Cheap The Corn Is Green (Video) (Katharine Hepburn) (George Cukor) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of The Corn Is Green

The original film is a somewhat stagebound affair, the bulk of it obviously being shot on soundstages. In the 1978 film, much of it is shot on location. I think this works a bit against the material, making the characters seem "smaller" and less intense in some ways, while in the 1945 version the characters were more "larger than life". Nevertheless, it is interesting to see the use of outdoors and location settings, and it gives this version a unique spin that its predecessor lacks. This version also uses far more spoken Welsh, which is an improvement over the 1945 film. The use of the actual language helps convey a sense of place which is more "real" than the "Hollywood" effect in the Bette Davis movie. Also interesting is the only major difference in the material itself, which involves the fate of Evans' newborn child, and Evans' role in its upbringing. The 1978 film's treatment of the issue is more like a 1945 film, while the 1945 version handles things more like a 1978 film. This odd disparity may have something to do with Cukor's desire to "fix" an element he was unhappy with in 1945, the dictates and rules of 1970s television, or perhaps it just reflects a change in the attitudes of the day between 1945 and 1978.

Also telling is the difference between the taglines for the two films. In 1945, the story was about, "In her heart of hearts she knew she'd never hold him." In the 1978 telefim, it became, "The heartwarming classic of a teacher's dedication - and triumph!" The Bette Davis version of Moffat has the underlying and unspoken romantic (?) affection of the teacher towards her star pupil, which is completely lacking in the Hepburn version of the same character.

Both versions convey the story's roots from the stage play, and some scenes in both appear very much like a "staged" theatre production.

Unfortunately, for all of the pluses (of which I have only touched on a few), the original film is your best bet for a more "true" representation of the story.

Bette Davis had far more intensity and energy on display in the role of Lilly Moffat than Katherine Hepburn does in the telefilm. Davis was younger when she played Moffatt, while Hepburn was quite a bit older. Here, we see Hepburn well into the initial stages of her nervous illness, which gives her the "bobble-head" head-shaking tic and wavery voice that became her trademark in later years. She seems a bit frail throughout the telefilm, and lacks the intensity and power needed for some scenes (notably her in her confrontation with the Squire, and later when confronting Bessie). Kate tries so very hard, too, which leaves the viewer feeling kind of sad.

Ian Saynor looks and acts a bit like a young Kyle MacLaughlin at times, and has nothing on John Dall, who is far superior as Morgan Evans in the 1945 film. This is probably the same difference as there is between Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett in the role of Sherlock Holmes. While Brett has rightfully been hailed as the most "real" and "accurate" Holmes, Rathbone just seemed to have something going for him in the role that Brett did not. Anyway, this is what I kept thinking when looking over the young Saynor's performance; he's the Jeremy Brett, which is very good, while Dall was the Rathbone of the role, which is just very memorable and somehow definitive despite being less "real" or "accurate". This difference is also conveyed by the sets; like Rathbone on soundstages, and Brett in more realistic settings, here we have soundstages (1945) versus the location settings (1978).

The rest of the cast is excellent, though again, Bill Fraser is no Nigel Bruce, and Artro Morris is no Rhys Williams.

While the original film is the best out of the two, fans may get a treat from comparing the two versions, both helmed by George Cukor, to see not only the different styles of performance and different actors in the roles, but also to see how Cukor handled both, with some thirty-three years in between. I also liked the "time capsule" quality that the 1978 version offers us, allowing us to see an example of a high-quality television movie from the late 1970s.

THIS IS A TERRIFIC SHOW
Very entertaining film. I highly recommend this program to school educators. A valuable lesson is relayed - through dedication and hardwork one can overcome difficult circumstances and achieve personal dreams.

Great motivational film
We viewed this movie on television in our seventh month of pregnancy, and named our son after the protagonist, Morgan. The plot centers around reaching beyond the perceived limitsl of circumstance and class to an aspirant future. This is one of the old fashioned feel good movies that deserves a renaissance. And our son feel that he consequently has a star-crossed career in the theatre. We need to work on the logic of this...but for a thirteen year old, it is magic.