Prince of Foxes

The filming of Prince Of Foxes started a two year run for Tyrone Power in which he worked abroad. This film was shot in Italy and following its completion, Power married his second wife Linda Christian. His next project was The Black Rose filmed in Great Britain and then he appeared in the London production of Mister Roberts on stage and then another British film, I'll Never Forget You. I guess we should call this Power's European period.

One thing that Prince Of Foxes was sorely lacking was color in a film that cried for it. I can't conceive of going to Italy and shooting a film about the Renaissance on the very sites of the same and not spending the extra dollars for color. The bean counters at 20th Century Fox got to Darryl Zanuck. As it was one of the two Academy Award nominations that Prince Of Foxes got was for black and white cinematography and the other for costume design.

Tyrone Power certainly looked and acted the part of a Renaissance man. His character is peasant born whose parents worked hard to get him an education because of his talent for painting. But in the Renaissance tradition, Power plays a man of many accomplishments. An excellent duelist, a diplomat, courtier, and military strategist, Power serves Orson Welles who plays Cesare Borgia and his sister Angela played by Marina Berti in all those capacities.

The assignment he takes on for Welles calls for a combination of all those talents, Power is sent to the duchy ruled by Felix Aylmer and his young wife Wanda Hendrix. The mission is to maybe seduce the wife and cause the old duke to die in some manner and then to turn the strategically located duchy over to Welles without loss of life.

Easier said than done after Power sincerely falls for Hendrix, but also becomes friends with the aged Duke.

Orson Welles was in a European period of his own so to speak. Right around this time Welles was busy filming Othello and financing it intermittently. He took roles in Prince Of Foxes and Tyrone Power's next film, The Black Rose for just such financing. He makes an impressive, but subtly sadistic Cesare Borgia, almost my perfect conception of what that gentleman has come down in history as.

Everett Sloane has the most interesting role in the film, but it's also the films chief weakness. His character motivations, his capriciousness are never quite explained. But as it turns out it's Sloane's very caprice on which the plot of the story turns. He plays a professional assassin, loyal to no one.

Director Henry King staged some impressive battle sequences and with the location got the proper feel for what Renaissance Italy might be like. In some sense this film ought to be seen back to back with The Agony And The Ecstacy which essentially is the next generation of Italian politics mixed with art played out on screen.

Even without color Prince Of Foxes holds up remarkably well today. This is one case where Ted Turner's coloring techniques might really come in handy.

Once again, Welles astounds with his talent. Even though he is not listed in this film's credits as director or writer, the great Welles has left indefatigable stamp of genius on this film. His fascination and artistic absorption with great, unbridled power, moral resistance to that power and the response of the artist has once again propelled him to greatness.

His is a fascinating, swaggering, bemused, sly (as the title implies) impression of the all-powerful Borgia and his near success at corrupting the artist, Orsini. Shades of Citizen Kane and Harry Lyme..?

Naturally, there is a weaselly accomplice (Sloan), and he is terrific too. I found Tyrone Power's performance more than adequate -- for once. Production values were good, too.

But the keynote of the entire production is the masterful Welles. His portrayals are a joy to encounter, maybe because he finds the rich and powerful entertainingly evil, while the rest of us poor mortals find them too intimidating to even acknowledge.

Who cares about Welles' "troubles with Hollywood"? Skip the gossip, people, and THINK about his characters' motives and behavior. And their relevance.

(Talk is cheap. It is easy for the American Film Institute to call Citizen Kane the number one movie of all time, but which side were they on when Welles was being persecuted by his Hollywood peers? And where are they now, when talented independent filmmakers are trying to get their "dangerous" films shown -- or recognized)?

The fact is, with or without support or financing, Welles was in a class by himself. His brilliant mind, rampant creativity, sheer acting ability, courage, originality and artistic integrity have yet to be matched.

There will never never be another Welles...

Back to Prince of Foxes. This is an underrated film. See it for Welles' sake, see it for a Renaissance flash, or just see it for Everett Sloan's eyeballs...

