Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (January 23, 2024)
One of many classic tales from Mark Twain, 1881’s The Prince and the Pauper first leapt to movie screens as far back as 1909. For perhaps its most famous adaptation, we go to a 1937 edition.
Set in London during the mid-16th century, 10-year-old beggar boy Tom Canty (Billy Mauch) sneaks onto the grounds of the royal garden. There he meets Prince Edward (Bobby Mauch) and the pair discover they look alike.
When they switch clothes on a lark, guards intervene and unintentionally evict Edward since they believe him to be the interloper. Thus both kids wind up in each others’ shoes and they find themselves in a series of adventures until they can return to their prior positions.
Even if one never read Twain’s Pauper or saw a formal adaptation of it, one likely has seen a riff on it. It would be impossible to count all of them, though my favorite probably remains a Season One episode of The Flintstones in which Fred swaps places with a business executive.
Truth be told, I think this 1937 film does does become my initial experience with a specific version of Pauper. However, the plot’s familiar usage in culture makes it a movie without real surprises, even to the novice viewer.
Which I don’t regard as a negative. If I disliked every movie where I already knew the story, I’d hate more films than I already do.
The potential charm comes from the execution of the narrative. In that regard, Pauper sputters, as director William Keighley fails to find a consistent tone or pace.
Of course, the source delivers a solid framework, but the filmmakers fail to give it punch. Pauper meanders from each side of the story to the other in a less than concise manner and never really connects.
Casting choices don’t help, at least in terms of our young leads. I get the impression the producers cast the Mauch boys because they looked alike, not because they could act.
Oh, and because they seemed much younger than their actual age at the time. It seems like a lot to ask 15-year-olds to play 10-year-olds, but both sported high voices and were small enough to pass for pre-teens.
Whatever physical qualities earned the Mauch boys their roles, they lacked talent. Both seem awkward and clumsy as they attempt to handle the various challenges presented by their parts.
The Mauchs feel more cutesy than convincing, as they provide wide-eyed turns and not much more. It also makes no sense that they speak with American accents although every other actor boasts English tones.
I would assume this occurred because the Mauchs couldn’t pull off British accents. Whatever the case, the Mauchs offer a hole at the center of the film because they can’t pull off credible performances.
At least the producers made the smart decision to surround the Mauchs with veteran talents like Errol Flynn, Claude Rains and others. They add quality to the production, even if it does seem odd that the top-billed Flynn doesn’t actually appear on-screen until almost 54 minutes into the story.
Unfortunately, they can’t overcome the weak performances from the leads. The Mauch kids undercut virtually any positives the movie otherwise might offer and turn it into a lackluster adaptation.
