctant Rassendyll to impersonate Rudolf for the ceremony.
"THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" had a lot going for it. I can only assume that MGM had decided to make the film in order to cash in on the popularity of Queen Elizabeth II's ascension to the throne in 1952. Director Richard Thorpe shot the film in Technicolor. And the cast featured first-rate performers like Deborah Kerr, Louis Calhern, James Mason, Jane Greer, Robert Douglas, Robert Coote and leading man Stewart Granger. In fact, MGM had specifically acquired the film rights as a project for Granger, following his success with the Oscar nominated "KING SOLOMON'S MINES". "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" proved to be a big hit for MGM. But there is one aspect of the movie that I find mind boggling . . . producer Pandro S. Berman or perhaps studio chief Dore Schary had decided to shoot the film almost identical to the 1937 version. I kid you not.
My question is why? Why did the studio suits had decided to do a scene-by-scene remake of David Selznick's 1937 adaptation. For what reason? "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" had so much going for it. Why did MGM decided to take this unoriginal route? Granted, this decision did not harm the movie's prospects at the box office. But surely the MGM suits must have realized that someone would recognize the production's lack of originality? Because of this, "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" shared not only the 1937 movie's virtues, but also some of its flaws.
The 1952 adaptation featured great production values. With the contribution of a first-rate crew, Dave Friedman did an excellent job serving as the film's production designer and re-creating the opulence of any Central European royal palace, castle or lodging. MGM's legendary art director Cedric Gibbons, along with Hans Peters had created some sumptuous sets the conveyed the movie's setting. Richard Pefferle and Edwin B. Willis' set decorations aptly supported their efforts. Another Hollywood legend, Walter Plunkett, served as the movie's costume designer. Although Plunkett's creations were not an exact replica of mid-1890s Central European fashion, I thought he managed to create some beautiful costumes. I found myself slightly put off at the sight of Jane Greer wearing a pair of early 1950s shoes, despite the lovely costume she wore. The movie also featured what I believe where the 1937 movie's main flaws - namely the uneven balance of drama and action, along with the annoying dialogue that punctuated the major sword fight in the film's climatic action scene.
The cast for "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" had provided some first-rate performances. Supporting players like Robert Coote, Kathleen Freeman, Peter Brocco, Francis Pierlot and Lewis Stone. The latter's performance as the Cardinal proved to be his second to last. Stone had also appeared in the 1922 silent adaptation of Hope's novel in the starring role. Jane Greer was very effective as Duke Michael of Strelsau's mysterious, yet passionate mistress, Antoinette de Mauban. Robert Douglas proved to be sufficiently villainous as Duke Michael, the half-brother whose resentment of King Rudolf set the whole story in motion. Deborah Kerr gave a lovely performance as the King's lovelorn and emotional cousin and betrothal, Princess Flavia. I thought Louis Calhern gave one of the film's best performance as the loyal, yet tough-minded Colonel Zapt. James Mason gave a very witty and menacing performance as Duke Michael's ruthless right-hand man, Rupert of Hentzau. However, I do have one issue regarding Mason. I thought he was slightly too old for the role at age 42-43. But the movie's star proved to be Stewart Granger, whom I believe was superb in the duel role of the charming and heroic Rudolf Rassendyll and the slightly dissolute King Rudolf V.
This brings me back to my original thought about the movie's remake of the 1937 adaptation. The production had everything right. It had an excellent cast led by an actor who seemed more suited for this story - at least to me - than the leading actor from the 1930s adaptation. Director Richard Thorpe shot the movie in Technicolor, something that producer David O. Selznick should have done back in 1937. "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" also featured excellent production values that included beautiful costumes by the legendary Walter Plunkett. So . . . WHY? Why do a shot-by-shot remake of the 1937 film? Not only did the film feature the same or similar shots from the previous adaptation, it also featured a screenplay that proved to be word-for-word identical to the 1937 adaptation. Why did Dore Schary and Pandro S. Berman make such an unoriginal decision? In doing so, both men had exposed the film to potential disdain from film critics - past, present and future.
I would say that Schary and Berman's decision to make "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" an exact replica of the 1937 version was a major mistake. On an artistic level, I believe it was. But the movie managed to be a hit back in 1952. And if I must be honest, thanks to Richard Hope's direction and the performances led the talented Stewart Granger, I managed to enjoy it in the end . . . despite itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)