The Yearling

Another 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.

A couple (Peter Strauss and Jean Smart) and their young son (Wil Horneff) face the challenges of life in the Big Shrub, aka Ocala National Forest in north-central Florida. The things they deal with include a troubling bear, a rattlesnake bite, a flood, and their moonshining neighbors (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Brad Greenquist, etc.).

"The Yearling" (1994) sticks close to the 1938 classic novel by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, except for two things: It transports the events from the post-Civil War years to the Great Depression and it (wisely) omits Jody's attempted canoe trip to Boston at the end.

While it's a wilderness drama/adventure, it's reminiscent of a Western in ways. Speaking of which, 1966's "The Night of Grizzly" featuring Clint Walker was obviously inspired by Rawlings' book. While I like that flick, this is the better film, regardless of whether it was made-for-TV.

What makes it so good? For one, it successfully puts the viewer in that time and place with authentic locations (no studio sets or SoCal locations like in the 1946 version with Gregory Peck). The cast members really get into their characters, augmented by their grubby clothes and discolored teeth; they're totally believable.

Furthermore, amidst the depressing happenings are warmhearted bits, like the love of the father and son. Plus, the melee at the town party perks up the story and is well done. I've been to such get-togethers in real life where the locals assemble for food & drink and things like what transpires in the story really happen. Consider Lem Forrester (Greenquist), we all know troublemakers just like him.

It runs 1 hour, 39 minutes, and was shot in the Ocala National Forest area at Silver Springs State Park and Juniper Prairie Wilderness.

GRADE: B+/A-

I 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.

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.

Entertaining,we'll acted story of growing up and facing life's choices.