Green Mansions (1959) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
53 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
A dreamlike forest fantasy in search of a meaningful plot...
Doylenf4 April 2011
Perhaps Mel Ferrer was not the right director for this sort of whimsical fantasy. Whatever, the dreamlike quality of the forest settings (some real, some with painted backgrounds on studio sets), combined with lifeless direction and uneven script, makes this a disappointment from beginning to end.

ANTHONY PERKINS, AUDREY HEBURN and LEE J. COBB are never able to flesh out their characters. Hepburn seems oddly miscast in a role requiring very little of her talent. Perkins does slightly better but again is hampered by a weak role that tries to give him a few heroics but fails to ignite any sparks with Hepburn or any of his co-players. Lee J. Cobb has the most substantial character to play and does it well enough.

The whole film seems like a low point in the careers of all involved despite gorgeous Technicolor photography and an interesting background score. No wonder the public stayed away.

The foolish ending with Perkins and Hepburn voicing some tired clichés about finding love is cringe-worthy.

Summing up: A true misfire for all concerned.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Dreamlike
Cheetah-612 December 2001
Anthony Perkins does seem a little out of place in this beautifully shot, unique film from 1959. That is, until he makes it to the inner jungle and meets the bird girl Audrey Hepburn. In the romantic scenes with her, the two of them work quite well. The scene where he plays guitar and sings his love song to Rima (Hepburn) and seeing her face as he woos her, is the definite highlight for me. When he's trying to play the tough, strong guy it's a bit laughable. The cinematography is stunning and the Venezuelan jungle comes off as an idyllic fantasy place that's a sensual delight to watch. (The fakiness doesn't distract from the beauty but only helps to give it an otherworldly look. I really don't think it was intended to appear real) Overall this is not a very good film, but there's a romantic, sexual and fantasy appeal to the jungle scenes with Hepburn and Perkins that fuels the imagination for a film that could have been. Watching Hepburn prance around the jungle and glide along tree branches in that lithe way of hers is enough reason to watch this very different and amusing tale from the late 50's.
24 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Awful, but . . .
jacksflicks7 May 2009
Tony Perkins in tight pants, wrestling Henry Silva in loin cloth, in lagoon, for love of jungle princess Audrey Hepburn. Yep, that's about it. Tony and Audrey are supposed to be around 19 and 16 respectively, even though he's really 26 and she's pushing 30. Which is almost OK, since everything is so gauzy.

The story is silly and the production cheesy, and it all comes out like made-for-TV, which is a kind-of compliment, since it was released in 1959, which makes it ahead of its time, though, given the quality of made-for-TV, and that people had to buy a ticket to see this thing, that's not much consolation.

It's lush and ripe, and though they claim it's filmed in South America, I can see the familiar landscapes of the backlot and the flora and fauna of the San Diego Zoo. This one is borderline MST3000, so the best way to watch it is stoned.
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Appealing romance, at least
jann-629 October 2000
After reading reviews of this film I expected it to be pretty bad. I wanted to see it anyway because I love Audrey Hepburn, and I always have an interest in seeing Anthony Perkins films since I loved him in Psycho (though I must admit I still haven't seen him do anything as well as he did Norman Bates.) So I put the tape in the VCR and expected something visually stimulating, but with a dull story. What I got was something visually stimulating, and a story interesting enough to keep me entertained. The scenery is gorgeous (though I agree with a previous comment that some of it looks fake), and Hepburn and Perkins are equally attractive. The music is heady and romantic (Tony Perkins sings - and he does this well!) A few scenes of primitive tribal rituals are the only inelegant parts of the film. I do think that Audrey Hepburn was miscast as "the bird girl"; she seems a bit too sophisticated for this type of role (and dare I say just a wee bit too old - she was about 30 at the time, playing a character constantly referred to as "that child.") But it doesn't matter. She was a great actress so she did this role well. Anthony Perkins did well at least in the more romantic scenes. The chemistry between them worked for me. The whole movie worked for me, at least on a hedonistic level. Green Mansions isn't a "great movie", but it's an enjoyable one.
36 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I can see why this one lost money at the box office.
planktonrules19 November 2021
"Green Mansions" is one of the few Audry Hepburn movies that lost money. Despite her great track record and all the gloss MGM can heap on a film, it failed to click with audiences...and after seeing it, I can understand why. The story was bizarre, the casting decisions bizarre and the dialog was occasionally quite silly.

The story begins with Abel (Anthony Perkins) running away from Venezuela. He heads towards the jungle and soon is captured by a nasty native tribe. They threaten to kill him but back down when he doesn't seem scared of them. So, they become friends and the chief asks Abel to head further into the jungle to kill a strange girl named Rima (Audrey Hepburn). Instead, however, he falls for her after she saves his life. Obviously his new tribal friends won't be happy he didn't kill her. What's next? See the film...or watch something else!

