Random Harvest (1942)

Simply A Masterpiece

A Masterpiece!

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Ronald Colman plays a WWI vet who suffers amnesia and falls in love with lovely Greer Garson. The two marry and are immensely happy for a short time until an accident restores his pre-amnesia memories and takes away his memories of his new life. One of the all-time great romance movies. I say that as a guy who does not usually seek out these sorts of films. But when I see one that is as beautiful and touching as this, I have to give it its due. It's an exquisite-looking film with the wonderful sets and costumes you would expect from MGM during the Golden Age. The cinematography is excellent and the music fits the tone perfectly at all times. The script is soapy and sentimental to a fault but in the absolute best way. Fine supporting cast includes Henry Travers, Philip Dorn, and Susan Peters. But, of course, the stars are what makes this work above all else. Ronald Colman and Greer Garson have amazing chemistry. Both play their roles with such sensitivity and elegance. Remarkable work from two screen legends. It's just such a great film. It tugs at the heartstrings and gives you "feels" in so many ways. I've seen it many times over the years and it gets better with each viewing.

Since this is one of my 3 favorite movies (right behind "GWTW" and "Ben-Hur", I'm pleased to see that the vast majority of reviews here are extremely positive.I want to begin my review my dismissing several of the oft-heard criticisms of the film. First, that Colman was too old for the role. When you a have a film than spans nearly 20 years, any actor is going to be either too young for the older scenes, or too old for the younger scenes. Either way, there's going to be lots of makeup. Colman was 51 when he made this film, meaning that if you want to go with actual ages, his character would have been 47 when he entered the military at the beginning of WWI. In actuality, that made Colman 6 years to old for enlistment status (41 was the upper limit). But just right to be the "industrial prince" of Great Britain later in the film. So you either err in the age of the soldier, or you err in the age of the industrialist.Another criticism is the need to suspend belief. Yup. That's what the vast majority of movies require. If not, you're usually either watching a very boring fictional movie or a documentary. Normal life portrayed on the big screen isn't usually very interesting.Another criticism is that the film brings in the twist midway through the film, rather than at the very end, as the novel did. Well, doing the film way simply wouldn't have worked. Garson would have had to have been absent for half the film. And, the choice is between total surprise, or the interest in seeing how each of the main characters deals with the "ruse". And, Garson's character (Paula) explains why she wants the relationship only when Colman's character (Smithy/Charles) comes to a realization based on love and remembrance, not based on when he feels a legal responsibility. And frankly, I recently read the book, and I thought it was awful. And I doubt that most readers knew about the plot twist before reading the book; you just can't keep secrets like that.One criticism of this film that I hear that is accurate, though of little consequence, is that the hair and clothing styles of the women are not accurate to the time period. Fair criticism, but fairly common in the cinema.The one major criticism I have is the character of Kitty, played by Susan Peters. Supposedly being only 15 when she first meets Charles, while he is clearly in his 40s (by movie standards), not only didn't work for me, but I found a bit repulsive. It would be easier to tolerate the liaison if Kitty had been fresh out of college when they met -- a May/December romance -- but this is a bit too much. Not only that, but despite others praising her acting here, I was not impressed at all. She was far more suited to the next film she made -- an Andy Hardy piece where she was a co-ed. This one flaw is the reason that, for me, I can't give the film a "10".I hold Greer Garson and Ronald Colman in almost equal esteem. There are some who see this as Garson's film, but I disagree. Considering the degree of suspension of belief required of viewers here, Colman had the task of holding the center while being a shell-shock victim and amnesiac on the one hand, and becoming the industrial prince of England and a member of Parliament on the other. I noticed one of our reviewers for criticizing Colman for "walking through" the film. I had an uncle that was shell-shocked in WWII, and that's exactly what he did -- walked through life with something missing. And Colman portrays that perfectly, without going over the edge. He talks to Paula about wishing he had belonged to the couple at the asylum. Perfect. He becomes easily distracted by certain semi-flashbacks, but not able to focus on them. Perfect. This should have won the Academy Award (although I'm not taking anything away from James Cagney). And then there's the scene which is as good an acting job as I've seen -- at the cottage door when all you see is the back of Colman's head as the memory returns. Though lasting only seconds, you see several stages of returning memory in just the way his body tenses in very slightly different movements. Absolutely perfect.Greer Garson also plays this perfectly. Just the type who would take in a stray dog. Just the type who would want the relationship to be based on love, rather than responsibility. And her dance routine -- so very entertaining...and different for her! I fell in love with Greer Garson watching this film.There are other actors in the film who make it feel so comfortable -- Henry Travers, Reginald Owen, Una O'Connor, Margaret Wycherly, and more. But Philip Dorn, a Dutch actor, stands out as the psychiatrist.I love this film and have for years. Since its DVD release, I find myself watching it a couple of times a year. I never grow tired of it. Almost the perfect film.

In many ways "the" most outrageous amnesia story ever told yet, ironically (or should I say "iconically?") also one of the most successful. And memorable. True love. Passion. Everything you could ever want. And then, bang, he disappears. Patiently, she tracks him down. And tracks him. And tracks him. And finds him. And discovers that he lost his memory and is now a very successful businessman who, strangely, never married. The big meeting. He does not recognize her at all. (This was considered a 6-hankie movie by the way, and we just used up 4). So, aware he might never actually know who she is, she takes a job by his side. Because something is better than nothing. Many modern reviewers have criticized current TV dramas for "manipulating the viewer shamelessly." I am guilty of this myself. But the pattern, the template, for viewer manipulation was set here, decades ago. Yes, the acting was spectacular. I mean, OMG, Greer Garson! And Ronald ("a far far better thing I do") Coleman! You could watch these two sort laundry and it would still be a good film. But, fact is, the last 30 minutes or so of the film are spent with the audience always on the edge of its chair hoping that ANY MOMENT he will recognize her. And he does, sort of. Critics have said the ending under-performs the film. It does, but, think about it, with that kind of setup, ANY ENDING WOULD UNDERPERFORM. This is one of the must-sees.

I had never seen Random Harvest until just the other day on my TCM channel. What a refreshingly beautiful romantic drama that was. My favorite star, Ronald Coleman, was there and that is what made me even want to watch it. I have never seen Greer Garson but know of her great talent from Mrs. Miniver and this pair made the fine story even finer with their convincing and earnest acting. Oh! for the days when we had real actors and real stories come out of Hollywood! I do not recall any other romantic drama from Hollywood that is this memorable or haunting as this one. Only Wuthering Heights with Lawrence Olivier and Merle Oberon came close.Ronald Coleman and Greer Garson did a superb job of producing a variety of expressions on their faces to match their words and atmosphere. Some scenes would bring tears to the eyes even in grown men. The movie as a whole including the sets and period costumes was impeccable.I wonder if any one with a fascination for old Hollywood classics noticed the actress that played the little lady owner of the tobacconist shop. She was the one that performed so delightfully as the half blind house keeper in that famous film, Witness for the Prosecution.