Well it's a lot more colorful than the more familiar 1937 version, mainly because it's shot in Technicolor. Otherwise it's an almost shot-for-shot remake. If there were any changes in the dialog they slipped past the transcendental unity of my apperception.
So if the story is the same, and the dialog is the same, and the direction is almost the same, where are the differences between the 1937 and the 1954 versions? There are some slight differences in the staging and direction. The most notable is in the climactic sabre duel between James Mason as Rupert and Stewart Granger as Rudolf. This one lasts longer and is better staged. More use is made of furniture and there are more dramatic touches. And the wardrobe in this scene is a bit more splashy in the case of Stewart's character. Here he wears a rather dashing dark blue outfit accented by a designer silver dagger at his hip. In the earlier version poor Ronald Coleman was stuffed into a homely and somewhat raggedy looking woolen turtleneck sweater.
And the principle parts are played by different actors and actresses so there are additional variations on the theme of intrigue, action, and love in Ruritania. Jane Greer is comelier than Mary Astor was. Robert Douglas is a sneering villain, much like Raymond Massey, his predecessor, but brings less character to the role. Douglas simply can't sneer with such complete contempt as Massey did, but then hardly anybody could. Deborah Kerr perhaps wins by a nose over Madeleine Carrol in the part of Flavia. She looks just fine and is appealingly breathless and helpless whereas Carrol, though beautiful, played her stock part as if it were a stock part. A man might love her and want to ravish her but he would also want to protect Kerr. The guy playing Fritz is without distinction while David Niven in 1937 was a memorable sidekick.
Stewart Granger seemed to be stuck in Errol Flynn's pictures in Hollywood, as he is here, and doesn't have a chance to invest much of his considerable talent in the role of the play actor. And although he maintains an amused distance from the proceedings he isn't full of gaiety and doesn't chuckle so often as Ronald Coleman did. His tall, solid, muscular figure does suggest a man more suited to physical action than Coleman.
I enjoyed James Mason as the sardonic villain. He's got the same lines as Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., in the 1937 version but he gives them a very different twist. Fairbanks was all smiles, laughter, devil-may-care, reckless. Mason's every sentence begins with a high contemptuous whine -- awwwmmmm. He still smiles a lot, but it's an evil calculating smile, as if he truly believes he sees through all the social ritual and is able to read the dark and dreadful desires in each human soul. And, as in earlier versions, he's given by far the most engaging lines. When he tells Robert Douglas that the real king has been replaced by a ringer, he adds that it may be hard to believe that two people could look so much alike, "But I knew twin sisters once who -- but that's another story." Fairbanks was like a child misbehaving. Mason is like a supercilious snob.
I enjoyed it as much as I did the 1937 version and I suppose many others did too. Santa Maria, the hoary story has been remade so many times that we have to wonder if it's not time for still another rendition to be trotted out. Perhaps its announcement has been delayed because no one is able to figure out exactly how to fit a car chase and an exploding fireball into a story set in Mitteleuropa in 1903. Maybe they can update it. Instead of being a REAL king, somebody can play the King of the White House. And they can change the title to, "The Prisoner of Karl Rove."
So if the story is the same, and the dialog is the same, and the direction is almost the same, where are the differences between the 1937 and the 1954 versions? There are some slight differences in the staging and direction. The most notable is in the climactic sabre duel between James Mason as Rupert and Stewart Granger as Rudolf. This one lasts longer and is better staged. More use is made of furniture and there are more dramatic touches. And the wardrobe in this scene is a bit more splashy in the case of Stewart's character. Here he wears a rather dashing dark blue outfit accented by a designer silver dagger at his hip. In the earlier version poor Ronald Coleman was stuffed into a homely and somewhat raggedy looking woolen turtleneck sweater.
And the principle parts are played by different actors and actresses so there are additional variations on the theme of intrigue, action, and love in Ruritania. Jane Greer is comelier than Mary Astor was. Robert Douglas is a sneering villain, much like Raymond Massey, his predecessor, but brings less character to the role. Douglas simply can't sneer with such complete contempt as Massey did, but then hardly anybody could. Deborah Kerr perhaps wins by a nose over Madeleine Carrol in the part of Flavia. She looks just fine and is appealingly breathless and helpless whereas Carrol, though beautiful, played her stock part as if it were a stock part. A man might love her and want to ravish her but he would also want to protect Kerr. The guy playing Fritz is without distinction while David Niven in 1937 was a memorable sidekick.
Stewart Granger seemed to be stuck in Errol Flynn's pictures in Hollywood, as he is here, and doesn't have a chance to invest much of his considerable talent in the role of the play actor. And although he maintains an amused distance from the proceedings he isn't full of gaiety and doesn't chuckle so often as Ronald Coleman did. His tall, solid, muscular figure does suggest a man more suited to physical action than Coleman.
I enjoyed James Mason as the sardonic villain. He's got the same lines as Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., in the 1937 version but he gives them a very different twist. Fairbanks was all smiles, laughter, devil-may-care, reckless. Mason's every sentence begins with a high contemptuous whine -- awwwmmmm. He still smiles a lot, but it's an evil calculating smile, as if he truly believes he sees through all the social ritual and is able to read the dark and dreadful desires in each human soul. And, as in earlier versions, he's given by far the most engaging lines. When he tells Robert Douglas that the real king has been replaced by a ringer, he adds that it may be hard to believe that two people could look so much alike, "But I knew twin sisters once who -- but that's another story." Fairbanks was like a child misbehaving. Mason is like a supercilious snob.
I enjoyed it as much as I did the 1937 version and I suppose many others did too. Santa Maria, the hoary story has been remade so many times that we have to wonder if it's not time for still another rendition to be trotted out. Perhaps its announcement has been delayed because no one is able to figure out exactly how to fit a car chase and an exploding fireball into a story set in Mitteleuropa in 1903. Maybe they can update it. Instead of being a REAL king, somebody can play the King of the White House. And they can change the title to, "The Prisoner of Karl Rove."