Anthony Perkins in Venezuela, Hepburn as Rima and Sessue Hayakawa (a Japanese actor) as the chief! What were the folks at MGM thinking?!? To top it off, the script is simply weird...and I can't see why they wanted to bring this book to the big screen. To make matters worse, they are in the dense Amazonian jungle...yet some of the scenes filmed outside the sound stage were at Lone Pine....which is a dry, desert-like area near Mt. Whitney....and which looks about as much like the Amazon as New York City! Lone Pine was mostly used to film old B-westerns....and it seemed weird to film jungle stuff there!

So is there anything I like about this one? Well, the musical score was VERY impressive...quite evocative and stately. The widescreen color also looked nice. But when you have to talk about music and color, it means the film isn't very good. Overall, it looks like someone was filming a B-adventure film, like "Cobra Woman", but did it with an A-picture budget.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bizarre Yet Interesting
jackmagicjck214 July 2005
I have heard people harp on and on about how bad this movie is and how Anthony Perkins and Audrey Hepburn were sooooo miscast! While the film is certainly no 'Psycho' or 'Roman Holiday', it is a lot better than people give it credit for. Everyone seems to come down pretty hard on Perkins especially, because he seems out of place or isn't 'rugged enough' for the role. Those people probably are the people who want to see him as Norman Bates and nothing else. I think his performance was just fine. He has this sensitivity and this almost childlike innocence, and sense of adventure that i think is ideal. He is no John Wayne, he is like an adventurous young child. But that innocence is perfect for the scenes he has with Hepburn. and while he is not the traditional leading man, it makes him all the more interesting. I think if the male lead was too good looking it would just be phony looking. Audrey Hepburn's trademark gentleness is ideal for this part. My only complaint about her is the fact that her hair and her make-up are flawless no matter what, but it really isn't her fault. Originally cast was Pier Angeli, who although a good actress lacked the same kind of gentleness that Hepburn had. If anyone looks silly here it's Lee J. Cobb. He looks more like a cross between Santa Claus, and a hillbilly, more than a South American. As for the film itself, it started off really well, but got kind of bizarre as it went on. After the scene were the three leads, leave Rima's (Hepburn) home i started to lose my interest. And when it came time for big emotional outbursts the actors fail to deliver. One of Hepburn's emotional outbursts comes out of nowhere, and is so phony i can't even explain. She wasn't so great at being angry i guess. However the intimate scenes between Perkins and Hepburn are moving. and i think this was the first time Hepburn took on a 'sexy' role like this. This is not her worst movie, i think it's actually better than 'Charade,' which i thought was overrated. The film has it's flaws but those flaws do not just lie in the performances as most people say.
38 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Jungle Rot
st-shot26 June 2010
How this comic book travesty of a film ever got past its early dailies without anyone getting fired or the film itself getting scrapped is probably testament to the star power of Audrey Hepburn and Anthony Perkins in 1959. What a disaster in widescreen picture making.

Abel (Perkins) on the run from a South American government makes his way deep into the interior jungle where he is captured by natives, He escapes death by going into a marathon monologue (honest) that dissuades his captors. Enter Rima the Bird Girl (Hepburn) accompanied by her doe sidekick. Abel is smitten but has to deal with her step father ( Lee J. Cobb as carnivorous and over the top as he's ever been. ) and those pesky natives led by an anemic Sessue Hyakawa.

It is miscasting at its best with Perkins one embarrassing Indiana Jones. A malt shop refugee there is not an ounce of believability to be found in this fish out of water. Wispy Audrey Hepburn as a delicate jungle girl is every bit as ridiculous as Perkins macho posing.

Some of the second unit work displays some breathtaking South American landscape but then back then so did Cinerama and we didn't have to put up with watching two commendable actors get stuck in quick sand.
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An embarrassing admission
ccamp317512 June 2012
Given that this poor old movie might be surpassed for "feyness" only by the likes of William Shatner's Incubus, I hesitate to reveal that I watched TMC's entire presentation of it, through to the bitter end. I suppose I should really be embarrassed, moreover, that the reason I hung on, was none other than the fact that SHE cavorts in that rather clingy sheath for the entire length of the film. At least one other fan, though, admits to a rather lascivious interest the other star, the one without his shirt, (re: the 2009 thread above), so I probably won't be chastised for my insensitivity to Green Mansions' preciocities, and frankly salacious attraction to the incarnation(s) of A. Hepburn starring in it. I must say I was quite rapt with the way that shift stretches tight over her haunches as she scrambles up the rocks, and with the not infrequent display of wedgies, both fore and aft. Especially because there are basically no titillating scenes from the rest of her career, one quick shot of her in a swim suit beside the pool in Two for the Road notwithstanding. And, although I do love a skinny girl, IMHO, she is just a little healthier-looking in Green Mansions, and surely, she was very young. To my lasting chagrin, though, it's 2012, I'm 67, and I've never even heard of this bloody film. Thank the great movie spirits though, as usual, at TMC, for revealing to us new sides, as it were, of this eternal cutie-pie.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Hepburn in an Odd Though Watchable Curio as a Jungle Girl
EUyeshima23 August 2006
This must surely be the strangest movie that Audrey Hepburn made, though it's not without its virtues. Directed by her-then husband, actor Mel Ferrer, the 1959 movie is a fanciful adventure story where Hepburn plays Rima, a nymph-like "bird girl" living in the remotest part of the Venezuelan jungle. She is being hunted by the local Indian tribesmen for being an evil spirit, but she is protected first by her grandfather Nuflo and then by Abel, a young political refugee whom she rescues after he is bitten by a deadly coral snake. The slowly-paced story initially focuses on Abel's hazardous journey into the jungle with Joseph Ruttenberg's cinematography nicely capturing the authentic Amazon locations.

