Colonel Michael Wentworth (Michael Redgrave) goes to war and is reported dead after some time. His wife refuses to accept that he is dead and is slowly but definitely breaking up especially psychologically, so she is persuaded to do something about her situation and take her husband's seat in parliament, although she knows nothing about politics. However, she grows into the profession and even becomes popular, and so four years pass, and after this eternity of a bloody war the husband suddenly comes home without warning. He has been a prisoner of war and has had no possibility to communicate about his surviving his own death. Then the problems begin.
Michael Redgrave and Valerie Hobson are always worth watching, and this is even a story by Daphne du Maurier, who wrote only good stories (like "Rebecca"). So the film is interesting indeed but totally without drama, it's like a domestic play about difficulties of relationships because of the war, another man coming home from the war having lost his leg in it and doesn't want to continue with his wife any more because of that, and other things like that. It's all right as a time document, anticipating the problems resulting from the peace, problems that no one had expected and that suddenly come importuning, causing new conflicts where there were none. Good play, good direction, good music, but merely an insight just passing by.
Add a Review
-
clanciai27 December 2020
-
geoffm6029513 January 2021I have mixed feelings about the film, which concerns wealthy Diana Wentworth, played by the delightful and convincing Valerie Hobson, who is left alone after her husband, Michael, played by Michael Redgrave, who happens to be an MP, goes off to war. His five year absence however clearly indicates he's been killed, and although she is emotionally distraught, she is eventually coaxed into taking an active role in politics to overcome her grief by becoming an MP for her ex husband's constituency. Her new career not only leads to a new found confidence and purpose in life, but also to finding romance along the way with a long time family friend, Richard, played by James McKechnie. The dialogue is credible, with Hobson, along with 'nanny' played by the indomitable Flora Robson, dominating the film by their strong acting. However, when Michael, the husband returns, he soon realises that his wife is not the same kind of obedient woman he'd left behind when he left to go overseas. The film loses its way at this point and becomes somewhat dour and turgid, as husband and wife try to redefine their roles to the new circumstances of peacetime. Redgrave's return and his embittered feelings caused by his long time absence from the family home reduces the sparkle and vitality of the storyline. 'The new woman' now loses her poise, as she has to play second fiddle to her husband by pandering to his emotional needs. Nevertheless, although a dated film, it does highlight the problems of husbands returning from the war and the problems of 'picking up the pieces' of married life. Overall, it's a decent film, but I found Michael Redgrave rather too stiff and starchy in the role of the long lost husband! His character frankly is uninteresting and rather dull and his constant bleating overshadows the film.
-
anil-kulkarni-108-8566310 May 2021Embellished and elegant take on what happens to war widows in the post WWII era.
A war vet returns after being presumed dead to a world changed drastically on his domestic front.
The story reflects the mores of the time and the pat ending gives it away. But the acting is first rate and youget to see post war Britain for a bit. -
drednm28 March 2015Subtle drama about war and marriage. Valerie Hobson plays uppercrust wife who gets a telegram during WW II stating her husband (Michael Redgrave) has been killed. To get her out of her deep depression, friends persuade her to take her husband's seat in Parliament. She is surprised to learn she liked it. The years go by.
She's about to married a local dullard when she gets another telegram. Redgrave is alive after all, and has been a prisoner of war for all these years. When he returns, things are very unsettling. He expects everything to be the way it was, but much has changed, especially the wife.
He expects her to give up her seat, but she refuses. As the postman (Edward Rigby) keeps telling everyone, nothing will be the same after the war. He's right. Hobson finds she's indifferent to Redgrave after all these years. He keeps complaining about all the changes.
The kicker is what he really did during the war, what he couldn't tell anyone, even his wife.
Redgrave and Hobson are terrific in their roles, even if they are written rather narrowly. Flora Robson is also solid as the "nanny" who seems to have more common sense than either the husband or the wife. Others include James McKechnie as the dullard, Felix Aylmer as a politician, Dulcie Gray as Judy, Esma Cannon as the cook, and Wylie Watson as Venning.
Worth a look. -
boblipton26 May 2021MP Michael Graves is called up and is soon reported as dead. His widow, Valerie Hobson, is devastated. A conspiracy sets up to give her a purpose, by running her for her husband's seat, and soon enough she is making her maiden speech in Parliament., and is thinking about remarrying Then Redgrave returns.
This Enoch Arden tale is given a modernist twist, with the subtext brought out into the open: hasn't Redgrave a right to expect to come back to the England and the marriage her left? Hasn't Miss Hobson the right to keep the position she has earned? It's based on a Daphne Du Maurier play, given the gleam that Sidney Box's production team could. I found the first half to be more enjoyable, watching Miss Hobson grow.... and the second half is well done, but it seems grumpy. -
richardchatten12 January 2021Although based upon a play by Daphne du Maurier in which Valerie Hobson becomes an M.P., the film makes Westminster seem more like a hobby than a vocation.
