"Boy with Green Hair" is a film that challenges the concept that a film must have a complex message in order to have a profound one. The film's message is simple and it is not subtly stated this is a children's movie that wants to send an important message so I don't think it could afford to be. When you contrast the movie with some of the recent fantasy/faerie tale films like "Pan's Labrynth" that are unsuitable for children's viewing, it's pretty amazing that this film manages to tackle a topic like the evils of war in a way that's effective and yet completely non-violent. I think when you make an anti-war film that shows extreme violence (as did "Labrynth" as well as films like "Full Metal Jacket" and "Apocalypse Now") you're always running a risk that the violence itself will become exploitative and the film will contain a note of hypocrisy. In this case the film-makers, who included cult director Joseph Losey (who was later blacklisted from Hollywood and pursued a career in England), chose a completely symbolic approach to addressing the issue of war orphans and generally speaking the painful consequences of war. Given that the film aimed to communicate its ideas to children it's clear why they had to make the symbolism explicit. Although I'm not sure how well this film "holds up", I think it's also a remarkable children's movie for the fact that it shows a child in a really difficult dramatic situation (dealing with the loss of his parents and with rejection from his friends at school because of his little hair problem) and it doesn't talk down to the kid but rather treats his concerns seriously. This isn't one of those movies where you're supposed to laugh at how innocent the kid is, and it's not one of those movies where the kid teaches adults how they should behave. It's actually a sad statement about how our civilization countenances a tragedy that is clearly morally wrong. Just like the voice of a man's own conscience, a deaf ear can easily be turned to the child who dares to speak this obvious truth.
Dean Stockwell plays the "boy" of the film's title, and his performances makes up for a lot of the deficiencies technically or even artistically speaking with some other parts of the film. It was kind of strange how good he was compared to Robert Ryan, who was saddled with a dull role that had no narrative involvement. Even considering the limitations of the role his whole performance seemed oddly like that of a novice actor. Pat O'Brien fares a bit better in his role as the boy's guardian (there's an implication that he is not even related, as the boy has been shuttled from one relative to another until his supply of kin seems to have been exhausted this is told in a startlingly cold and direct montage showing the fronts of all the houses he's lived in ), though even considering the character is a former vaudevillian I thought his performance was much too broad. I want to emphasize however how little these limitations actually hurt the film, certainly from a child's perspective. Stockwell's performance is so dynamic and believable that it makes you feel like a space alien or some kind of god dropped him in the middle of this movie. Probably that's part of the desired effect in terms of the story of this boy with the "green hair". I can't imagine another child actor in any era who could have done a better job. Stockwell is a treasure of American cinema and he was showing it already as far back as this gem.
I don't have that much more to say about this movie; usually my comments are full of "spoilers" but for some reason in the case of this film I just don't think it's necessary to dissect the thing too much .. it is a gem after all. Not that it's a perfect film, but it also isn't a perfect world, is it? And this movie does describe the real world, in a way that I think probably communicates very strongly with young people. I do wish I had seen it as a youngster, because I just don't think it could possibly be as powerful for adults. Actually it kind of made me ashamed to be an adult in a world that could go on like this. Just like the adults who silenced the "green haired boy", I think there are adults who would silence the message of this film (and its director), but I think the real culprits are all of the rest of us, however well-intentioned: those of us who simply choose not to listen to or act upon such a self-evident truth.
p.s. is it just me because I have Harry Potter on my mind, or is this a possible influence on J.K. Rowling's stories? The film was quite a cult hit in England as is Losey in general, and we have many common elements here -- the orphan of war whose special (messainic) fate is marked out by a physical mark on his head? I've never heard of Rowling speaking of this movie but it wouldn't surprise me at all if she'd seen it as a youngster.
Dean Stockwell plays the "boy" of the film's title, and his performances makes up for a lot of the deficiencies technically or even artistically speaking with some other parts of the film. It was kind of strange how good he was compared to Robert Ryan, who was saddled with a dull role that had no narrative involvement. Even considering the limitations of the role his whole performance seemed oddly like that of a novice actor. Pat O'Brien fares a bit better in his role as the boy's guardian (there's an implication that he is not even related, as the boy has been shuttled from one relative to another until his supply of kin seems to have been exhausted this is told in a startlingly cold and direct montage showing the fronts of all the houses he's lived in ), though even considering the character is a former vaudevillian I thought his performance was much too broad. I want to emphasize however how little these limitations actually hurt the film, certainly from a child's perspective. Stockwell's performance is so dynamic and believable that it makes you feel like a space alien or some kind of god dropped him in the middle of this movie. Probably that's part of the desired effect in terms of the story of this boy with the "green hair". I can't imagine another child actor in any era who could have done a better job. Stockwell is a treasure of American cinema and he was showing it already as far back as this gem.
I don't have that much more to say about this movie; usually my comments are full of "spoilers" but for some reason in the case of this film I just don't think it's necessary to dissect the thing too much .. it is a gem after all. Not that it's a perfect film, but it also isn't a perfect world, is it? And this movie does describe the real world, in a way that I think probably communicates very strongly with young people. I do wish I had seen it as a youngster, because I just don't think it could possibly be as powerful for adults. Actually it kind of made me ashamed to be an adult in a world that could go on like this. Just like the adults who silenced the "green haired boy", I think there are adults who would silence the message of this film (and its director), but I think the real culprits are all of the rest of us, however well-intentioned: those of us who simply choose not to listen to or act upon such a self-evident truth.
p.s. is it just me because I have Harry Potter on my mind, or is this a possible influence on J.K. Rowling's stories? The film was quite a cult hit in England as is Losey in general, and we have many common elements here -- the orphan of war whose special (messainic) fate is marked out by a physical mark on his head? I've never heard of Rowling speaking of this movie but it wouldn't surprise me at all if she'd seen it as a youngster.