Rima shows up as a shadowy figure about a half-hour into the film and doesn't speak until about ten minutes later. Leave it to Hepburn to exhibit any sort of conviction in such an impossible role. Looking ethereal if a little too styled and coiffed (even without Givenchy) and sounding entirely too Euro-cosmopolitan, she still exudes Rima's innocence while discovering the darker secrets of her past. The rest of the cast is not as lucky. Anthony Perkins, a year away from "Psycho", is irritatingly unctuous as Abel when he is not simply confounded by his heroic role. His low point has to be the ridiculous scene when he sings a love song to Rima as he strums his guitar. And where exactly did the guitar come from? Familiar character actors show up in the oddest roles. Lee J. Cobb, heavily made up as a cross between Uncle Jesse Duke and Santa Claus, turns in yet another ham-fisted performance as Nuflo, and Henry Silva is cast as another exotic as the ultimately nefarious tribal leader. Nehemiah Persoff has a small bit at the beginning as a greedy trader, while Sessue Hayakawa, of all people, has a mostly silent role as the tribal leader. Adding to the artifice is the obvious use of soundstages and matte shots to replicate the jungle, and the ending is pure Hollywood sappiness. This is a curio for Hepburn fans.
20 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The oddest movie in Audrey Hepburn's filmography
MissSimonetta24 April 2020
In the 1950s and 1960s, Mel Ferrer often wanted then-wife Audrey Hepburn in artsier projects that would showcase her versatility. Sometimes, that led to interesting and challenging roles as in TWO FOR THE ROAD (which Ferrer pushed for Hepburn to appear in) and WAIT UNTIL DARK (which Ferrer produced and made a small vocal cameo in). Other times, it resulted in artistic misfire, as in GREEN MANSIONS, an infamous jungle adventure in which Hepburn is a wild forest woman and Anthony Perkins is an Indiana Jones style adventurer. Ferrer directed.

When remembered at all, GREEN MANSIONS tends to be dismissed as a kitschy embarrassment, but it's hardly the biggest Hollywood bomb I have ever seen. The hokey elements tend to be more entertaining than anything else, and while both Hepburn and Perkins are miscast, they at least share tender chemistry that makes their romance affecting. I felt much worse for silent film legend and later character actor Sessue Hayakawa as the native chief.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
audrey too sophisticated, tony terrible
eek-a-mouse14 July 2005
As a child I always heard that Green Mansions was filmed in my native land, British Guiana, now Guyana.It was one of our early claims to fame.So last night with some excitement I struggled to stay up and watch it for the first time.The opening credits are set against the background of the mighty Kaieteur falls and the Kanuku mountains, and then I was a trifle chastened to see the acknowledgements which thanked the governments of British Guiana,Venezuela AND Colombia.

Tony Perkins was terrible,all stagey and stilted and inept-perhaps it wasn't his fault, the dialogue was awful, the story rambling. Audrey Hepburn,who prior to this could do no wrong in my book, was totally out of place as an ethereal, sprite-like, half-Amerindian "child"; she appeared much too old and sophisticated, AND European. The " natives" were also fake,but what could one expect in 1959 when Hollywood was still using white men to portray Native Americans?
21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An impossible story to film, but Mel Ferrer almost brings it off.
jamil-513 March 2000
When I read Hudson's "Green Mansions" I thought, "Well, they'll never make a movie out of this!" But director Mel Ferrer gives it a good try and might have had even more success if he had cast a stronger actor than Anthony Perkins as the male lead. Audrey Hepburn is marvelous as Rima, the bird-girl (Who else could have played the role?) and the rest of the cast is strong, especially Henry Silva as a virile, villainous Indian. There's an imaginative use of Cinemascope and the score (mostly Bronislaw Kaper but some Heitor Villa-Lobos) is atmospheric and sensuous. The revised ending (Is she dead or isn't she?) fails but the book's conclusion isn't any better. For the Romantics among us. I've seen this movie several times and never fail to enjoy it.
36 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
As pretty as a puzzle box cover and a bit puzzling, too....
mark.waltz10 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It's the early 20th Century down in the jungles of Columbia, and a young man (Anthony Perkins) escapes from a revolution. He ends up being befriended by a group of natives, even though only one of them (educated by missionaries) speaks English. They believe Perkins has magical powers (because he owns a cigarette lighter) and order him to kill a mysterious girl in the near-by forest. This girl (Audrey Hepburn) is a waif-like creature with mystical qualities that they believe is a witch. Raised by her grandfather (Nehemian Persoff), she falls in love with Perkins and longs to leave the forest to return to her mother's hometown.

