The Prize falls somewhere between North by Northwest and the Pink Panther as a mix of mystery thriller and comedy. It should be viewed as light entertainment, much like a Poirot or Agatha Christie mystery.
I had not seen this before, and looked it up for the early Jerry Goldsmith score, which is colorful, but more of a nondescript background piece than most of his work.
What I found interesting is the place of The Prize in the many mystery- thrillers of the period, along with the Ernest Lehman script. Beginning with Hitchcock's North by Northwest (with script by Lehman), the thrillers mixed in some subtle humor to make the films seem cool and hip. The James Bond series, which began in 1962 with Dr. No followed by Goldfinger, is a classic example, but you also see it in Mirage, and later The Ipcress File and Gambit.
But it is never slapstick humor in the main body of the genre. Then, with The Pink Panther, A Shot in the Dark, and Casino Royale the humor becomes dominant, using the thriller only as a foundation.
In The Prize you see an attempt at about a 60-40 mix of thriller and humor. Does it work? The viewer must be the judge. But if it had been a 90-10 mix like Northwest, it would have failed, at least without mixing in more danger and believability, and this would have been a different movie, not so family oriented for the time. I don't think the plot is strong enough to be a straight thriller, and neither, apparently, did the director.
Ernest Lehman turned in a good script that puts the pieces of the complex jigsaw puzzle together efficiently, but without the snappy, memorable dialog of his other work. It is worth watching twice to look for the subtle cues and red herrings he throws in.
But I think the director, Mark Robson, did not demand enough from most of the A-list actors to give the movie realism. I guess he was going for light comedy, and it is funny enough. The bad guy with the pointed hat was a nice touch, an allusion to Mad Magazine's Spy vs. Spy comic series, which he looked like. The light style and format, with its almost random romantic interaction, seems to anticipate Love Boat.
But I feel better directing could have raised the movie a notch. I wonder what Hitch would have done differently? I wonder if he was offered the movie, but turned it down?
Compared to some modern movies in this genre, such as Flawless, I think The Prize's plot and script are far more complex, tight and interesting. But modern audiences might be disappointed by the relative lack of adrenaline-driving action.
The movie opens saying it is set sometime in the future. The only indications of this are the nature of the prizes, which, presciently, include Nobels for in vitro fertilization, organ transplants by suppressing the immune response, and solar energy. I don't know whether Irving Wallace or Lehman deserve the credit, but someone did their homework, and got the future right by about 20 years.
As to Paul Newman's performance, I think it is just fine. You see him change as the plot progresses from a cynical, depressed writer, to a revitalized man who has found his groove and his girl. Anyone who views this performance as evidence that Newman was an egotist is confusing the role with the person. Newman, who never lived in Beverly Hills, was one of those great actors who never let fame go to his head.
I couldn't help wondering what Richard Feynman thought of this movie. He discusses his feelings about accepting the Nobel Prize in his memoirs. I wonder if he mentioned this movie?
I also couldn't help but wonder to what extent the real life version of Leo G. Carroll's character does worry about scenarios such as impersonation? But I assume security matters are secret.
As to the nudist scene, which echoes Lehman's Northwest auction scene, the curious part is that it precedes the nudist camp scene in Peter Seller's A Shot in the Dark. I have the feeling the publicity department might have had something to do with it, as "Sweden" and "nudist" certainly would have gotten the public's attention back then. There was apparently a lot of cross fertilization of ideas within the genre of the period, sometimes with improved effect. The classic Peter Sellers nudist scene is far funnier, and about the only worthwhile part of the movie.
But I would loved to have seen Hitchcock's face when he saw the nudist scene. And Lehman's face when he was writing it!
In short, I give The Prize an A for originality of concept, a B for tightness of plot, and a C for directing.
I had not seen this before, and looked it up for the early Jerry Goldsmith score, which is colorful, but more of a nondescript background piece than most of his work.
What I found interesting is the place of The Prize in the many mystery- thrillers of the period, along with the Ernest Lehman script. Beginning with Hitchcock's North by Northwest (with script by Lehman), the thrillers mixed in some subtle humor to make the films seem cool and hip. The James Bond series, which began in 1962 with Dr. No followed by Goldfinger, is a classic example, but you also see it in Mirage, and later The Ipcress File and Gambit.
But it is never slapstick humor in the main body of the genre. Then, with The Pink Panther, A Shot in the Dark, and Casino Royale the humor becomes dominant, using the thriller only as a foundation.
In The Prize you see an attempt at about a 60-40 mix of thriller and humor. Does it work? The viewer must be the judge. But if it had been a 90-10 mix like Northwest, it would have failed, at least without mixing in more danger and believability, and this would have been a different movie, not so family oriented for the time. I don't think the plot is strong enough to be a straight thriller, and neither, apparently, did the director.
Ernest Lehman turned in a good script that puts the pieces of the complex jigsaw puzzle together efficiently, but without the snappy, memorable dialog of his other work. It is worth watching twice to look for the subtle cues and red herrings he throws in.
But I think the director, Mark Robson, did not demand enough from most of the A-list actors to give the movie realism. I guess he was going for light comedy, and it is funny enough. The bad guy with the pointed hat was a nice touch, an allusion to Mad Magazine's Spy vs. Spy comic series, which he looked like. The light style and format, with its almost random romantic interaction, seems to anticipate Love Boat.
But I feel better directing could have raised the movie a notch. I wonder what Hitch would have done differently? I wonder if he was offered the movie, but turned it down?
Compared to some modern movies in this genre, such as Flawless, I think The Prize's plot and script are far more complex, tight and interesting. But modern audiences might be disappointed by the relative lack of adrenaline-driving action.
The movie opens saying it is set sometime in the future. The only indications of this are the nature of the prizes, which, presciently, include Nobels for in vitro fertilization, organ transplants by suppressing the immune response, and solar energy. I don't know whether Irving Wallace or Lehman deserve the credit, but someone did their homework, and got the future right by about 20 years.
As to Paul Newman's performance, I think it is just fine. You see him change as the plot progresses from a cynical, depressed writer, to a revitalized man who has found his groove and his girl. Anyone who views this performance as evidence that Newman was an egotist is confusing the role with the person. Newman, who never lived in Beverly Hills, was one of those great actors who never let fame go to his head.
I couldn't help wondering what Richard Feynman thought of this movie. He discusses his feelings about accepting the Nobel Prize in his memoirs. I wonder if he mentioned this movie?
I also couldn't help but wonder to what extent the real life version of Leo G. Carroll's character does worry about scenarios such as impersonation? But I assume security matters are secret.
As to the nudist scene, which echoes Lehman's Northwest auction scene, the curious part is that it precedes the nudist camp scene in Peter Seller's A Shot in the Dark. I have the feeling the publicity department might have had something to do with it, as "Sweden" and "nudist" certainly would have gotten the public's attention back then. There was apparently a lot of cross fertilization of ideas within the genre of the period, sometimes with improved effect. The classic Peter Sellers nudist scene is far funnier, and about the only worthwhile part of the movie.
But I would loved to have seen Hitchcock's face when he saw the nudist scene. And Lehman's face when he was writing it!
In short, I give The Prize an A for originality of concept, a B for tightness of plot, and a C for directing.