The Prince and the Showgirl (1957)

the audience applauded

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I must say, Pinewood Studios in the UK often does some interesting back drop scenes in films, and this one is no exception. The Coronation Scene and the stained glass sequences in the Abbey are top notch visuals. In fact the camera work of the scenic 1911 period film is really excellent kind of. This is the kind of film that has lots of scenery to watch and the images are worth seeing.Lawrence Olivier is credited as Director and Producer here. There are scenes stocked with 100's if not 1000's of extras in the background. Monroe owned the production company but it is obvious that Pinewood let the company use their resources ca rte blanch.Whatever you have to say about Olivier's Direction, the images on the film are extraordinary. Noteworthy for Monroe fans are the advantages taken of getting her figure into the film frames too. While she is in one of her not skinny periods, her image on camera does not suffer when she has on great clothes and jewels for sure.The story is not badly done, and Monroe plays dumb and smart in different scenes. Her and Lawrence do quite a few scenes together in this one. The coronation has little or no dialogue which is not just effective but takes advantage of a Monroe who was very difficult to work with.This is not a film for intellect, or even plot, and some of the comedy is amusing but only works somewhat effectively. Monroes camera angles work very very well. It is worth trying to see a big talent Olivier try to star, direct, and produce the vehicle and bring it out of a shipwrecked state into a good film. They almost succeed.

Laurence Olivier's fourth film as a director and his first such non- Shakespearean film, it is based on the play "The Sleeping Prince" by Terence Rattigan. Olivier reprises his role as Prince Charles, Regent of Carpathia from the stage version while his then wife Vivien Leigh was replaced in the role of the actress Elsie Marina by Marilyn Monroe.While the prince grows more fond of the showgirl as the film goes on, the same could hardly be said of the actors off-screen. As is well known, Olivier had an extremely poor working relationship with Marilyn Monroe, who according to Jean Kent often arrived on set very late and "appeared dirty and dishevelled." Olivier himself allegedly described her as a "professional amateur." Kent also claimed that Wattis took "to drink because takes had to be done so many times" and the whole experience aged Olivier by 15 years. It is also rumoured to be the reason that Olivier practically gave up film directing, making only "Three Sisters" after this.Olivier is excellent as the stiff, pompous regent, who starts out as the archetypal German or Eastern European leader of the early 20th Century before gradually softening because of his relationship with Elsie. Let's be honest, Marilyn Monroe was a great film star but not a great actress. She is quite good but she thoroughly outacted by Olivier, Sybil Thorndike and Richard Wattis. I thought that she was miscast, frankly. She and Olivier are hardly a natural fit, are they? Perhaps reflecting the behind the scenes turmoil, her chemistry with Olivier is variable, occasionally excellent - particularly in the final scene - but mostly isn't up to scratch. The rest of the cast is very good, especially Sybil Thorndike (whose brother Russell appeared in all three of Olivier's Shakespearean films), Richard Wattis (as in the "St. Trinian's" films, playing a put-upon civil servant to perfection but in a completely different way), Esmond Knight (who likewise appeared in "Henry V", "Hamlet" and "Richard III"), Jeremy Spenser and Maxine Audley.While neither his acting nor directing are on the same level as in "Henry V" and "Hamlet", I thought that he did much better in both capacities here than in "Richard III". I think that the major problem with the film, however, is the pacing of the script. It moves far too slowly, particularly in the first hour. It doesn't translate from stage to screen as well as it could. I think that this was due to the fact that the screenplay was written by Rattigan himself. In his Shakespearean films, Olivier demonstrated that he was not afraid to trim and cut scenes or even excise major characters for the benefit of the film and I think that he should have been allowed to use his scissors on this one. It's about 20 to 25 minutes longer than it needs to be.In spite of these criticisms, however, it's a charming and often very witty film which looks beautiful and has great characterisation for the Regent. It also has some nice social commentary on early 20th Century politics, some of which is still applicable today.

I picked this movie to find a late Marilyn's movie as well as British flavor. On those two points, it's OK : Marilyn is convincing with her tough character to play and the movie is rich in royal pump and London places. It's funny to see how special effects were done 60 years ago. Sure, they are not transparent but they are as poetic and as useful as today ! As it's the first time i watch him, Olivier seems to be a competent actor and a honest filmmaker as the movie scratches the so- pure and divine royals : in fact, the regent wants escort girls, the queen is close to being senile. However, as a director, he fails to give a soul, a rhythm to this movie. Yes it was hard as the original material is a play but unlike « 7 years itch », this one doesn't take off the boards : the scenes are long, endless, the speeches are long, endless, the stages are poorly limited as it happens mainly inside the embassy. So it's really like a filmed play whose story is rather poor and unidimensional and i recall only two scenes that shows what a movie is about: 1) Marilyn's wake-up with the British grenadiers (the same that was in « Empire of the sun ») and Marilyn's dream in the church during the coronation !

When the behind-the-scene anecdotes are appreciably more stimulating than the film itself, it is not a good sign, so I may address MY WEEK WITH MARILYN (2011, 6/10) should be a better choice (for contemporary audiences), barring suckers for Ms. Monroe or Sir Olivier. How come Olivier was swept off his feet by Monroe during the shooting of this film? The ignominious scandal cast a fissure on his marriage with Vivien Leigh, which ultimately ended in 1961 and to a great extent prompted Leigh's untimely demise at the age of 54 in 1967, so the real life is far crueler than this saccharine period-romance between a regent prince from a fictitious country Carpathia and an US showgirl from the Coconut Girl Club, all happens in London during his visit for the coronation of the new British King in 1911. It is a project tailor-made for Ms. Monroe and she was in her pinnacle at then, while most certainly Sir Laurence Olivier came on board as the leading man to reprise his role from the original play (Leigh was brushed aside due to her age, so Monroe was cast instead, it was is really a man man man's world), however it is rather an odd choice for him to monopolize the director chair since it is absolutely not his wheelhouse, a romantic comedy must be a tint two-bit for his Shakespearean standard. Maybe his real intent was never on the film but the red-hot sexpot, Marilyn Monroe.Regarding the personal life, it was not a placid phase for Marilyn either (check MY WEEK WITH MARILYN for a deep look), but she definitely goes to all lengths to invigorate her character, Elsie, she is the breezy messenger, the emblem of foolproof love, with her buxom curves and half-witted ingénue persona, one might not say she is the one-of-a-kind type of genius, but certainly she is the fortuitous making of her era, an icon can not be emulated in our times. Sir Olivier, wallows in his customary tactics, being deadpan serious in a condescending form, and genteelly articulating the banal dialog as if he means it, we can endure the mincing and posturing of Monroe, but for him, it totally jars with the overall tonality and the chemistry between these two people with irreconcilable disparities never scintillates on the screen, the old- hat way of acting does double up the running-time. Anyway, there is still the bright side, Sybil Thorndike as the Queen Dowager, the mother-in-law of the Regent, controls a timely comic effort whenever she is released to preside the scenes, and those moments are golden! A fresh-faced Jeremy Spenser (as King Nicolas, the son of the Regent) is strikingly dashing in the uniform, he is the only surviving cast of the film with us now. After all its regal extravaganza, garish costumes and ornaments, the preposterous post- production and erratic editing hiccups stick out ridiculously, some chuckling could be wrung from the picture in any case.