There's not really a lot of story except the apparent conflict between Hepburn, Persoff and the natives outside the village. The majority of the film is the romance between Perkins and Hepburn, a bit of philosophizing and the truth about Hepburn's identity. But the last third explodes into questions about everything you've been wondering about up until that point and the journey outside the forest where all will be revealed. Most people will be more enthralled by the colorful painting like photography, shots of some rare creatures (most interestingly an aardvark) and the National Geographic like nature shots. Who Hepburn is will be the film's biggest mystery in this film similar in theme to "Lost Horizon" and "The Portrait of Jennie".
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good technical work, mediocre story
AlsExGal22 November 2015
It's easy to see why 1959 critics called it "muddled". The film, which is set in South America's jungles, manages to be an ecological statement (man should take care of his surroundings), a love story, a tale of redemption (in the film's first ten minutes, Abel (Anthony Perkins) sees his father killed and vows vengeance on the killers. Audrey Hepburn as Rima does her utmost in a near impossible part. Lee J. Cobb overacts as Rima's protector.

MGM spent over one million dollars (a great deal of money in 1959) getting shots of South America to mix in with the main filming done on MGM's back lot. The mixing in of the shots is well done, but it's obvious what was shot at MGM and what were the South American jungle shots. Perkins is the voice of sanity in the film, because whenever the plot threatens to get too wispy, he brings it back down to earth. He has a scene where he serenades Rima with his lovely tenor voice. It was a pity that he was never in a film musical.

If the film has a message it seems to be that true love never dies.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oddball Hollywood reworking of the famous book, redeemable in spite of incredibly bad casting choices.
TheVid28 April 2003
Colorful locales, kitschy production design and a nice stroke of sado-masochism go a long way in making this obscure gem a guilty pleasure of jungle-lust adventure. Mel Ferrer directs the story like a comics classic, with his then-wife Audrey Hepburn playing a jungle girl with her usual Givenchy class, and Tony Perkins as a young Indiana-Jones type. Hokey and utterly inappropriate, but still enjoyably offbeat, especially when Perkins croons a love song. The other cast members fare much better: with Lee J. Cobb overacting perfectly as Audrey's old man; Sessue Hayakawa, laconic and petulant as the Indian chief; and Henry Silva, all wide-eyed enthusiasm as the warrior relishing his tortuous ritual of courage. Old-style Hollywood, matinee magic in CinemaScope, with the added wonder of Stereophonic sound.
44 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Theatre of the Absurd
poj-man4 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
It's Anthony Perkins day on TCM and I happened to graze through the channels and catch this early on. I knew of the novel but not the film. The blurbage says Anthony Perkins and Audrey Hepburn and jungle girl...how could it go wrong?

Wow! It's a dud! It's like watching the awful The Lost World from 1960 with half the cast.

It's amazing to think that people could run around in the jungle for days not carrying food and water and they wear the same clothes for days on end yet no one is bothered by anything like body odor creepy crawly skin or finding good water to drink or everything else that would actually occur in the jungle. Audrey Hepburn runs all over the place in her bare feet that are never dirty!

Henry Silva must be the ageless wonder. Twenty two years in Sharky's Machine he looks exactly the same! Henry's role? Be the crazy Indian guy hell bent on killing the 3 main protagonists.

They are in the jungle...like supposedly a rain forest style jungle.. and Audrey climbs a gargantuan tree as she is literally "tree'd." Rather than climb up the tree to get her Henry and his gang grab brush to burn the tree with Audrey in it.

Think about it. They are tribesmen in an equatorial jungle. The wood they gather is fantastic kindling and the tree flames up 100 fee to the top where she has climbed. Starting a fire that just burns a single giant tree was never so easy!

The entire film is scene after scene of such nonsense with no point to it. It's basically a 3 person play with 2 side characters and no point to it. That makes for bad theater.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Venezuelan jungle competes with Audrey Hepburn's beauty
kirksworks7 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Major spoilers isolated below.

"Green Mansions" has been hard to see for many years. WB finally released this MGM film in their Archive Collection, so since it's now available, here's some words of encouragement for people who might have read that this is just an atrociously bad film.

