Review: The Prisoner of Zenda (1952)

Well. This film was a surreal experience. I tried to watch it shortly after the 1937 version, didn't like it so I gave up, and only went back to it recently. Turns out my original dislike was more than justified.

On rare occasions someone decides to make a shot-for-shot remake of a previous film, but with different actors. This film is a textbook example of why that's a bad idea.

Recognisable actors:
James Mason (Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) as Rupert (!?)
Deborah Kerr (Anna in The King and I 1956) as Flavia

The film follows the 1937 version almost exactly. But it just demonstrates what a difference a good cast makes to a script.

A decidedly unconvincing Rudolf Rassendyll arrives in Ruritania, makes the acquaintance of a dull Sapt and duller Fritz, meets an even more unconvincing King Rudolf, and has to take the king's place. In the process we meet Michael and Antoinette, who have all the personalities of dishcloths, a truly atrocious Rupert, and a relatively decent Flavia. And not once, in the whole film, is there any of the charm or excitement of the novel or 1937 film.

Rudolf Rassendyll

Rupert

Flavia

The whole point of remakes is to adapt a novel in a slightly different way than a previous film, right? Compare the different versions of David Copperfield or Nicholas Nickleby. None of them are exactly the same. They tell the same story, but in their own ways. If they were all carbon copies of each other, there'd be no point in making them at all. So shot-for-shot remakes never work well.

What makes this one so galling is that it could have been at least relatively decent. It's The Prisoner of Zenda! It's a copy of the 1937 film! How could anyone possibly have gone wrong with that?

Obviously, the answer is "easily". None of the actors ever seem comfortable with the characters they're playing. And apparently the director didn't bother to read the book and see how the characters should look. No one remembers that Michael is the younger brother, or that Antoinette is older than him. Rupert is only about twenty-two in the book. He looks twice that here. Book!Rudolf Rassendyll is only in his late twenties/early thirties, but again, he's older here. All right, so the characters' ages are copied from the 1937 film, but their actors were more convincing there. Whoever did the casting has a lot to answer for 😒

Princess Flavia is the best part of this film. She's the only one who remotely resembles their book counterpart in appearance and behaviour. At least someone remembered she's supposed to have red hair. Unfortunately that bit of near-accuracy didn't extend to the two Rudolfs, who are also supposed to have red hair, but points for trying.

On the subject of hair, what on Earth is Rupert's hairstyle? It's not book-accurate, and I sincerely doubt it's historically accurate, either. As for Rupert himself, it should be impossible to turn the story's most interesting character into the most odious. Guess what this film does? Book!Rupert and 1937!Rupert are murderous villains, yes, but they're charming murderous villains. This Rupert is a creep with all the charm of a rattlesnake.

Overall the film is dull, unconvincing, and just plain disappointing.

Is it available online?: I didn't bother to check.

Rating: 1/10.