Talk:The Prisoner of Zenda (1937 film)

Prior Smith role

The article for C. Aubrey Smith and the trivia say that he played Michael in the 1895 play, while the background section of this article claims he portrayed Rassendyll/Rudolph in 1896. Which is right? Clarityfiend 05:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the play (by Hope and Edward Rose) was 1896, but I don't have the cast list. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, Smith claimed that he had played every part in the story, except Princess Flavia. He told this to Fairbanks, when the younger man asked whether he should accept the part of a villain, when he was trying to build a career as a romantic lead. Valetude (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations and homages needed

I recently reworked the "Other versions" section, and much of it was then removed. I can live with the other changes made to the article, but I think this section is important, and needs weight, and want to explain why. This is the intro I wrote:

Many other versions of the novel made it to stage and (especially) screen, see here. This 1937 version is the most enduring, and is notable for its effect on other works, including science fiction and television. Many works that feature a political decoy can be linked to The Prisoner of Zenda, and this theme has been well-used in cinema. What follows is a short list of those homages with a clear debt to the 1937 film. See here for a longer list of those works with a more tenuous connection.

This, and part of the following list, was removed, with the comment "No need to list other remakes of the novel when they are already listed in at least one other article". I would disagree. Of all the remakes of the novel, the 1937 film seems to be the most notable (for example in being chosen for preservation by the Library of Congress), and the most referred to (for example in cinematic homages), and as such its article deserves to be the most central, the richest with links, because this is likely to be where the most readers come. Wikipedia would be an impoverished place if links were removed because the information already exists "in at least one other article".

What I have tried to do in this intro is split the many works with some connection to this film (and which readers may want to follow up) into three: adaptations of the original novel, which may have a slender connection, over here in a hidden link; films involving political decoys, again possibly a slender connection, over there in a hidden link; and works that are clearly based on or inspired by this film, listed here with a sentence or two about each. I would like to reinstate this approach. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

When readers search for The Prisoner of Zenda, they're not going to qualify it by typing "(1937 film)". They will find the novel article first, and it is logical to have all the adaptations listed there. The other problem I have is that you are asserting claims and connections to this particular version, but not providing any references to back them up. It all looks rather WP:POV or WP:OR to me (though I agree that this is the best version). If you can provide sources, then that's a different story. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

True, readers are unlikely to type in a long search term. But many will not search at all; they will click through from links on the articles of the actors, or Academy Award for Best Art Direction or American films of 1937 or Swashbuckler films, or find the article via categories such as Category:United States National Film Registry. They will not necessarily see the novel article at all, nor will they realise that adaptations are listed there -- remember you removed the dab hatnote as well, so there is a real dearth of pointers in your version.

As for assertions, I have made the sentences as mild as possible. Which statement do you object to? 1. There are many other versions -- seen at a glance. 2. This version most important -- as evidenced by its LoC selection. 3. Clear debt to 1937 film -- by title, plot or setting.

Alas I do not have encyclopedias of film etc. to hand. All I am attempting to do here is draw some threads together in a manner helpful to the reader. When you say "this is the best version", which are you referring to? BrainyBabe (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are other versions, but only the ones I left are derived from this particular one. The others are based on the novel. Inclusion in the Library of Congress does not automatically mean that this is the most important version. It's a strong indicator, and my own personal opinion, but mine doesn't count, and unless you're Roger Ebert (with an undisclosed sex change operation), neither does yours. You need to cite a critic or a poll. As for readers not knowing about the many other adaptations, I'll have to think about that. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have found some references from encylopedias of film, and will add them. I look forward to your thoughts, as promised above. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that's more like it. Good work. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am happy with the work we've done so far, but am not content to let it rest. The brief paragraph I wrote (at the top of this discussion section) still seems to me to have merit. It is more useful to the reader to be pointed towards various other directions than simply to be told that other adaptations of the novel exist, as your addition in the current article has it. The point (or one of the points) about the notability of this film is that there are homages or filmic references that have nothing to do with the written original, springing entirely from this Hollywood version. Anything including a fishing trip, unmentioned in the novel, is a clear reference to the 1937 film, for example. An encyclopedic article should acknowledge this. Again I would ask, which of the three assertions that I made would you disagree with? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>I thought this was settled but obviously I was mistaken.

Let us start again. Is the objection to the assertions or to the links?

I take this as my starting point:

From Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context:

In general, do create links to:

• Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
• References to a page with more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series."

Let us take each sentence or clause in turn.

Many other versions of the novel made it to stage and (especially) screen,

Simple truth

see here.

The adaptations provide context. There is no reason not to link them at the top of this section. "Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. " (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?)

This 1937 version is the most enduring, and is notable for its effect on other works, including science fiction and television.

Now multiply referenced within the article. This version is the central work; it is reasonable to anticipate that more readers will come here than to other versions, and the article should help them.

Many works that feature a political decoy can be linked to The Prisoner of Zenda,

You say "Political decoy does not list other works linked to Zenda" but that is not the only legitimate use of links. "Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links). In this case we are placing the film in the widest useful context -- briefly, as an aside. This could be reworded. How about "The film sits within a long tradition of using political decoys in fiction."?

and this theme has been well-used in cinema.

