(Not Really a) Review: Five Books That Should Be Adapted

Plenty of books get adaptations. Some get several. Then there are the unfortunate ones that get none. And some books that should be adapted are overlooked. This is a short list of the five (...sort of) books that I really want to see adapted (again).

The Prisoner of Zenda has been adapted before. Several times. The quality of those adaptations ranges from "excellent" to "atrocious". But the last really good adaptation was in 1937(!). Same goes for its sequel Rupert of Hentzau, which hasn't been adapted since 1964 -- and that adaptation's lost. It's high time someone made a film or miniseries based on these books. The more faithful to the source, the better.

Barnaby Rudge is Charles Dickens' least-known novel. Which is a pity, because it's both a good story and is set during an equally little-known part of history. Its most recent screen adaptation was in 1960. If people want to make a new miniseries based on a Dickens novel, they should stop adapting A Christmas Carol for the umpteenth time and turn to this book instead.

Mary Barton was Elizabeth Gaskell's first novel. Thematically it's very similar to North and South. It was last adapted in 1964, but that version's lost. Apparently the BBC planned to adapt it in 2012, but nothing came of that. I hope someone raises the idea again.

Emily of New Moon has been adapted before, but I'd like to see film or series versions of the entire trilogy someday. Unfortunately there's a high chance any modern adaptation of it will go the way of Anne With An E. I don't think I could bear to see them butchered like that. Anyone planning to adapt them had better make sure they actually stay close to the books.

All right, so The Eustace Diamonds is the third in a series. The ideal solution would be to adapt the entire series. (This was done back in the 70s, but I've never been able to enjoy 70s period dramas.) If that sounds too complicated, there's very little connecting this book with the rest of the series. A little bit of work and it would be a good standalone film/miniseries.

Of course there are other books that deserve adaptations. But these are the ones I especially want to see, and there's currently no sign that any of them will be adapted. Certainly not any day soon 😔

Review: The Prisoner of Zenda (1922)

Who'd have thought? Death Takes a Holiday is no longer the oldest film I've reviewed!

The only other silent films I've seen are very old Laurel and Hardy shorts. My perception of silent films as a whole is mostly influenced by Singin' in the Rain and its humourous look at the rise of talkies. So I expected this version of Zenda to be a comedy -- intentionally or otherwise.

This wasn't actually the book's first film adaptation. There were two earlier silent films. But both of them are now lost, so it's the oldest surviving adaptation.

I didn't recognise any actors, so onto the film itself.

Like the book, the film starts with Rudolf visiting his brother and sister-in-law. The film includes Countess Amelia's portrait, but doesn't explain (yet) who she was or why Rudolf is so interested in a newspaper article about King Rudolf's approaching coronation.

Rudolf

Meanwhile, in Ruritania Michael is plotting. Neither Michael nor Rupert make as much impression as in the 1937 film. I was amazed at how much Bersonin looks like Frankenstein's Monster, though 😆

Bersonin, who has apparently wandered out of a horror movie.

Rupert is a real disappointment. He doesn't look like my image of book!Rupert (and has a mustache and beard, something never mentioned in the book). But more importantly, he never steals the limelight the way Rupert should. He has some moments of Rupert-ness, and he isn't as unspeakably awful as 1952!Rupert, but he's not quite the scene-stealing, charming scoundrel of the book and 1937 film.

Rupert

One improvement the film makes is showing Michael and co. plotting. The book, which is entirely from Rudolf's perspective, never shows this. The film also introduces Flavia very early -- before Rudolf even gets to Ruritania, in fact. I don't mind this change (wonder of wonders! A change I don't mind!), but I do mind her costume and hairstyle. Could the wardrobe department have made them more anachronistic if they tried?

Flavia, in a hairstyle that came into fashion about thirty years after the film's setting, and a dress that doesn't fit any late 19th century fashion I've ever seen.

On the bright side, the film includes Helga! She was disappointingly absent from the 1937 version.