I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of Darryl F. Zanuck's reasons for not bestowing three-strip Technicolor on this otherwise all-the-amenities production was that he was peeved at Tyrone Power, still under contract to 20th-Century Fox at the time, for turning down numerous scripts. That's probably an apocryphal bit of trivia since it wasn't very easy for contractees to turn down very many scripts without a dreaded (and costly) suspension, and also one might guess that the amount of frozen lira available for the extensive location shooting of this stunning swashbuckler wasn't as munificent as would have been needed to ship those cumbersome three-strip Technicolor cameras to Italy and to complete the expensive process of photography and the preparation of final release prints. But there's no doubt that color cinematography would have enhanced the final result.

Nevertheless, as other comments on this title attest, the completed film is one that repays repeated viewings. When I first saw it on a TV broadcast I was especially impressed with Henry King's direction, somehow more flexible and attuned to his actors' capabilities than many of the productions which he helmed on U.S. soundstages. I'll certainly add my praise to other IMDbers' encomiums for the male members of the cast, but there should also be a word of thanks for the lovely Wanda Hendrix's portrayal, convincing as a devoted wife of a much older husband, and the brief appearance as the treacherous Angela Borgia by Marina Berti, whose beauty was soon to grace the Technicolored screen as Eunice in M-G-M's "Quo Vadis?" two years later.

And this film also boasts one of my favorite scores by Alfred Newman. From the main title's opening bars, one knows that this is one of his best achievements, with an exciting sweep and, as the film unfolds, a masterful enhancement of the script's many nuances. This one truly deserves a video release. How about it, Fox Studio Classics?

First, allow me to say how wonderful it feels to know I am not living alone on a planet in another galaxy -- that this planet actually has people on it who share a common interest with me: The spin-off from Samuel Shellabarger's historical novels (please feel free to read my comments under "Captain from Castile").

Samuel Shellabarger wrote "Prince of Foxes" after he wrote "Captain from Castile," and was therefore a more seasoned and experienced writer whose plot and character development had improved -- hence the previous remarks about Tyrone Power's acting ability: He had more with which to work in his character of Orsini than he did in the role of Pedro de Vargas thanks to Shellabarger's improved skills as an author. Tyrone Power was always a better actor than anyone (especially 20th Century Fox) ever gave him credit for being.

Each time I view my video of "Prince of Foxes" (copied from American Movie Classics) I am, of course, enthralled and mesmerized by Orson Wells' role of Cesare Borgia. I am equally impressed with Everett Sloane as Belli. But whenever I see Sloane as Belli, I can only think of an opportunity missed and Sloane getting shafted out of a nomination for best supporting actor thanks to the screen writer, director, producer and studio high-pockets. Why? Because the character of Belli, in the book, is the most dynamic character I have ever read! His dynamism was only partially revealed in the movie. There are also characters in the book, pertinent to Belli's development and evolution, that never appeared in the movie. In both mediums, we are introduced to Belli as a hired assassin. By the end of the movie, Belli has change his allegiance three times, but in the book, we leave Belli as he has declared for the priesthood -- and this time, I think he was serious!

Everett Sloane is one of my favorite actors of all time. He was the perfect choice for the role of Belli, as much as Wells was the perfect choice for the role of Borgia. But Hollywood did it again: They missed seeing what was right in front of their eyes in Shellabarger's character of Belli.

I agree with almost everything that has been stated by previous respondents about this production. It is wonderful! I can't wait to view my video of it again! I don't think I will ever tire of it. It is truly magnificent! But I think this film should be reshot and Shellabarger's book followed religiously by the script. It would be a much better movie than even this beauty.

This is a film with nearly all the elements to have been a great film, yet somehow it is merely good. We have the great Orson Welles during his "acting" career in Europe, and he is still young and full of vitality. His protegee Everett Sloan is there to support him and steal the scenes when he can, and Tyrone Power is at the top of his game, never more attractive nor more charming. We also have one of my favorite character actors, Felix Aylmer (Polonius in Olivier's "Hamlet").

The music and photography are excellent although this film could have benefited from Technicolor. And Director Henry King does his usual great job of giving us action as well as character development.

So where does it fall down? It's the female lead. She is terribly miscast and this fails to give us any real involvement at critical points.

If you like good acting, this film should be viewed.