Yes, it does have its faults, but contains an engrossing plot with some surprising twists and is buoyed by some beautifully conceived atmosphere. Some jungle shots are truly stunning. The film was partly photographed on location in Venezuela, which has waterfalls, flora and fauna unlike other jungles. Yes, many of the jungle scenes are obviously a set, but more often than not artificial jungle and real jungle blend well.

Some shots of the jungle have real depth. They remind me a bit of the fanciful jungle created in the 1933 "King Kong" by use of matte paintings and miniatures, except in "Green Mansions," the jungle foliage fades off into the mist in full color.

Perhaps both Anthony Perkins as Abel the revolutionary and Audrey Hepburn as bird girl of the jungle, Rima, were miscast, but Lee J. Cobb's overacting as bird girl's 'grandfather' bothered me more. Both Perkins and Hepburn look good, Hepburn a bit too much, with not a hair out of place. She never really gets down and dirty like a girl raised in the jungle would. I wanted to see her suck the poison from Perkins' leg, but fat chance. She's just too sophisticated, and Hepburn never tried another role like this one, with the exception of the Kiowa Indian girl in John Huston's "The Unforgiven." She didn't fare much better in that one either.

Still, in "Green Mansions" Hepburn was blended into the jungle scenery magically by her director (and husband at the time), Mel Ferrer. There is one shot where Perkins' character, Abel, wanders through the jungle looking for bird girl Hepburn. When he leaves the shot, Hepburn moves down from a tree. She'd been there the whole time and just blended so well, she became a part of the tree.

Henry Silva, as the chief's son, Kua-Ko, fares much better than the leads. Kua-Ko has some perverse psychology that gives the film a depth not found in Abel or Rima. Sessue Hayakawa speaks no English as the tribe chief, Runi, and although Hayakawa is Japanese, he doesn't look out of place with the other South American natives.

The film has a fairly high quotient of "kitsch," with Perkins strumming guitar and singing to Hepburn being the highlight. Some of the matte shots are obvious, while others are beautifully realized. One shot of the camera tilting up from the jungle set to the tall trees and vines reaching up through streaming sunlight is as good as anything done today in the digital realm. Some of the matte shots are obvious, but still richly atmospheric. A conversation between Abel and Rima on a cliff side with with two distant waterfalls beyond them made for lush eye candy. So see the film for the visuals if nothing else.

MAJOR SPOILERS START HERE:

Storywise, I liked how the Cain/Abel story was woven into the subtext. There were actually two Abels, with Kua-Ko being Cain who slew is brother, and Perkins' Abel being a replacement for the brother Kua-Ko killed. And though many may disagree, I really liked the ambiguous ending. Was bird girl alive or dead? We see her, but the shot is so magically composed and majestically lit, like a view of heaven, that it could easily suggest otherwise.

SPOILERS END

It should be mentioned that beefing up the enjoyment of "Green Mansions" is the marvelous score by Bronislau Kaper and Brazilian composer Heitor Villa-Lobos.

Fans of Indiana Jones might not find much to appreciate in "Green Mansions," but if you like a good story, seeping with atmosphere, you could do a lot worse than spend two hours in this magical Venezuelan jungle.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Beautiful production, incredibly weak story, miscast Audrey...
moonspinner555 April 2001
I'm one of the few Audrey Hepburn fans who didn't love "The Nun's Story" (a preconceived tour-de-force) or "Love In The Afternoon" (a lead balloon), but in the hokey "Green Mansions", Hepburn gives arguably her weakest performance as Rima the Bird Girl. Anthony Perkins plays a soldier in Venezuela who comes upon a tribal family in the wilds (he's sort-of captured/sort-of not); after wandering in and out of the forest one day, the tribal leader declares Tony a warrior and orders him to kill the evil spirit living in the jungle. Turns out it's just Audrey, in a strange hairstyle that looks like a fall, who has the locals terrified. She's a lithe sprite who communicates with the animals and lives with her grandfather, who hides many secrets--one of which is where he got his gold pieces. With real-life husband Mel Ferrer as her director, it's curious that Audrey seems to be on auto-pilot, dreamily coasting by on her gamine appeal (which isn't given much of a showcase, considering Rima doesn't display many dimensions). Tony Perkins is vacuous, but the scenery and the music are quite lovely. Possibly with a stronger script and direction--and more appropriate leads--this might have been something. ** from ****
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Book vs. Film
ferbs5427 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
In my recent review of Frank Aubrey's lost-race novel "The King of the Dead" (1903), which transpires in the jungle depths of Brazil, I mentioned that the author, in an attempt to add realism to his descriptions of the terrain, had quoted liberally from works by the famed Argentinian writer William Henry Hudson. And well he might! Hudson at that point was 62 years old, and well known for being both a naturalist and ornithologist, his specialty being the birds of his native South America; he'd already written any number of books on the subject, as well as his first piece of fiction, a dystopian novel entitled "A Crystal Age" (1887). One could hardly do better than quoting from a W. H. Hudson book, when describing both the flora and fauna of Brazil! But today, of course, Hudson is best known for his second novel, which was released one year after "The King of the Dead." The book was "Green Mansions," which, since its first incarnation as a Gerald Duckworth & Co. hardcover in 1904, has seen dozens of various editions around the world; a perennial favorite that has rarely, if ever, been out of print. This reader had had the 1959 Bantam paperback (cover price: 50 cents) sitting on his shelf, unread, for ages; at this point, I cannot even recall when or where I acquired it. But it is a very nice edition, indeed, the movie tie-in edition, and featuring charming illustrations by Sheilah Beckett throughout. A beautifully written piece of magical realism, as it turns out, Hudson's most famous work has been captivating the hearts and minds of readers for well over a century now...and for very good reason!