For some odd reason the name "Zenda" at the station is written in Cyrillic ("ЗЕНДА"). Goodness knows why. Ruritania in the book is basically a miniature Austria-Hungary, and neither country uses the Cyrillic alphabet. Did the director decide to move it closer to Russia?

King Rudolf's ill-advised drinking goes exactly like in the book, with the same results. I laughed at Rupert and Bersonin's amazement when they see "the King" leave the hunting lodge after they saw him drink the wine. But why on earth did Rupert send the "All is well" message to Michael when he knew all wasn't well? Did he send that message before he saw Rudolf? 😕

I like the addition of Flavia and Helga talking about "the King"! We never got to see that in the book. We also get to see Michael and his henchmen making their plans.

For some odd reason the film includes a subplot about Michael planning to assassinate Rudolf. Er, what? It was a major plot point in the book that Michael couldn't do anything of the sort because then the whole plan would be revealed. The film also has Antoinette directly meeting with Rudolf's friends, and being spied on by Michael's henchmen. Strange, I seem to remember how difficult it was for Antoinette to even get messages to them in the book.

Antoinette and Fritz

Michael manages to be even more despicable in the film than in the book 😠 In this version he actually gives Antoinette to Rupert, when in the book he died trying to defend her from him. His death is different, too. Instead of Rupert killing him before the heroes arrive, Rudolf kills him during the storming of the castle.

Here Zenda's castle moat isn't a traditional moat; it's part of a river leading to a waterfall. So when Rupert jumps in at the end, he apparently goes over the waterfall. Why'd he jump in, then? Rupert isn't the sort of character who'd choose an escape attempt that would probably kill him. Book!Rupert would be more likely to go along with Sapt taking him captive until he finds an escape (or can charm or kill his way to freedom).

I feel sorry for poor Flavia when she learns who Rudolf really is 😢

😢

The film's ending is closer to the book's than the 1937 film's. Here Rudolf gets on a train as Fritz and Sapt salute him. It's surprisingly sad 😢

This isn't the worst Zenda adaptation. Unfortunately it's not the best either. If I hadn't watched the 1937 film first, I probably would have enjoyed this film much more. As it is, I kept comparing it unfavourably to that version.

Is it available online?: Yes, there are several versions on YouTube. This is the one I watched.

Rating: 5/10. It's not great, but it could be worse.

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.

Review: The Prisoner of Zenda (1937)

I hope everyone had a great Christmas! 😃 For the second-to-last review of 2018 (where does time go?!) I'll review one of my favourite films.

Adaptations are rarely as good as the original. But every so often, you find exceptions to the rule. This is one of them.

This wasn't the first version of Zenda; there were at least two silent films based on the book. But this is the best-known film, and generally just the best adaptation.

I recognised only two of the actors:
Ronald Colman (Sydney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities 1935) as the two Rudolfs
David Niven (Phileas Fogg in Around the World in Eighty Days 1956) as Fritz

The film begins with Rudolf Rassendyll arriving in Ruritania a day before King Rudolf's coronation. He meets Fritz, Sapt (apparently spelt Zapt in this film, for reasons known only to the producers), and King Rudolf. King Rudolf sees this as an opportunity to get drunk... with wine Michael sent him. Terrible idea, Rudolf. It ends as badly as you'd expect: King Rudolf unconscious, and not-king!Rudolf his reluctant impersonator.

Rudolf Rassendyll

Fritz and Sapt

King Rudolf

Meanwhile, we meet Michael. I like Michael much better here than in the book. Book!Michael was primarily in the background, with very few appearances and even fewer lines. Film!Michael gets considerably more screentime, and a chance to explain his motivations. Basically, he's jealous because he's the older son but Rudolf is the heir. (In the book, Michael is the younger brother, and his parents were married -- morganatically, but still a valid marriage. The film implies that Michael is illegitimate.)

Michael and Antoinette

Rupert makes his first appearance much earlier than in the book. This is a change I heartily approve of. Film!Rupert is just how I pictured book!Rupert: handsome, charming, and utterly despicable.

