The Prince and the Pauper (1937)

After a few unhappy movies, I decided that my best bet was to pick a story I already knew to have a happy ending. At the same time, it had to be a story I didn't know too terribly well -- no more A Christmas Carol versions for me. Not having read the Mark Twain book, I relied on vague memories of capsulized kiddie adaptations and parodies. The gist was that the strangely identical young title characters who happened to meet were tired of their lots in life, traded places on purpose, and learned the hard way that they preferred their previous stations (a questionable lesson indeed if it equates the travails of monarchy with those of poverty), right?

Well, not exactly. In this telling, the boys don't even realize how alike they look until they've swapped outfits for fun, and they have no intention of fooling anyone; but the prince (Bobby Mauch) injudiciously exits the room alone, and you can guess what happens next. Both boys insist on their true identities, even as their insistence mostly makes matters worse for them. Sure, pauper Tom Canty (Billy Mauch) enjoys some luxuries and a lack of beatings by guards or his irredeemable father (Barton MacLane), but he can't help worrying, not least as the Earl of Hertford (Claude Rains), the prime courtier who knows Tom's not mad, plots to manipulate him -- and end the threat of the real prince returning -- when the old king (Montagu Love) dies. The moral has more to do with recognizing how little separates the highest from the lowest, with a hint that this could duly increase the elite's sympathy for common folk.

I also was unaware that the fictional tale, which the opening writing says "could have happened," specified real royals: The dying king is Henry VIII, his son becomes Edward VI, we see a little of mother Jane Seymour, and we hear of sisters Mary and Elizabeth. This does make things a bit more interesting, as Edward tires of having a series of mothers and must decide how much of his father's harshness to apply. Unfortunately, it also means that he'll die 6 years later at age 15. (The Mauch twins were 15 during the shoot but youthful enough that the studio claimed them to be 12. Even that's a little old to play 9.) Moral: Try not to bring too much historical knowledge to a Hollywood viewing.

From what I gather, this film is mostly faithful to the novel. It cuts out a number of events for time, but that's to be expected. The biggest apparent difference is in increasing the presence and villainy of the Earl of Hertford.

Oddly enough, the Netflix summary doesn't mention the guy with top billing, who totally dominated the posters: Errol Flynn, as Miles Hendon, a fairly poor soldier who generously humors Edward and defends him -- with a sword, naturally. He doesn't appear until the second act, but between his charisma and the occasional (sometimes lethal!) fight scene, I can see how contemporaries might have deemed him the highlight. For my part, as much as I love Flynn in some starring roles, here he's little more than dressing.

There's more story here, even with all the cutting, than I ever figured, collectively showing more intellect than the protagonists would suggest. I may have to read the book someday. In the meantime, if you'd rather digest it in a couple of hours, I recommend this version. It succeeded in lifting my mood.