The Stewart Granger - Deborah Kerr movie version of Anthony Hope's THE PRISONER OF ZENDA is an entertaining film, but it comes off second best to it's 1937 predecessor with Ronald Colman and Madeleine Carroll. The fact that the film was in Technicolor (Colman's was in black and white) is odd but possibly part of the reason for the slightly lesser result. All of the performers in the 1952 version did very good work that was comparable to the work that the previous cast did. Yet the later film is not quite as good.
According to the Turner Classic Movie's Stewart Granger was at a dinner at Ronald Colman's house where they ran the 1937 film as entertainment. Granger liked the film and convinced MGM to do a remake. The film was like a scene by scene remake - with a small screen set up showing the original film for the cast to review when they did their scenes. The only changes was the production crew, the cast and the color film stock.
Granger comes off as good as Rudolf Rassendyl and King Rudolf V, but he is a trifle self conscious. When Colman played the part he had a great lightness of touch that helped color his performance (particularly when dealing with both Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as Rupert of Hentzau and Raymond Massey as Black Michael). Granger tries to copy this but it seems a little forced. It's odd because he had an advantage over Colman regarding the cast - Rupert in the 1952 film was played by James Mason, who had already appeared in two films (as deadly adversary) to Granger (THE MAN IN GRAY and FANNY BY GASLIGHT). Colman never appeared opposite Fairbanks in any previous movie to their version of THE PRISONER. As a result there is a screen chemistry between Granger and Mason, but it doesn't translate to a better pair of performances. Some critics point out that Mason seems to old for Rupert, but except for being called "Young Hentzau" by Colonel Sapt (Louis Calhern) there is nothing to suggest he is in his early 20s. However, Fairbanks was leaner in appearance than Mason, so that his youthful qualities did shine through while Mason's just did not do so.
The part of Michael is handled by Robert Douglas as though he is just jealous of his half-brother's luck of birth. Yet he is shown with one thing that Raymond Massey's performance did not have - Massey was not crippled. Douglas constantly walks with a cane, which suggests a physical weakness that is a mirror to his emotional one. But it's too little, and it is never really developed.
Deborah Kerr's Flavia is appealing (any performance of Kerr's is appealing) but Madeleine Carroll was able to get the jolt of that sense of duty that prevents Rassendyl and Flavia from leaving at the end - Kerr seems to be just repeating her lines by rote in their last scene. Mary Astor and Jane Greer both were equally affective as Michael's mistress, as were C. Aubrey Smith and Louis Calhern as Sapt (Calhern was able to give a devilish twist to the Colonel at one point when commenting on a hidden passage in the royal palace at Streslau which was useful for protecting royal reputations). David Niven and Robert Coote were Fritz von Tarkeheim in the two versions, and both played the role effectively but not remarkably.
The color was useful in the 1952 film in making the sets more evocative of that period from 1890 to 1897 (Victoria's upcoming Jubilee is mentioned at one point). But it only goes so far - it just reminds us that the characters are in a realistic setting. But the story is such romantic fluff that the realism seems unimportant.
In short the 1952 film is really good, but the earlier one is nearly perfect in comparison. I still would stick to Colman's version than Granger's. As for the 1979 Peter Seller's spoof, or the 1975 Malcolm MacDowell "George Macdonald Fraser's" ROYAL FLASH, or the 1965 partial spoof in the Blake Edwards' THE GREAT RACE, they are in a special class as they are not serious remakes but done for laughs mostly.
According to the Turner Classic Movie's Stewart Granger was at a dinner at Ronald Colman's house where they ran the 1937 film as entertainment. Granger liked the film and convinced MGM to do a remake. The film was like a scene by scene remake - with a small screen set up showing the original film for the cast to review when they did their scenes. The only changes was the production crew, the cast and the color film stock.
Granger comes off as good as Rudolf Rassendyl and King Rudolf V, but he is a trifle self conscious. When Colman played the part he had a great lightness of touch that helped color his performance (particularly when dealing with both Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as Rupert of Hentzau and Raymond Massey as Black Michael). Granger tries to copy this but it seems a little forced. It's odd because he had an advantage over Colman regarding the cast - Rupert in the 1952 film was played by James Mason, who had already appeared in two films (as deadly adversary) to Granger (THE MAN IN GRAY and FANNY BY GASLIGHT). Colman never appeared opposite Fairbanks in any previous movie to their version of THE PRISONER. As a result there is a screen chemistry between Granger and Mason, but it doesn't translate to a better pair of performances. Some critics point out that Mason seems to old for Rupert, but except for being called "Young Hentzau" by Colonel Sapt (Louis Calhern) there is nothing to suggest he is in his early 20s. However, Fairbanks was leaner in appearance than Mason, so that his youthful qualities did shine through while Mason's just did not do so.
The part of Michael is handled by Robert Douglas as though he is just jealous of his half-brother's luck of birth. Yet he is shown with one thing that Raymond Massey's performance did not have - Massey was not crippled. Douglas constantly walks with a cane, which suggests a physical weakness that is a mirror to his emotional one. But it's too little, and it is never really developed.
Deborah Kerr's Flavia is appealing (any performance of Kerr's is appealing) but Madeleine Carroll was able to get the jolt of that sense of duty that prevents Rassendyl and Flavia from leaving at the end - Kerr seems to be just repeating her lines by rote in their last scene. Mary Astor and Jane Greer both were equally affective as Michael's mistress, as were C. Aubrey Smith and Louis Calhern as Sapt (Calhern was able to give a devilish twist to the Colonel at one point when commenting on a hidden passage in the royal palace at Streslau which was useful for protecting royal reputations). David Niven and Robert Coote were Fritz von Tarkeheim in the two versions, and both played the role effectively but not remarkably.
The color was useful in the 1952 film in making the sets more evocative of that period from 1890 to 1897 (Victoria's upcoming Jubilee is mentioned at one point). But it only goes so far - it just reminds us that the characters are in a realistic setting. But the story is such romantic fluff that the realism seems unimportant.
In short the 1952 film is really good, but the earlier one is nearly perfect in comparison. I still would stick to Colman's version than Granger's. As for the 1979 Peter Seller's spoof, or the 1975 Malcolm MacDowell "George Macdonald Fraser's" ROYAL FLASH, or the 1965 partial spoof in the Blake Edwards' THE GREAT RACE, they are in a special class as they are not serious remakes but done for laughs mostly.