The book is narrated by an old man named Abel Guevez de Argensola, in an attempt to explain to an English friend of his how he became the person he is today. It seems that back in the mid-1870s, Abel, a young Venezuelan, had been a member of a faction that was involved in a failed takeover of the government in Caracas. Fleeing for his life, Abel had decided to indulge an urge of his that he'd had for the longest time: an exploration of the largely unmapped region south of the Orinoco. After many wanderings and hardships, he'd tried to locate the gold deposits supposedly residing near the Parahuari tribe, in the largely unexplored area where Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil meet. Failing in this attempt, he'd resided with the Parahuari themselves and made rough friends with their chief, Runi, as well as one of the young warriors, Kua-ko. Abel was given the liberty to come and go as he pleased, only being warned against venturing into the nearby forest on the other side of a desolate savannah. But Abel had gone exploring in that forest anyway, drawn back repeatedly after hearing the call of a bird such as he'd never heard before. He was warned by the Parahuari that the forest was haunted by the "daughter of the Didi," a monstrous spirit of sorts, and ultimately, Abel did indeed encounter the dreaded woman herself, after he'd attempted to kill a poisonous coral snake. The woman turned out to be named Rima, in actuality, a 17-year-old child of nature who talked to the birds and other animals, wore a gown made of spun spider silk, and was wholly averse to the destruction of any living creature. Rima had been living in the forbidden wood with an old man named Nuflo, who claimed to be her grandfather. And soon enough, Abel had fallen in love with the beautiful forest girl, and had helped her and her grandfather search for the land, Riolama, where her mother had come from, thus angering the nearby natives and resulting in tragedy for all concerned....

I mentioned a little earlier that "Green Mansions" is a very fine example of magical realism, and indeed, there is very little in Hudson's book that could not actually transpire in real life. Rima, of course, is the book's foremost element of fascination and wonder, but even this charming creature, who runs along the uppermost branches of the trees, subsists on berries and various gums, and befriends even the lowest and most dangerous forms of wildlife (spiders and snakes, for example), is not necessarily outside the bounds of credibility. To add realism to his conceit, Hudson regales us with his hard-won knowledge of South American wildlife (we get to hear of the camoodi, troupial, accouri, campanero bird, sakawinki, cotinga), the exotic flora (the mora tree, the cecropia, the greenheart), and the native beliefs, dress, weapons and drink (the Curupita monster, the queyou loincloth, the zabatana blowgun, the casserie liquor made of masticated cassava). His book is remarkably well written--the sophomore novel shows every sign of being penned by a master--and much of the book's appeal rests in the lyrically written, poetic passages that Hudson showers upon the reader. When describing the sounds emitted by a passing flock of birds, for example, we're told "...there was something ethereal too in those drops of melodious sound, which fell into my heart like raindrops falling into a pool to mix their fresh heavenly water with the water of earth...."

Although boasting any number of tremendous set pieces--Abel's first glimpse of Rima, the trio's journey to Riolama, the multiple tragic incidents that occur back to back to back near the book's end, Abel's descent into madness and hallucinatory wandering as the story draws to its close--it is Hudson's beautiful verbiage, his engendering of a magical, poetical atmosphere, his quintet of sharply etched characters, his evocative descriptions and, of course, the one-of-a-kind Rima that combine to make "Green Mansions" the classic that it remains today. Hudson makes only one misstep in the course of his tale: when he tells us that Runi's archenemy, Managa, dwells to the southwest; 234 pages later, Managa is said to live to the northwest. But other than this one gaffe, Hudson's novel is sheer perfection; a book that I devoured with relish. Not for nothing does my 1959 Bantam movie tie-in edition call it "pure enchantment...one of the most romantic and enthralling in all literature." I could not agree more.

