Sir Anthony Hope Hawkins was a successful London barrister, who got his measure of permanent fame as the author of several novels. Some were quite popular in their day, like "The Dolly Dialogues" and "The Man In The Car" (which bases it's central figure on Cecil Rhodes). But it is his two "Ruritanian" Romances, "The Prisoner Of Zenda" and "Rupert Of Hentzau" that are the main novels he is recalled for, especially "The Prisoner Of Zenda". Set in a middle European kingdom, it was (for it's day in the last decades of the 19th Century) an updating of the swashbuckling novels of Alexandre Dumas. Dumas had some stories set in "modern Europe" ("The Count Of Monte Cristo" is set in the period of 1815 - 1830, and was written in 1844 - 1845), but most were in earlier periods, such as the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. Hope Hawkins (who wrote under the name Anthony Hope) figured that there was sufficient intrigue and deviltry in modern Europe to transplant the plot style to the 1870s - 1890s.

And there was considerable intrigue, especially in Eastern Europe. In the 1880s Prince Alexander of Battenberg seemed set to become first Prince or King of Bulgaria. He had won admiration in Europe for his stunning victories over the armies of the Kingdom of Serbia in a war of 1885 (the war that was the background to Shaw's ARMS AND THE MAN), and was poised to get his crown, when the Russian Empire balked. They thought Alexander was too pro-German, and too close (due to family relationships) to Great Britain. So Alexander was toppled, and forced to leave Bulgaria under very humiliating circumstances. Eventually Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg got the Bulgarian throne.

"The Prisoner Of Zenda" is not based on the story of Alexander of Battenberg, but it shows the type of conspiracy atmosphere that pervaded the area. Basically the plot is an old one of substitutions concerning political figures. Dumas had used one in "The Vicomte De Bragalone", a huge multi-volume novel that included "The Man In The Iron Mask". One of the theories about the Iron Mask (the one that Dumas used)was that it was the twin brother of King Louis XIV. In that novel D'Artagnan has to thwart a plot to replace the Sun King with his brother - a plot that almost succeeds. Hope changed this slightly. Here the King is threatened by his ambitious half-brother, and the King's distant twin cousin replaces him to save the throne.

The 1937 film version of the novel is usually considered the best of several (including the 1951 version with Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr, and a comic version with Peter Sellers and Lionel Jeffries in 1978). David Selznick was the producer, this being part of his series of movies-based-on-famous-novels that included "A Tale Of Two Cities" (also with Colman), "David Copperfield" (with W.C.Fields), and finally "Gone With The Wind". His casting was top notch, with Colman supported by Madeleine Carroll, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Raymond Massey, Mary Astor, C. Aubrey Smith, and David Niven. It is an exciting and well made film, and definitely worth watching.

Selznick hoped to do the sequel "Rupert Of Hentzau", but that book is a comparative downer. Several of the main characters from the first novel are killed, and one of them shows a less likable side to his personality than in the first story. He toyed with a total rewrite of the story, to try to make Fairbanks a hero instead of a villain. The project never reached fruition. Probably just as well. It is rare for a successful film production to be replicated in a sequel.

Traveling in a Middle European kingdom, an Englishman on a fishing vacation discovers to his astonishment that he is an identical look-alike for the country's king. When the dissipated monarch is unable to attend his own coronation, the Englishman is pressured to impersonate him temporarily. But when he falls in love with the new queen and the real king is kidnapped by an evil half-brother, the Englishman is swept into a world of intrigue & danger he scarcely knew existed. Can he rescue THE PRISONER OF ZENDA without losing his own life?

This is one of the great adventure films of the 1930's. Given lavish treatment by Selznick Studios, it is escapist cinema at its most enjoyable.

Silky-voiced Ronald Colman is perfectly cast as both the Englishman & the King. He was one of those rare, fortunate actors with great screen charisma - his every moment, every word, is interesting to the viewer. He almost meets his match, though, in Douglas Fairbanks Jr., here playing a charming & completely ruthless young villain. Their rapier fight stands out in a decade full of terrific swordplay.

The rest of the cast is equally impressive: lovely Madeleine Carroll, wicked Raymond Massey, frantic Mary Astor, stalwart David Niven and especially wonderful old Sir C. Aubrey Smith, a model of elderly devotion & courage.

This is probably Ronald Coleman's best film, though he does have other terrific films to his credit. Why is it so good? Well, the pacing is brisk, the story engaging, acting superb and the supporting cast is dynamite--how can you fail when you are supported by the likes of the David Niven, Dougals Fairbanks, Jr. and C. Aubrey Smith?! PLUS, Rayond Massey is great as the menacing villain leader--part Jonathan Brewster (from Arsenic and Old Lace) and part Snidley Whiplash (from Bullwinkle). Plus Madeleine Carroll is so beautiful and captivating I could see how Coleman would have a terrible time letting go of her! The story starts in a small mythical kingdom. It seems on the eve of his coronation, the king-to-be is drugged by the evil villain. It just so happens that the good guys have stumbled on an exact double of the indisposed king and they ask this very surprised chap to sit in for the king. He reluctantly agrees but it is for a lot more than he expects after the king-to-be is kidnapped and he must remain king for the foreseeable future! This is rousing adventure in the grandest tradition! If you love films such as Captain Blood and the Adventures of Robinhood, you will be in for a real treat if you watch this film.

NOTE: The entire movie was re-filmed nearly scene for scene in the 1950s with Stewart Granger in the lead. It, too, is an excellent film but offers nothing significantly better than the original. My advice is to try the original first--as overall it's a little bit better. ALSO, Peter Sellars did an unbelievably terrible version of this film in 1979. Avoid it unless you are into masochism.

NEWER NOTE: I reviewed this wonderful movie a couple years back and tonight I was surprised to see Ronald Coleman is a very, very, very similar film called THE MASQUERADER (1933) in which he once again plays two roles of people who are supposed to be identical but not twins. Considering that this is a bit of a silly cliché and that he did THE MASQUERADER several years earlier, this makes THE PRISONER OF ZENDA a bit less original than I'd earlier thought, so I am now scoring the movie with a 9 instead of a 10. It's still a lovely film--just not quite so original.