Entertaining,we'll acted story of growing up and facing life's choices.
Add a Review
-
fmwongmd30 September 2019
-
exnyker23 July 2005I had never seen "The Yearling" (any version of it) until this summer (2005). After having read about the original 1947 movie - and knowing the music from the failed 1960's Broadway version (same title) - I finally bought the DVD of the 1947 movie, and popped it into the DVD player, and watched.
I found the 1947 movie incredibly moving - surprisingly so, actually... It was a carefully crafted work of art - one that kept your eyes moist at low levels for long periods of time, so that it wasn't about a big, tear-jerker ending, as much as it was the cumulative effect of having been on the brink of a good cry for such a long period of time. (I hope that makes sense to someone out there...)
I liked the 1947 film so much, that I decided to take a chance on this one. When this video arrived (not available on DVD), I was actually leery of putting it into the VCR - afraid that a TV version would ruin the story for me, forever...
I'm happy to report this TV movie can stand on its own. In no way does it ever come off as a made-for-TV movie. The production values are very impressive. The cinematography is beautiful - nothing short of beautiful. Ron hardy did a remarkable job of directing this effort - staying true to characters, and getting surprisingly effective performances out of this TV-movie cast. And the performances are - like the camera work - nothing short of beautiful.
I was both pleased - and relieved - by two performances, right off. Peter Strauss, as the father, and Wil Horneff, as the boy Jody. Gregory Peck (an actor I have always liked) played the father in the 1947 version - and came close to ruining the film for me, in several key scenes. His acting in that film was very..."stilted" - not real... Peter Strauss, on the other hand, "lived" his part on camera, right before your eyes. If he didn't say one word in this movie, he still would've conveyed all the emotion of that role. (I'd forgotten how much I loved watching his face on screen.) He is remarkable.
Wil Horneff, as Jody, also was such a welcomed relief. It would've been so easy for a TV-movie to have made this part "cute" or "saccharine" - not so, here. The young Mr. Horneff was directed to be "honest" - and it is such a joy to watch him. He's a little older than Claude Jarman, who played it in the 1947 movie - or at least appears so. Jarman seemed still a boy (had his voice even changed yet?), and Horneff is on the brink of becoming a young man (his voice is in the "deepening stages" at this point in his life). Both boys were wonderful in their interpretations - both interpretations valid. Claude Jarman was a little more childlike, which some might prefer. Wil Horneff is a little more "everyday kid" - which others might prefer. Regardless, both are wonderful child actors.
Jean Smart, as the mother, is worth getting the movie for - just to watch her. Her role is much different than the way it was written for Jane Wyman. Ms. Smart was given a much meatier role - the original left much to the imagination, as to why she's like she is, or why does her husband still love her, etc. This new version fleshes it out more for the audience. You feel her pain. You feel her anger. You feel her frustration. To watch Jean Smart's face as she goes through these emotions - sometimes all within a few minutes! - is heartbreaking. She obviously understands every nuance in the mother's characterization - and delivers like you won't believe.
As a matter of fact, Peter Strauss, Jean Smart and Wil Horneff ALL deliver powerful, powerful performances.
Is the movie without fault or flaws? No.
I was surprised - and somewhat disappointed - in how they portrayed Fodder- Wing. He's practically nonexistent in this movie. Not my favorite character in the original, but I would've liked to see how a re-make would've filmed the same scenes. In short, they basically didn't film the same scenes - they cut his part down to about 5 lines of dialog. I also liked the ending better in the 1947 movie, where Jody goes to sleep and dreams of his yearling. That, I miss in this version.
It was interesting to see how scenes/dialog varied from the 1947 version to the 1994 TV version. I never read the book, so I don't know if one version is more faithful to the book or not. It didn't bother me so much - because I don't know the book - but I suppose things like this might bother someone else.
So, do I recommend this? By all means. It's a good tug-at-your-heart movie, beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted. -
Young boy faces major heart breaking decision about keeping his first pet - This is the catalyst to this wonderful home grown drama set just after the Civil War...
Adaption of Washington DC born - MARJORIE KINNAN RAWLING's adventure novel THE YEARLING - it may be of interest to know she was born in the mid 1890s and ended her days in Florida where this adaption is set, in the Post Civil war period. "Yearling" is faithfully acted - the temptation to compare it to the original with Gregory Peck and Jane Wyman, is always mentioned, but this tele-play certainly holds its own.
Wil one 'L' Horneff portrayed JODY with passion and charisma, and never took his finger off the pulse for one second; His father, played by PETER STRAUSS, created a believable on screen presence as Father and Son; [imo] STRAUSS flowed with an inner a plethora of emotions without effort, and JEAN SMART portrayed the 'disconected' Mother extremely well (to avoid spoilers - wait to see the background - you'll know why she played it this way).
Her acting of borderline fear of intimacy had many layers - helping to propel the underpinning of the film's message. In THIS instance (imo) I felt she was a little superior Ora Baxter portrayed in the novel.
Fodderwing, played by Jared Blancard was a little lost in this adaption, and lacked the 'belonging' that the other characters had. The character seemed to not be one with the elements or portray a sense of the esoteric that Don Gift gave in the 40s original.