Simple truth, with a link to a list of such films in the following sentence.

What follows is a short list of those homages with a clear debt to the 1937 film.

The list is short, and the debt is clear from the use of elements not in the book, e.g. fishing trip.

See here for a longer list of those works with a more tenuous connection.

This list provides context, and helps the reader see how this subject of this film sits within cinematic and literary history.

I look forward to a productive and reasoned discussion. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see your Feb. 24 response, so despite A Man for All Seasons, silence does not imply consent.

To begin with, "This 1937 version is the most enduring" is referenced, but "and is notable for its effect on other works, including science fiction and television" is not, as far as I can see. Many films generate remakes and parodies, so how is this one special?

There is also no source connecting it to political decoys, and even if there were, it would be to the novel, not to this specific version. In fact, off the top of my head, I can cite The Prince and the Pauper and The Vicomte de Bragelonne (i.e. The Man in the Iron Mask) as works that preceded Zenda (okay, I had to look up the right title for the latter). Your rephrasing ("The film sits...") is acceptable, though I'm not sure where it could be placed (maybe the intro?). I would also have no objection to putting Political decoy in a See also section.

"Many other versions of the novel made it to stage and (especially) screen,..." - This is already partially mentioned in the intro and is somewhat redundant. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

1. Are we agreed that this film is the central work, i.e. what most readers will be looking for when they search for the term? (I think this is a reasonable assumption, based on the power of Hollywood to sell tickets vs the number of books ever sold.) And thus are we agreed that this article has a special duty to be as comprehensive, comprehensible, and helpful as possible, as a likely first port of call? People who come to this page have no reason to know that the film is based on a Victorian novel until we inform them of that. You deleted the hatnote to see also the dab page; while I would prefer to retain that, I think it is more important to weave strong references into the text.

2. Many -- most -- films sink into obscurity. Any film that has a remake or a parody, let alone many such, is by definition notable; I am not suggesting this film is more special than others so honoured, but it is more notable and special than films without homages. I am open to rewording. How about "and has influenced other works, including science fiction and television"?

3. I'm glad we agree on "The film sits within a long tradition of using political decoys in fiction." You suggest moving this to the introduction. I would be delighted to have an intro paragraph that gives the sort of full artistic and literary context that I attempted in writing these sentences now under discussion, but I realise that the intro is usually taken up with the names of people involved (which personally I would prefer to see after the TOC, but I accept that that is not likely to happen, so I'm not going to argue the point). It seems sensible to keep all the context together. It is useful to have one section which explores both the background and legacy of a work, and this, not the intro, would seem to be it.

4. You say that the first sentence under discussion, starting "Many other versions of the novel", is partly redundant of what exists in the introduction. But that is inevitable with introductions, isn't it, that they mention in brief that which is expanded in more detail in further sections. Introductions summarise the most important points, according to Wikipedia:Lead section. I don't see "partly redundant" as a satisfactory argument against the inclusion of the sentence.

5. Again I would quote the policy that underlies my ethos: "Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles." My understanding of "topic" is not just this film, but this film in context: the context of Edward's abdication, of English actors in Hollywood, of the lead up to WWII, of literary tradition, of the use that has been made of this version of the film by later directors. This, to me, is what Wikipedia is all about: helping readers make connections, by text and by link, for them to follow up or not as they choose.

I look forward to any response. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said my piece. Add what you like and I'll tag what I think is unsupported. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would rather have reached consensus here, but will take you at your word and re-add my somewhat altered paragraph. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Text in opening credits

At the end of the opening credits, a slowly-moving scroll depicts the following text rendered in elaborate cursive script (line breaks reproduced per on-screen form):
"Toward the close of
the last century,
when History still wore
a Rose, and Politics had
not yet outgrown the
Waltz, a Great Royal
Scandal was whispered
in the Anterooms of
Europe. However true it
was, any resemblance
in "The Prisoner of Zenda"
to Heroes, Villains or
Heroines, living or dead,
is a coincidence not
intended….."
—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Turner Classic Movies showing

Turner Classic Movies presented The Prisoner of Zenda on October 6, 2015 as part of its "Star of the Month salute" to David Niven. Shown before The Prisoner of Zenda were 1939's Raffles and Bachelor Mother, 1938's The Dawn Patrol, 1939's Wuthering Heights, 1935's Splendor, 1939's Eternally Yours and 1936's Dodsworth and The Charge of the Light Brigade. Following The Prisoner of Zenda, the Niven salute continued with 1936's Rose Marie and 1935's A Feather in Her Hat. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record: on-screen credits

At the start of opening credits

• Ronald Colman in a picturization of the celebrated novel
  by Anthony Hope
• with Madeleine Carroll
• C. Aubrey Smith    ~    Raymond Massey
• Mary Astor    ~   ~    David Niven
• and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.

At the end of opening credits

• Mr. Colman appears as Major Rudolf Rassendyll
  and also as the prisoner of Zenda;
• Madeleine Carroll as the Princess Flavia,
• and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., as Rupert of Hentzau.