A very dashing, debonair, dastardly Rupert of Hentzau.

The crowds are waiting for the coronation. But there's no sign of the King. Michael and Rupert take the opportunity to gloat. And then the King arrives. Of course, it isn't the King; it's the other Rudolf, come to be crowned in his place. Michael looks utterly disgusted, but he doesn't suspect the truth yet.

Not-king!Rudolf arrives at the coronation...

...to Michael's *ahem* "delight" 😏

The coronation proceeds without anyone realising the king isn't there. Rudolf gets through the ceremony without giving himself away, Michael is too busy sulking to suspect the truth, and Flavia is pleased by the apparent change for the better in "King Rudolf's" manners.

Flavia

That night Rudolf and Sapt escape the city, hoping to retrieve the king and get not-king!Rudolf out of Ruritania. They're too late. Rupert got there first, and King Rudolf is now the prisoner of Zenda. Rudolf has no choice but to keep pretending to be king.

Rudolf and Flavia start to fall in love, to Sapt's dismay. And Rupert tells Michael about the two Rudolfs.

Our heroes decide to rescue King Rudolf. So they gather the army and go to Zenda. They get there just before Rupert kills Michael and takes over the castle. This is one of the main differences between book and film. The book doesn't have a long, drawn-out sword fight between Rudolf and Rupert, but it's awesome enough that I just don't care.

Film!Rupert gets a more dramatic exit than in the book. Instead of stealing a horse and riding off, he escapes by jumping out a window. More dramatic, but not very practical. I have to wonder how Rupert got out of that moat, when it's surrounded by a wall about six feet tall and the Ruritanian army is in and around the castle. In the book he used a rope to climb out, but there's no mention of that in the film. But minor quibbles about practicality aside, this scene is pretty awesome.

The King is rescued, so it's time for Rudolf to escape Ruritania before anyone learns the truth. First he has to explain the situation to Flavia. I can sum up this scene in one word: ouch 😭

My opinion of the film is "great adaptation, and great film in its own right". Even if you've never read The Prisoner of Zenda, you'll have no difficulty understanding the plot.

Unlike in the 1952 film, all the actors here are perfectly suited to their roles.

Ronald Colman is Rudolf Rassendyll, from his sarcastic comments to his "what have I got myself into?" moments as he realises how serious the situation is. He isn't quite as impressive as King Rudolf, but then King Rudolf just isn't an impressive character. David Niven is perfect as Fritz, and C. Aubrey Smith is a brilliantly gruff but loyal Colonel Sapt. Madeleine Carroll as Flavia is over-dramatic at times, but she's a fairly good Flavia anyway.

On the villainous side, Raymond Massey is a bit older than Michael should be -- Michael is younger than both Rudolfs in the book, and so presumably under thirty when he dies -- but manages to be menacing while still giving the impression he'd be a better king than King Rudolf. And Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is the best Rupert ever to appear on screen. Ever.

As a completely unrelated footnote, I'm disappointed the film didn't include the scene where not-king!Rudolf returns home, supposedly from the Tyrol, to find his brother and sister-in-law have been so upset by his absence they've got diplomats making enquiries about him. But I suppose that's not really an important scene, and the film has a perfectly good ending without it.

Is it available online?: Yes, on ok.ru.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: The Prisoner of Zenda (Takarazuka, 2000)

I survived NaNoWriMo... to go straight into another writing challenge. Why do I do this to myself? But while I suffer through writer's block and word counts, here's another review!

When I fall in love with a story, I make it my life's mission to watch every adaptation of that story that it's humanly possible to find. I love The Prisoner of Zenda. I also love Takarazuka. So this should be a match made in heaven.

Transliterated, the title reads "Zendajou no Toriko". It means roughly "The Captive of Zenda Castle". I guess an exact translation wouldn't have worked in Japanese. (Goodness knows some exact translations of Japanese titles don't work in English!)

