Les vertes années

The film is based on A.J. Cronin's bestselling novel. It boasts an exemplary cast and a very evenly-written script. Venerable character actor Charles Coburn, a favorite of many, receives top billing. And true, his performance could easily dominate the movie. But the screenwriter is careful to intersperse moments of Coburn's wily great-grandfather character throughout the narrative while keeping the rest of the ensemble in focus.

The cast includes real-life husband and wife Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy (though they do not play a married couple here). It also features child actor Dean Stockwell in the first half and matinée idol Tom Drake in the second half as the young protagonist.

The Green Years pulls at our heartstrings one moment, then makes us laugh uproariously the next (usually because of Coburn's antics). But throughout the story there is a valuable lesson about the importance of making sacrifices and celebrating life's triumphs.

The title is meant to suggest several possible meanings. I urge you to view the film and discover what it means for you.

At first when I read the blurb of this film on the viewers guide I expected another "How Green Was My Valley," which had ruined coming-of-age films for me until I saw "Breaking Away" in '79. I started watching it anyway and soon found I was hooked for the next 127 minutes.

"The Green Years" demonstrate what a better film "Kings Row" could have been if someone other than Robert Cummings had played the lead. It's basically the same story set in Scotland: both take place in isolated rural towns, both deal with mental cruelty, and both deal with overcoming your circumstances to better your life. And ironically, both feature the splendid and versatile actor Charles Coburn in pivotal roles.

The people of this village seem real here, with Hume Cronin playing the tight-lipped tightwad of an extended family who "live like they're poor out of choice." Tom Drake is fine as the older Robbie Shannon, earnest and sincere, but with an increasing sense of cynicism appropriate for the role. Richard Hayden as the headmaster that befriends Robbie adds just the right amount of sanity, humor and hope you need in a story that runs over 2 hours.

But young Dean Stockwell and Coburn are magic, especially in the scene when he and 2 drunken friends try to teach young Robbie how to box. I can't recall a relationship between 2 actors on film, one very old and the other very young, that rings as fresh and honest as their's does. I think W.C. Fields and Freddie Bartholomew in "Great Expectations" come closest.

Yes, it's episodic, and perhaps a tad too long, and Norman Lloyd is wasted as one of Cronyn's sons. But if you have an affection for this sort of film made soon after the end of WWII, you won't be disappointed.

If anything this film gives us a look at some overlooked talent within Hollywood, also of work overlooked by some film critics. Firstly the overlooked talent: MGM for not utilizing the remarkable Beverly Tyler, this natural talent sang like an Angel and looking back at her superb performance of a prime number from Handel's Messiah, it leaves you wondering why? ~ could it be because she might not have 'played the game' in Hollywooodland...

Secondly, overlooked works by Critics: Over the years there have been many examples of certain critics uniformly choosing to bag various works (including this one). To cite just a few: "We are not Alone" '39 (Muni) ~ "Rapture" '65 (Stockwell again) ~ "Walk on the Wild Side" '62 (turned a trashy Nelson Algren book into a decent look at life during the 1930s) ~ "The Arrangement" '69 (Elia Kazan's biting observations of the excesses of advertising-TV's 'Mad Men' series copied aspects of this one). These were all astute productions, offering in-depth character studies brought to life via highly effective performances. Reading between the lines of selected reviews it seems evident some critics either chose not to support, or did not get the intended messages (?). Whatever the reasons, their cynicism can often be evident. In the case of 'The Green Years' anyone who knows how to enjoy golden years movie making, should find it stands on solid legs of it's own. It's rather odd this classic has been little seen over the years (despite it being very popular in it's initial release!). In some respects it now seems even better in comparison to many of the sub-standard productions that have followed it.

The entire cast could not be more perfect, bringing A.J.Cronin's multi-layered characters vibrantly to life. Charles Couburn as grandfather is a hoot (despite his amber failings). Dean Stockwell as the orphaned lad is as reliable as you could ever hope for. The screenplay adaption of Cronin's classic novel keeps all the essential ingredients moving along strongly. Award winner George Folsey as cinematographer, captures striking visuals under the deft call of versatile director Victor Saville. The whole experience results in a shining encapsulation of the pathos, drama, and humour of a young man's journey into manhood.

This movie is up there with the likes of "Kings Row" '42 and Cronin's earlier classic from '38 "The Citadel". If you're too cynical to allow natural sentiment to enter your movie experience, then this may not be for you...but then again, nostalgia and sentiments travel hand in hand through all our lives. Novelists, poets, songwriters, all relate to melancholic reminiscences. You might be fortunate to find it available on Warner Archive DVD, otherwise tune into TCM (their print may not be terrific but is better than others I've seen). Recommended for lovers of first class classics....junk lovers, beware. KenR

Footnote: planktonrules from Florida, has posted a neat summery for comparison ~ although I disagree with his comment about too many story elements. Any details that were major in the book needed to be included in the film, having said that, I'm pleased the film makers did not opt for an over long running time (I also note: the print I saw on TCM ran 120mins not 127m as listed on IMDb) Not sure what was going on there but I was quite happy with it anyway.

TCM screened this film recently and it was worth staying up past my bedtime to watch it. The film can be summed up in two words: Charles Coburn. He is magnificent as the perpetually inebriated yet good natured great grandfather. His dialogue is top notch and he delivers it to the hilt, at times funny, and others poignant. Dean Stockwell as the young boy is always interesting to watch, as are Jessica Tandy and Hume Cronyn. Fans of old films will recognize many stock players as well: the mother here is also the mother in The Fighting Sullivans and the school master turns up years later as the impresario for the Von Trapp children in the Sound of Music. It's fun to see him so young. The movie has a lot of the Goodbye Mr. Chips qualities I love in film. And keep your ears open and you'll hear strains of similar music from The Wizard of Oz - letting you know it's an MGM production. Throw in a bit of Charles Dicken's Oliver Twist and you've got a fine movie. I won't give any more away.

HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY was one of the best films of the 1940s and really did a lot to bring to life the Welsh experience at the end of the 19th century. The film featured brilliant writing, acting and John Ford's deft direction. Now five years later, MGM returns with a film that reminded me, in many ways, of this earlier film--though it is set in Scotland just a decade or so after HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY.

One major difference was that the main character (initially played by Dean Stockwell) was actually Scotch-Irish and when orphaned he was sent from Ireland to live with family in Scotland. Unfortunately, not everyone in the family was happy to see the kid--as the stingy (both financially and emotionally) grandfather (played exceptionally well by Hume Cronyn) saw the kid as a burden and obligation instead of kin. Also, the fact that the boy was Catholic didn't help matters. However, the great-grandfather (Charles Coburn) was quite different. Despite at first seeming a bit gruff, he became the boy's greatest friend and ally. Through the course of the film, we see the boy grow from childhood to young manhood (where he is played by Tom Drake).

The film has a nice touch to it--with really nice acting and direction. About the only negative is that perhaps they tried too hard to stick with the original book, as there were so many story elements that seemed unnecessary and distracting, while several characters were never fully developed. A good example was the friend being hit by a train--it came from no where and did NOTHING to further the story. Also several family members' motivations and behaviors seemed oddly difficult to predict. A good re-write and streamlining of the novel would have improved things. Now I am NOT suggesting they should have shortened the film--just devoted more time to character development. Still, this is a lovely and entertaining film.