Vertes Demeures

Tony Perkins in tight pants, wrestling Henry Silva in loin cloth, in lagoon, for love of jungle princess Audrey Hepburn. Yep, that's about it. Tony and Audrey are supposed to be around 19 and 16 respectively, even though he's really 26 and she's pushing 30. Which is almost OK, since everything is so gauzy.

The story is silly and the production cheesy, and it all comes out like made-for-TV, which is a kind-of compliment, since it was released in 1959, which makes it ahead of its time, though, given the quality of made-for-TV, and that people had to buy a ticket to see this thing, that's not much consolation.

It's lush and ripe, and though they claim it's filmed in South America, I can see the familiar landscapes of the backlot and the flora and fauna of the San Diego Zoo. This one is borderline MST3000, so the best way to watch it is stoned.

After reading reviews of this film I expected it to be pretty bad. I wanted to see it anyway because I love Audrey Hepburn, and I always have an interest in seeing Anthony Perkins films since I loved him in Psycho (though I must admit I still haven't seen him do anything as well as he did Norman Bates.) So I put the tape in the VCR and expected something visually stimulating, but with a dull story. What I got was something visually stimulating, and a story interesting enough to keep me entertained. The scenery is gorgeous (though I agree with a previous comment that some of it looks fake), and Hepburn and Perkins are equally attractive. The music is heady and romantic (Tony Perkins sings - and he does this well!) A few scenes of primitive tribal rituals are the only inelegant parts of the film. I do think that Audrey Hepburn was miscast as "the bird girl"; she seems a bit too sophisticated for this type of role (and dare I say just a wee bit too old - she was about 30 at the time, playing a character constantly referred to as "that child.") But it doesn't matter. She was a great actress so she did this role well. Anthony Perkins did well at least in the more romantic scenes. The chemistry between them worked for me. The whole movie worked for me, at least on a hedonistic level. Green Mansions isn't a "great movie", but it's an enjoyable one.

I read this book in 8th grade English & loved it. After we finished reading the book, we watched the movie and I was thoroughly disappointed. They completely changed the ending, turning it into a sappy, everything's right in the world, Hollywood ending instead of the tragic ending of the book. Happy endings are great, but if you're going to make a movie from a book you should at least try to stay as close to the story line as possible. I'm normally a big Audrey Hepburn fan, but even she couldn't salvage this one for me. Don't waste your time with this movie-read the book instead.

Colorful locales, kitschy production design and a nice stroke of sado-masochism go a long way in making this obscure gem a guilty pleasure of jungle-lust adventure. Mel Ferrer directs the story like a comics classic, with his then-wife Audrey Hepburn playing a jungle girl with her usual Givenchy class, and Tony Perkins as a young Indiana-Jones type. Hokey and utterly inappropriate, but still enjoyably offbeat, especially when Perkins croons a love song. The other cast members fare much better: with Lee J. Cobb overacting perfectly as Audrey's old man; Sessue Hayakawa, laconic and petulant as the Indian chief; and Henry Silva, all wide-eyed enthusiasm as the warrior relishing his tortuous ritual of courage. Old-style Hollywood, matinee magic in CinemaScope, with the added wonder of Stereophonic sound.

Let's dispense with the good points first. At least SOME of the casting works. Specificly, I'm speaking, first, of Hepburn at her most mysterious and bewitching. No one else could have possibly played Rima with the fey charm tinged with mystery that Audrey, at her most radiant, brings to the role. Then, there's Henry Silva as a virile, villianous Indian. Silva, to my mind, was and still is one of the cinema's great heavies, and he doesn't disappoint here. His quiet underplaying vs. Tony Perkins' hammy overplaying when the former's duplicity is discovered is a perfect illustration of what stands the test of time and what doesn't. Plus, there are the beautiful Amazon locations and Bronislau Kaper's beautiful, understated score.

Now on to the bad points, and where better to begin that Tony Perkins' impossible miscasting in the lead. The lean, intense Perkins was always a masterly potrayer of angst, as Hitchcock discovered the next year. But he was never much of a conventional leading man, and this film, and the following year's "Tall Story," bring this weakness sharply into focus. Someone such as, say, Robert Wagner or Laurence Harvey, would have been far more believeable. They were the right age for the role, and both were under contract to MGM at the time. What were they thinking? Then there's Sessue Hayakawa, still riding high from his "River Kwai" comeback, as the most improbable native chieftan on record. At least he comports himself with his usual innate dignity. Mel Ferrer, Hepburn's husband at the time, was always a fine actor, but never more than an average director. One can invision a William Wyler (busy at the time with "Ben-Hur"), a George Cukor, or a William Dieterle as a far better director for this film. Finally, Dorothy Kingsly's screenplay fails to patch up the several sizable holes in the original W.H. Hudson story, particularly the "Is-she-dead-or-isn't-she?" ending.

In short, you could do worse that this film, but you could do much, much better, too.