"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.