With the return from a P.O.W camp of Michael Redgrave (who actually seems to have lost weight for the part) playing a character harbouring a secret similar to the role he'd just played in 'The Captive Heart' it becomes more concerned with the impact the war must have had on plenty of marriages, and at about the halfway mark it moves into 'Brief Encounter' territory before the profound questions it raises are suddenly dropped and it abruptly ends. -
CinemaSerf8 January 2023Valerie Hobson ("Diana") is widowed during WWII - her late husband, the local Member of Parliament. After an extended period of mourning that shows little sign of ending, her nanny Flora Robson sets a few wheels in motion that results in her former charge being elected to succeed her husband in Parliament. Initially nervous, she ultimately rises to the task, and manages to fall in love again - this time, thanks to a timely air-raid, with "Richard" (James McKenchnie). Then an altogether different sort of bomb drops - and she must rewind her life some four years and deal with some truly unforeseen circumstances. Hobson is good in this film, as is Robson who delivers quite a few poignant one-liners and even a short speech towards the end on the responsibilities and opportunities of those left to win the peace after the war had been won. Michael Redgrave also features, as "Col. Wentworth", a troubled man with a mission that involved all sorts of sacrifices for King and Country. "Diana" develops her newly found role into one of determination and humanity - she takes up the cudgels for a great many women who were left at home, widowed; their children relocated, having to make ends meet as best they can in the face of the horror of war. It's got something more real about it, this film and as their postman always moans: "things will never be the same again" - he might well be right.
-
belloper-tv10 May 2023It was a nice surprise that women during WW2 was a subject in the first half of the movie. This period in time is when women learned they could work, take care of their family and do what they needed to do. This film was pro-women which is surprising in this 1946 picture. I thought Michael Redgrave did a fine job in this role. Yes he was stiff but I think he did a fine job in betraying how men reacted to returning home to a different world and women. I think this film was realistic in how WW2 changed lives in more than one way. I still believe that the movie 'The Best Years of our Lives' was the best after-WW2 movie and I'll give 'The Years Between' second best.
-
sheenajackie24 August 2010The Years Between has dated badly. Valerie Hobson and Michael Redgrave are wonderful actors - although Valerie Hobson is always so correct, so well-spoken, so perfect (ideal for Estella in Great Expectations, but not for the character in this contrived set-up). But the film is unconvincing. The play was probably worse - though I suspect the performance and interpretation were not exactly what Daphne Du Maurier originally wanted - she audaciously tried to present a story of how love changes, how people change, how the past cannot be revived, especially after the trauma of war (and her own experience had taught her that). But her actors and directors were unable to transfer her real intentions to the screen. The story is actually quite believable. People were singled out for special duties which could involve faked death and they did return. Meanwhile, their nearest and dearest could well fall in love again and re-marry, not knowing the truth. But this time the plot is too implausible - it would have been simpler had the heroine not taken her supposed dead husband's place in the House of Commons. She could have simply made her own career in the Forces or Civil Service - and not wanted to forsake it when hubby returns and wants a return to domesticity. Celia Johnson could have played the part with more aplomb and more feeling - torn between returned husband and new lover (but that's just my preference).
But, despite disappointment, I'm glad I got the opportunity to see this film - caught by chance on Movies4Men, I'm surprised it hasn't been shown on Film 4 or TCM - it's a likely candidate. And Michael Redgrave and Valerie Hobson are always worth watching. Flora Robson, as usual, overplayed the melodrama. The denouement with wife returning to husband was appropriate for the period (1946 - no one wanted adultery etc. to be condoned at this time) but we could have done without Valerie Hobson running madly across the lawns to reach her husband and making out she truly wanted to be reunited. Dramatic licence fitting the post-war propaganda sheet here I think - in retrospect she would have been better off staying with her lover - who seemed to be a better dad to son Robin anyway.
Never mind, an interesting little film despite all its flaws. -
malcolmgsw16 January 2006The problem about this film is that it admits that the end of the war caused a great deal of marital disharmony and divorces but does not go the whole hog.Unfortunately it does not inhabit the world of the folk who would be watching this in their local Odeons.It had to be about a resistance organiser who is also an MP and his wife who has taken over his seat on the presumption of his death.Then he(Michael Redgrave)turns up having been held in captivity and wants to assume that everything should be as it was before the war.His wife initially does not.At this point the film is i believe reasonably accurate.However given the censorship of the times the most likely outcome is ignored.Whislt there are moments of interest i have to say that notwithstanding the understated performances of all concerned this is far too earnest and dull.