The Prince and the Pauper

A very weak and uninteresting film, despite the constellation of great actors.

I am not a connoisseur of Mark Twain's work, so I was curious to read some things about the original story he wrote after a trip he made to the European continent. From what I've read on the internet about the story, I believe the movie does justice to the source material, but as I didn't get the story to read it, I want to make it clear that I could be wrong.

Summing up in a few words the whole plot, what we have is a story in which a poor teenager, whom his father taught to steal, penetrates the palace of King Henry VIII and comes across the heir to the crown, Prince Edward. The two quickly realize that they are identical lookalikes and the prince decides to change clothes with the beggar so they both go to a masked ball. It turns out that the disguise turns out to be too good, and the real prince ends up expelled from the palace. After some misadventures, he enlists the help of a nobleman who returns to the kingdom after a long journey, making it imperative to undo the mistake before the coronation of the new king, since, in the meantime, Henry VIII dies.

The story has its appeal, but I have to confess that it sounded so far-fetched and hard to believe that I couldn't really like it. Forgive me, Twain fans. In addition, I was not pleased with the work of the director, Richard Fleischer. I felt he didn't give the film the most appropriate pacing and dynamics. Technically, the film is not very brilliant: I really liked the costumes, although it is not believable that all that gold and silk apparatus was routine and every day, even for the royalty of the time. And I also liked the scenarios used, which put us in the atmosphere of the time very quickly, both in the courtrooms and in the environments where the poor and the marginalized live. The soundtrack, sometimes a little raucous, works reasonably. Unfortunately, the cinematography has a lot of light and I didn't like it very much, overall.

I left the cast for the end because I felt, throughout the film, that there was a huge dissonance between the various actors, something that, associated with bad direction, can help to understand why the film was a failure. There are a lot of solid and well-known names to the public at the time, but even that didn't help to convince people to pay the ticket and see it. We have, however, good interpretations that, ironically or because of the bad conception of the script, fall into the most indigestible characters in the film. Oliver Reed is the most impressive actor and leaves us very impressed, but the character is superb and boastful. Ernest Borgnine also does a good job and is very convincing, but it's impossible to like John Canty and the actor doesn't have much to do other than being obnoxious. Rex Harrison has an interesting role and is good at what he does, but appears very little. The rest of the actors can't enjoy what they get: Charlton Heston almost erases himself, Raquel Welch has absolutely nothing to do and never behaves like a lady, Mark Lester is a weak protagonist and is unable to convince.