I've already given a summary of Zenda's plot, so instead I'll use the introduction to explain what Takarazuka is. The Takarazuka Revue (pronounced "ta-ka-raz-ka", not "ta-ka-ra-zoo-ka", something I wish I'd known when I first learnt about it) is an all-female Japanese theatre. In addition to original works and versions of Japanese stories, they've adapted several Western films/books/shows, including West Side Story, Elisabeth, Roméo et Juliette, Oklahoma!, and Singin' in the Rain. For more information, see TakaWiki.

Now, a note on the actresses' names. Japan, like many other Asian countries, writes people's names as "Surname First-name". When translated to English, the name order is usually reversed. For example the protagonist of Sailor Moon goes from Tsukino Usagi in Japan to Usagi Tsukino in the Western world. For some reason this doesn't happen much with Takarasiennes (nickname for 'Zuka actresses). Almost every English-speaking fan uses the Japanese name order. However, official English-language material published by Takarazuka uses the Western name order for the same actresses. Confused yet? So am I.

After considerable thought, I decided that the majority of my readers would not know to mentally flip names back-to-front. So I'm using the Western name order to refer to the actresses.

Thank goodness that's out of the way!

My knowledge of 'Zuka is predominantly confined to Elisabeth. So although I recognised a few actresses, all but one of them are from different versions of Zukabeth (and Tohobeth in one case).
Tatsuki Kouju (Rudolf in Elisabeth 1996, and Sophie in the 2016 Toho production) as Rupert of Hentzau
Midori Hatsukaze (Franz Joseph in Elisabeth 2005) as Fritz
Tomomi Ritsu (Max in Elisabeth 2002 and 2007) as Johann
Anri Mimi (Sophie in Elisabeth 2005) as Amanda
Hiromu Kiriya (Lucheni in Elisabeth 2005 and Franz Joseph in 2009) as Welhelm
Yuuga Yamato (Don in Singin' in the Rain 2008) as Anthony

It shouldn't be surprising to hear the musical takes considerable liberties with the plot, but not as many as might be expected. The greatest difference is that it cuts the entire first quarter of the book, and begins with not-king!Rudolf's coronation. Presumably the backstory is explained in dialogue; I don't understand enough Japanese to tell.

Not-king!Rudolf.

(Sky Stage is the official Takarazuka TV channel, if you're wondering what that logo means.)

Anyway, the story starts with Michael and his lackeys in a state of shock over the king's apparent miraculous recovery. Rupert is introduced here, like in the 1937 film, instead of later, like in the book. Then they discover and kidnap the real king.

Not-king!Rudolf, meanwhile, is falling in love with Princess Flavia. Everything after that proceeds more or less the same as in the book, despite the addition of a few characters who were either nameless or non-existent in it.

Flavia

Michael

Rupert

The climax is the most different. I have two major problems with the climax. First, Michael's death. What the dickens was that? One minute he's bawling like a baby, the next Rupert has stabbed him. In the book the two of them fought for a while, and Michael put up at least some resistance.

The other problem is Rupert's death. I understand why they killed Rupert off; they didn't intend to adapt the sequel, and if he survived then that would have left unanswered questions. But still...! 😑😞

Like all Takarazuka productions, this is a musical. Unfortunately, only one song in it is memorable. I've nicknamed that song "Rudolf's Rose Song". Not because it has anything to do with roses (I can't tell what it's about), but because Rudolf is holding a rose for part of it. The other songs are best described as "not outstanding, but not dreadful"... with the exception of Rudolf and Flavia's duet. Sometimes harmonising sounds really good. And sometimes it sounds like someone's badly off-key. Guess which one Flavia falls victim to.

On the bright side, the costumes in this scene are beautiful. I actually like them better than the ones in the 1937 film.

Overall the show is summed up as "pretty good, and fairly close to the book". It's not perfect. And it's much too short for my liking. But I think I can safely say it's better than Zenda, the 1960s attempt at a Prisoner of Zenda musical, which apparently didn't include the characters of Rupert or Michael! 😒

I really wish someone would make a full-scale musical based on The Prisoner of Zenda. But in the meantime, this version is probably the best we've got.

