The Prisoner of Zenda

Next to the 1937 version with Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., this version of The Prisoner Of Zenda is the one most fondly remembered by movie audiences. If it doesn't quite have the panache of the Colman film, it makes up for it with the introduction of some nice color cinematography.

The casting of Stewart Granger in the double role of Rudolph Rassendyll and his royal cousin, the Crown Prince Rudolph of Ruritania and James Mason as the villainous Rupert of Hentzau is hardly some stock company casting. If Granger doesn't quite have Colman's flair for the spoken word and very few ever have, he makes a fine and dashing hero which parts he played very well, too well in his opinion on his career. As for Mason, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. took the Rupert part because he was advised it's one of the best villains ever created in drama. Mason who has also played some of the best villains on screen keeps up the fine tradition for that role.

The 1937 version benefited from having the world wide publicity of the constitutional crisis in the United Kingdom over Edward VIII choice of consort. I've wondered whether someone over at MGM after George VI died in early 1952 whether they thought it was now time to do another remake of The Prisoner Of Zenda in time to coincide with the publicity of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Which begs the question whether we'll get yet another version when Prince Charles eventually assumes the throne. We've seen over ten versions so far going back to the silent screen.

The women in the cast, Deborah Kerr and Jane Greer as Princess Flavia and Antoinette DeMauban respectively never come in for much discussion of their roles. The parts in relation to the hero are almost a carbon copy of the roles of Katharine DeVaucelles and Hugette from If I Were King. I've always thought that Greer as Antoinette plays one of the most tragic characters in popular literature. She loves a cold and forbidding man in Prince Michael, especially when played by Robert Douglas. But he's her man and when she does ever so slightly give in to the scheming Hentzau she regrets it when it means the death of her beloved. Personally why she falls for a cold fish that Michael is who can figure. But the heart does have its reasons.

As for Kerr her best scene is at the end when she realizes she has been hoodwinked, but in a scheme for the greater good of the kingdom. She knows what her obligations are and she too can't afford to follow her heart.

Something tells me we're far from done with The Prisoner Of Zenda. Try and figure out who could play these roles today with the flair of the players in this version, let alone the one from 1937.

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.

I can never watch too many of these movies. The story was beautiful, but not overdone. Stewart Granger gives a great performance, and we get the added bonus of another stellar performance by James Mason. Of course, the breathtaking (Dame) Deborah Kerr is the real reason to watch -- and wonder how an actress can be so beautiful *and* so talented. My only regret is that she wasn't more prominent in the story. And, as usual, she doesn't get the man. Oh well. The cinematography, the costumes, the action -- all blend perfectly with the compelling story and the great acting to make this a "must see" movie.

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.

This pales I think to the brilliant 1937 film, but this version is still very good. It is a little too short though and some of the exchanges of the dialogue lack the class and unique chemistry of the 1937 film. However, the colour, costumes and scenery are exquisite and the score is marvellous. The film goes at a good pace too and the romantic and exciting story never fails to engage, while the acting in general is very good. Stewart Granger is marvellous in his dashing and heroic dual role, and Deborah Kerr is ravishing as Princess Flavia. Jane Greer comes off even better, while James Mason is a menacing and somewhat austere Rupert and while his part is a little underwritten perhaps Robert Douglas is appropriately sinister as Michael. Overall, far from perfect, but worthy and colourful version. 8/10 Bethany Cox