The Years Between

The 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.

Embellished 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.

I 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.

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.

Compton Bennett deserves a high perched niche in British cinema for his clearly above average direction of films such as THE YEARS BETWEEN, SO LITTLE TIME, THE DESPERATE MOMENT.

A theatrical play by Daphne du Maurier provides the basis for YEARS BETWEEN. As tends to be the note with du Maurier, female and male characters interact rather realistically, in this instance a couple (Hobson and Redgrave) separated early on in WWII when the hubby goes to war and within a week is declared deceased by the Home Office. Of course, he is alive and returns to reclaim his wife and also his position as MP... which she has fllled in the meantime. What emerges is a way ahead of its time battle of the sexes regarding jobs and how women are as good, if not better than, men at what they do. The point is further driven home by a rather secretive Redgrave who fails to tell his beloved wife why he did not try to apprise her of his live status, even after he returns home.

Meanwhile, Hobson develops the hots for a close friend of Redgrave's - Richard, well played by James McKechnie - and even decides to marry him because she begins to find Redgrave's obtuse selfishness more than a trifle intolerable.

Well, she finds out that he had no option but hide that intelligence from her (though he had no reason to do so after his return) and her wifely loyalty eventually wins the day.

Competent cinematography by Reginald Wyer, largely credible though convenient, too, script, with acting by Redgrave, Hobson, Robson and McKechnie the cherry on a cake of a flick.

Definitely worth watching. 8/10.