The prolog says that the story takes place "when History still wore a rose, and politics had still not outgrown the waltz". That's a decidedly odd--not to say unsinnig=nonsensical--way to introduce the underhanded and often brutal goings-on in THE PRISONER OF ZENDA.
shareAn even bigger piece of Unsinn: why is this version an exact copy of the Colman-Carroll version? Why didn't Berman choose a fresh script, not to mention a better director than the pedestrian unimaginative Richard Thwerpe?
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)
I'm sure no one here will hold it against you if you stop posting about a film you obviously hate.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae
I love THE PRISONER OF ZENDA and RUPERT OF HENTZAU; it's the movie versions that fall short.
One of my life goals is to go to Hollywood to pitch new adaptations of literary classics that will do justice to the originals. For example, the movie adaptations of TPOZ never mention that Ruritania is bitterly divided between supporters of King Rudolph and supporters of Duke Michael--a split similar to the Carlist conflict in Spain. A version of TPOZ that would present its conflict in terms similar to the Carlist Wars would create the opportunity of recasting the story as a real and vital drama, instead of as a silly parade of ridiculous uniforms, which is the mistake that all its movie versions have done.
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)
The Ruritania of the novels may be like the Carlist conflict in Spain, but it's not the Carlist conflict in Spain. The novels are not (and were not, I'm sure, intended to be) intense political thrillers, nor "real and vital drama". They are adventure stories, they are love stories and, yes, they are a silly parade of ridiculous uniforms.
To expect the films to be more than that is to expect too much of the films and to read too much into the novels.