A VERY WATCHABLE FAMILY film, and even though made for TV, it is easy to become part of the whole energy of the boy to man angst, delicate touches, tear-jerking scenes and portrayal of what a man has to do; ideal for those who don't or are to lazy to read books! -
From the stable of HALLMARK station-type classics. -
This movie was quite lacking. It took a lot of creative liberties, erasing key events and characters within the story. The pacing made it difficult to have any sympathy for characters. Ma Baxter was nothing like she was in the book in more ways than one, "vast...bulk" (Rawlings, 19). 2 stars rather 1 is to give credit that it is a better adaptation of its textual counterpart than (let's say) "Troy" is to the "Iliad," or "Call of the Wild." As the story is a bildungsroman, Jody should be seen to grow, but the movie lacks any development of his character. If you read the book, the movie is fun to laugh at. Fodder Wing dies. Flag dies. Where is Grandma Hutto?! Did she die? Why did the director not choose to have Jody throw a potato at Eulalie Boyles??? Erm, I am a Literature teacher, and I care about the quality lessons contained in didactic novels. The choice to omit the greatest lesson: "you cain't go thru life chunkin' things at all the ugly women you meet" (133) is a lamentable thing. As a Florida Man myself, the landscape is portrayed very well, as is the reckless spirit of the backwoods Florida Man, personified in the Forresters. If you truly want to experience The Yearling in all its glory, read the book. Back to the swamp for me.
-
satterwh24 April 2004Another user compared this to the original. Actually, I think this adaptation of "The Yearling" is better than the original ... but the original is by far the better film. While the acting in this version is very good - superior to many films made today - there is simply nothing to compare to Gregory Peck and Jane Wyman from the original. It is not that this version is in any way lacking, it is that the original set the bar so high that it's not really fair to compare the two.
I thought Wil Horneff captured the part of Jody very well. I thought he was absolutely believable. Peter Strauss was very good as his father, but I thought Jean Smart was lacking as his mother. She had the emptiness that the part calls for, but needed a little more of the coldness that Ora Baxter showed in the book.
Jared Blancard completely missed the target as Fodderwing, in my opinion. The character should have a sense of mystical wonder and awe at nature which Jared simply didn't show. The part isn't large (relatively), but it is pivotal. Don Gift had it down perfectly in the original.
All in all, this is a very good film. It's great for the family and stands on its own. -
Greeting,
This was a well done re-make of the an American Classic. The acting was superb, the filming was more visually complete, and this is a must for any 13 teen year old who has to do a book report for school...not to mention the parent helping.
No kidding as a 7th grader I had to read this book as well and I can tell you that as an adult this is one that you will enjoy helping your kid with, if you rent the video first. By the way the Wil Horneff,Jean Smart,and Peter Straus combination could not have been more perfectly selected as the leads in this coming of age classic. -
srmccarthy1 September 2002This is the first version of this movie that I have ever seen. Because it was so enjoyable, I decided to check out the original. I must tell you that this is a good movie, but after seeing the original (1946) version, this is a big let down! This version will do (if you have not seen the original), but it omits the essential quality that would make it a classic (like the original) and that is the 1 hour of family life and the expression of a child dreaming.
-
Caught some of this on TV. Compared to the '47 classic Hollywood version, which I have seen many times over the years, it comes across as a more realistic portrayal, in some respects, of the likely people in this backwoods central Florida habitat of the post -Civil War. It's 30 min. shorter than the original, in its adaptation of the '38 popular novel of the same name. Both were shot in color, and both clearly were shot on location in the real habitat described in the novel. The actors seem more realistic as backwoods pioneers, lacking the glamor of Gregory Peck, Jane Wyman, and cherry-cheeked Claude Jarmin, as the main characters. Claude, although new to Hollywood, was the final choice in a nationwide hunt for the perfect child to play Jody. Clearly, he was younger and more child-like than Wil Horneff, who played Jody here. Despite many criticisms of Claude's acting and characterization at the IMDb site for that film, I find him much more endearing than Wil. On the other hand, Peck's Penny comes across as from too genteel a background to be satisfied with such a hard-scramble life. Peter Strauss seems a much more believable Penny. Jean Smart plays a more vocal and animated, less traumatized, Ora than Jane Wyman's largely silent character, who seemed resigned to the fact that Jody, as the last remaining of 4 children she birthed, would likely also die before reaching maturity. Thus, through most of that film, she was set on withholding her motherly affection toward Jody, having seen it wasted on her other 3 children. The actors who here portrayed the distant Forrester neighbors portrayed them as generally more uncouth than in the original.
The traumatized encounter with Slew foot: the marauding bear, was equally well done in both films: a difficult shoot....The implication that the deer liver treatment of the rattlesnake bite was probably effective enough to allow Penny to barely survive it's effects is suspect. I assume this was a local folk remedy that the novel author picked up, but I doubt if it is effective, even if applied soon.
As far as the screen play, taken from the novel, is concerned, I find it difficult to believe that there weren't other deer in the forest who would be as destructive of the their crops as Flag, not to mention probable feral swine. However, the point is well taken that cherished pets and habits must sometimes be discarded when they become a severe threat to your well being. -
One of the most lasting memories of this film is the quality of acting. Not only is it outstandingly good, but the characters actually *feel* like they're in a book. It's hard to describe, but watching the film actually feels like you're seeing what the reader sees!
Peter Strauss fans will be treated to his usual talent and easy ability with accents, as well as his knack for bringing his character to life and making the viewer empathise with him. I always find his acting very compelling.
Jean Smart brilliantly captures the essence of Ora Baxter, but in very subtle ways that might escape the casual viewer. When Ora does finally express herself outwardly, it's all the more effective when Jean cuts loose!
Wil Horneff was only 14 or so at the time of filming, but his skill is that you'd only expect of a far older and more seasoned actor.
Philip Seymour Hoffman and Brad Greenquist do an outstanding job. It takes very smart acting to play dumb and these roles of 'dumb swamp folk' are an exceptional challenge, which they carried off very well.
As with all films based on novels, there are differences in the way each is presented. Some things on paper will not work on film and vice versa. For the main, this version presents the story very well and retains the emotional essence of the book. You can tell where the story is going almost from the outset, but this is not a tale of where the characters go - It's about how they get there!!
This film will appeal to all ages and I personally wish I'd seen this a lot sooner!!