And, oh...as long as I have broached the subject of that film, which was released in May 1959, a quick word on that topic. It is a perfectly decent little film--one that I watched the day after I finished the Hudson book--that simply pales into insignificance when compared to its classic source. Screenwriter Dorothy Kingsley--who had previously been responsible for the scripts for "Kiss Me Kate," "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" and "Pal Joey," and who would go on to create the screenplays for "Can-Can" and, uh, "Valley of the Dolls"--adds much incident not present in the Hudson book and, sadly, deletes still more; even the novel's tragic ending has been changed to shoehorn in a patently phony happy ending. The film strips away all the magic and poetry from Hudson's book and leaves us with a typical Hollywood jungle adventure, replete with dancing natives and a chase over a swaying rope bridge. Thus, the movie feels closer in spirit and DNA to something like the great 1954 thriller "The Naked Jungle" than its source novel. Still, neither the film's director, Mel Ferrer, nor its small cast of excellent actors can be blamed; it's just that Kingsley's script, ticking off the bare plot points of Hudson's story as it does, lets them all down.

As for the actors, they are probably all miscast, although I cannot say who I would have replaced them with, in a story that may well be unfilmable. Thus, playing the Venezuelans, we have Belgian Audrey Hepburn as Rima (she'd been married to Ferrer for five years at this point and would remain married to him for nine more); L. A.-born Anthony Perkins as Abel (how odd it is to hear Rima tell him that her dead mother feels "so near that I talk to her," as the very next year, Perkins would gain eternal fame playing a character who does the exact same thing, in Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho"); the great, N.Y.C.-born, Jewish character actor Lee J. Cobb, practically unrecognizable here behind a thick white beard, as Nuflo; the terrific, N.Y.C.-born, Sicilian/Portuguese character actor Henry Silva as Kua-ko; and the Japanese actor Sessue Hayakawa as Runi. All give it their professional best, but again, can only do so much with that Kingsley script. Perhaps only Jerusalem-born Nehemiah Persoff seems apt here, in his role as a shopkeeper...a character not even present in Hudson's book!

Despite Hepburn's participation--an actress who was riding high after 1957's "Funny Face" and who, two months later, would appear in July 1959's smash hit "The Nun's Story"--"Green Mansions" was a box-office flop and a critical failure. Still, the news is not all bad. The film looks fairly impressive, and many of the picture's outdoor shots were indeed filmed in British Guiana, Venezuela and Colombia, although it is patently obvious that none of the principal actors traveled there. And OMG, that Audrey Hepburn! I don't think I've ever seen her look more beautiful than she does here, and that one shot of her cuddling a baby fawn is one that you'll want to freeze and marvel at. Still, the film and the book are vastly different entities. My friend Debbie tells me that when she had to read the book in high school, she cheated and watched the film instead, and then wrote an essay based on that. Her teacher busted her for it immediately, so different are the two creations! As mentioned, the film is a perfectly decent, romantic action film, but the book is where the magic, poetry and true beauty reside. Three stars for the film, and a perfect five for Hudson's most enduring work....
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
So Bad It's Funny
gbheron6 June 1999
In turn-of-the-century Venezuela a wealthy young man (Perkins) flees into the jungle after his father is killed by revolutionaries. His plan is to find enough gold to finance his revenge. He falls in with a tribe of jungle headhunters who own gold trinkets, and surmises it comes from the enchanted forest not even they will enter anymore. Perkins does enter and finds it the domain of the mysterious Rima the Bird Girl (Hepburn), and her grandfather (Cobb).

I have nothing good to say about this movie. Even with some on-location shots, the studio shots are fakey. The acting and characterizations are so hackneyed and forced that it's impossible to suppress groans and laughter. The story is so improbable, the dialogue so stilted...but you get the picture. Grade F.
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Gold-Hungry Rebel Befriends Mysterious Forest Waif in Out-of-the-Ordinary Story
movingpicturegal16 March 2006
Pretty weird story about a man and his developing love story with a strange, nymph-like girl in a densely forested and canopy darkened South American jungle. Anthony Perkins plays the young man, in search for revenge and GOLD he heads by canoe into the jungle, abounding with snakes, leopards, and even worse - headhunters. Befriending (well, kind of anyway) one tribe he soon sets into a nearby forest, lush with ferns and fawns and waterfalls and loads of unusual birds, where he meets the beautiful and mysterious Rima (played by Audrey Hepburn) who rescues him after he is bitten by a snake. Rima is a strange little thing indeed, her slim self darting amongst the trees and greenery, she tends to the wild creatures and lives with a gruff old man, her grandfather. But Rima longs to know the truth of herself and where she comes from - Grandfather won't tell.

