Cuparia

The Prisoner of Zenda (1937) is a superlative example of the cinematic swashbuckler removed from the traditional period setting, for it takes place neither in the golden age of swashbuckling (the 15th through 18th centuries) nor even in an actual place. Based on the popular 1894 novel by Anthony Hope, it is situated firmly in the mid to late 19th century in the fictional European country of Ruritania. It is a tale of royal intrigue, adventure, and love, with the central theme of a protagonist who is forced to assume the identity of another. Ronald Colman has the dual role of Rudolf Rassendyll, an Englishman, and his identical cousin, the future king of Ruritania. In both roles, Coleman shines without overpowering his scenes. Rarely, in fact, does one see so well-balanced a job of casting. C. Aubrey Smith and David Niven are exceptional as the king’s friends and advisors; Raymond Massey is excellent as Black Michael, the king’s brother and nemesis; Mary Astor is equally suitable as Antoinette de Mauban, Black Michael’s inamorata; and Madeleine Carroll gives a performance of sublime yet understated beauty as Princess Flavia, the Prisoner of Zenda’s betrothed. It is Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., however, who gives perhaps the most stunning performance as a quintessential swashbuckler who is a villain. As Rupert of Hentzau, Fairbanks crackles with energy and ensures that no encounter will be dull. In all ways, he provides a perfect clash of personality and arms with the less flamboyant — but no less decisive — English gentleman. Nominated for two Academy Awards (Best Art Direction and Best Music, Score), it honestly deserved greater recognition in other categories as well. The Prisoner of Zenda, as an adventure, as a romance, and as a drama (with a healthy amount of humor), stands as one of the greatest swashbuckling movies of its time or any other era.

• Writing: Good
• Directing: Great
• Acting: Great
• Cinematography: Good
• Stunts: Good
• Swordplay: Good
• Panache: Superb

Overall Rating: Great
Swashbuckling Rank: Great

The Three Musketeers from 1948 is neither the best nor the worst of all the film adaptations of Alexandre Dumas’ classic swashbuckling epic. As an adaptation of the novel itself, it is colorful, lively, and ambitious, but it is also a clumsy adaptation in the standard Hollywood tradition. Moments that are meant to loom large both in plot and dramatic impact are instead rushed and reduced. The moments where it lingers longest are overwrought and paradoxically (though unintentionally) invite detachment rather than empathy. The casting choices promise more than they deliver. Vincent Price would seem to be made for the role of Cardinal Richelieu, but his portrayal seems as flat as the script. Frank Morgan as Louis XIII carries himself more like a befuddled shopkeeper than a king, Angela Lansbury as Queen Anne could be any unhappy housewife, and the titular trio could be any group of boisterous, well-intentioned fops despite the moderately tortured posturings of Van Heflin’s Athos. Lana Turner falls short of embodying the evil for which Lady de Winter is infamous, which is a serious shortcoming for so important an antagonist. The film’s greatest asset is Gene Kelly as D’Artagnan in what must have been a conscious attempt to mimic Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. in the same role in 1921. In fact, the film succeeds most where it attempts to adapt its 1921 predecessor rather than the novel. Kelly’s D’Artagnan is essentially Fairbanks’ D’Artagnan with sound and color, just as dynamic physically and comically, and just as prone to melodramatic telegraphy. With a better screenplay, this 1948 version of The Three Musketeers could have been — and ought to have been — much more than a one-man show.

• Writing: Mediocre
• Directing: Fair
• Acting: Fair
• Cinematography: Good
• Stunts: Great
• Swordplay: Good
• Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Fair
Swashbuckling Rank: Good