Is it available online?: I thought long and hard about answering this question. Takarazuka's parent company frowns upon videos of the shows being openly put online. But according to TakaWiki, the rule of thumb is "will the company lose money because of it?" The Prisoner of Zenda is not available on DVD, so I don't think giving a link to the video will cost the company anything. But better safe than sorry. I'll just say that it's available online, but I won't say where.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: The Prisoner of Zenda (novel)

Some novels grab hold of you from the first sentence and refuse to let go until the end. This is one of them.

The Prisoner of Zenda is a novel by Anthony Hope, an author I'd never heard of until I picked up this book. It was published in 1894, and followed later by a sequel, Rupert of Hentzau. I haven't read the sequel yet, but I hope to get around to it soon. Both books have been adapted into several films.

There are some books that invented or popularised whole genres. Frankenstein did it for science fiction, Dracula for vampire novels, The Lord of the Rings for fantasy. The Prisoner of Zenda is one of those novels. It paved the way for a whole flood of novels set in small fictional countries. Ironically, very few of the settings in those novels bear much resemblance to the original Ruritania.

Our story begins with Rudolf Rassendyll, an English nobleman, going on a trip to the fictional country of Ruritania. Thanks to a scandal involving an ancestor, Rudolf is a distant cousin of the Ruritanian king, also called Rudolf, and the two men look very alike.

You can already see where this is going, can't you?

King Rudolf's half-brother Michael wants the throne, so he drugs the king before the coronation. The other Rudolf finds himself with no option but to pretend to be the king. He thinks it'll be just for a day. But Michael kidnaps the real king and locks him up in the castle of Zenda. So not-king!Rudolf has to find a plan to rescue King Rudolf without revealing the truth to the people... and before Michael kills the king.

Reading this book is like watching a film. It's more fast-paced and exciting than many action sequences on the screen. It has some hilarious moments, and some moments when my heart leapt into my throat and I was sure the truth would be revealed with disastrous consequences.

It also has some truly great characters.

At first I pitied Michael, who was barred from the line of succession because his parents had a morganatic marriage. But a few chapters in, I quickly began to despise him. King Rudolf isn't much better. Yes, his brother drugged and kidnapped him... but his brother would never have had a chance to do either if he hadn't spent the night before his coronation getting drunk.

Not-king!Rudolf (this is the easiest way I can find to distinguish between the two Rudolfs) is trying so hard to keep up this charade and rescue the king at the same time. And while doing that he manages to narrate one heck of a story, full of moments that are dramatic, comical, and both at once. I laughed so hard at his tea-table attack 😃

But my favourite character, without a doubt, is... the most villainous character. And who could blame me, I'd like to know, when the villain is as awesome as Rupert?

Common sense and morality both say that Rupert of Hentzau is despicable, irredeemable, and has committed the most horrible crimes. Yes, that's true. But he's also so brazen and daring, even while committing his crimes, that it's impossible not to be reluctantly impressed.

And then there's poor Princess Flavia. Out of all the characters in the novel, I felt the most sorry for her. She falls in love with the man she thinks is the king, and not-king!Rudolf can't explain the truth to her. Then she finally discovers who he really is... just before they have to part forever. Poor girl 😢

The Prisoner of Zenda is fairly short by Victorian standards -- twenty-two chapters. If you don't think that's short, please remember that Little Dorrit has seventy chapters, Vanity Fair has sixty-seven, and The Way We Live Now has a hundred. And let's not forget Les Misérables, which has five volumes and more than three hundred chapters.

So yes, Zenda is extremely short. It also moves at a much faster pace than any of the other novels mentioned.

I'm disappointed that it hasn't had a recent adaptation. There are no end of adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, and apparently there's a series of new Charles Dickens adaptations in the works, but The Prisoner of Zenda is being overlooked. Which is a shame, because if adapted well it would make a thrilling miniseries -- or even a full-length film.

If you want to read an exciting novel that you'll finish fairly quickly, I'd definitely recommend this book to you!

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 8/10.