This film is an unusual one indeed, but with beautiful, interesting and colorful scenery, a sweeping orchestral score, and my favorite actress, Audrey Hepburn, who looks especially lovely here - well, it's actually pretty good and held by interest in spite of the possibly less than ZERO chemistry between leading man and lady (it is really pretty hard to believe that this is a couple in love - when they kiss, um, talk about a lack of passion). All in all, though, a quite enjoyable film.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
*
edwagreen9 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
In a year that she won critical acclaim, the N.Y.C. Film Critics Award and the 3rd of 5 Oscar nominations in "The Nun's Story," how in heaven did Audrey Hepburn manage to make such a clinker as "Green Mansions?"

Tony Perkins flees a Venezuelan revolution and plots revenge. We never hear about this subject again and how he is going to go about extracting revenge for the killing of his father.

Instead, we are subjected to his meeting with a tribe and he proves he is manly. He is sent off to kill a girl in the neighboring forest who killed the elder of Sessue Haywakawa's son. Hayakawa is briefly seen and does little to nothing in the film.

We are subjected to fights, nice scenery and beautiful nature. Lee J. Cobb, who plays Hepburn's alleged grandfather isn't even the grandfather.

If the tree she was hiding in went up in those spectacular flames, it is presumed that Hepburn was dead. She came back to him through nature. A first class stinker of major proportions.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
True Love In the Rain Forest
bkoganbing18 October 2006
I guess there's some difference of opinion as to what is found in the area that headwaters of the Amazon and Orinoco Rivers make their neighborhood. Arthur Conan Doyle wrote that there was a lost world of prehistoric dinosaurs when he wasn't doing Sherlock Holmes stories. But W.H, Hudson has us believe that there's a young waif like girl making her home with her granddad among all the hunter/gatherer tribes of the area.

At the time that both The Lost World and Green Mansions were written that area was still one of the few unexplored parts of our globe. I daresay that there are still some parts of that area that haven't seen the trod of civilized feet ever. But it sure makes for stories of imagination and in the case of Green Mansions, romance.

W.H. Hudson who was also a naturalist and ornithologist by trade had the advantage over Conan Doyle because he knew from whence he wrote about. The film has some lush photography and in fact was shot on location in Venezuela. In fact it opens with a view of Angel Falls, one of the great natural wonders of the world. Makes the Niagara Falls in my neck of the woods look like a waterfall from a Six Flags Park.

Green Mansions had been kicking around Hollywood for almost thirty years before Mel Ferrer decided it would suit his wife Audrey Hepburn. It was originally bought by RKO for Dolores Del Rio who scored big in another exotic romance, Bird of Paradise.

Anthony Perkins plays an exile from a revolutionary government in Venezuela who has retreated deep into the interior jungle. He's looking for gold, but instead finds Rima the bird girl living with her grandfather, Lee J. Cobb. Perkins also finds a tribe of headhunters with Sessue Hayakawa as their chief and Henry Silva as his son. They're a suspicious lot and fear the nymph of the rain forest.

For a story set in Latin America, it's interesting that only Henry Silva is a Latino in the cast. Yet the leads have to be the sensitive types and Hepburn and Perkins do fill the bill there.

Sad to say that Green Mansions was a flop critically and financially. I think we ought to take a second look at it. My guess is that no one wanted to see Audrey Hepburn in something so radically different than what she had been doing up to that time. She's quite good, every bit as good as Jean Simmons in The Blue Lagoon which is a similar story.

Check this one out if it is shown on TCM.
26 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not that good, but Audrey's pretty
zetes12 June 2011
Anthony Perkins plays a young man from Caracas who finds himself searching for gold in South American jungles. He meets up with an Indian tribe and believes that a forbidden forest they know of may contain gold. Instead, it contains a goofy little fairy child played by Audrey Hepburn, and her grandfather, played by Lee J. Cobb. The Indians believe Hepburn is a murderous forest demon, and they later task Perkins to kill her for them. Of course, the two fall in love. Henry Silva co-stars as the tribal chief's retarded-looking son, the only one of them who can speak English. He's the villain of the picture, as he often is. The film is very corny. While some of it was filmed in South America, most of the scenes are either filmed on sets or in front of back projection, so it all comes off as very fake. Perkins is pretty good and Audrey, well, if this wasn't one of her best performances, she's still so damn adorable that it makes the film somewhat worth watching. I did think the film picked up a bit in its final act, and I loved the ending. Perkins sings the title song, which is pretty good, too.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This film deserves to be a flop!
andrejedi-119 May 2016
I read the book and watched the movie and I must say the movie did more harm to the book than gaining it attention. What was original a gem of literature is turned into a cliché of white man saving, or trying to save, a natural paradise. It ended up a farce. Of course, Audrey was wonderful, as she always was. But the adaptation was so bad that the original message, of relationship between human kind and environment and the danger of the former on the latter, was totally lost. Of course, the beautiful description of the land in the book is nowhere to be found. I strongly advise those who are interested to go and read the book itself. Understandably, this film was made in 1959 but the script is really so horrible that even the presence of Audrey could not save it.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed