User Reviews

"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.

This movie about young Peter Fry (Dean Stockwell), orphaned during WWII, is special to me as it is the fist movie I can remember having seen - I was six years old. After almost sixty years I still remember this movie and have wanted to see it as an adult. As a kid I have to admit that the messages of the movie pretty much flew over my head. I remember being puzzled by the sudden transformation from black hair to green and felt that it wasn't explained to my satisfaction. I also remember picking up on Peter's question, "The world isn't going to be blown up and everybody killed, is it Gramp?" and finding Gramp's answer not terribly consoling.

At least I can now appreciate the symbolism of the hair color. I find the plea this movie makes for tolerance much more affecting than its "War is bad for children" message. Sure Peter's story is a sad one, but his being an orphan did not involve me as much as I think the movie was striving for. (If you want to see a movie that shows that war is bad for children, rather than just talking about it, see "Ivan's Childhood.") The theme of being ostracized for an inconsequential, innate difference did get to me. I suppose things have changed a bit for the better since 1948, but even green hair would still be cause for concern in some circles. And to no small extent people are still judged by the color of their skin, or their sexual orientation, or their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), and so on, ad nauseam.

I got the DVD through Netflix. The picture quality was not good on the copy I got - the colors were faded and fuzzy. This had the effect of not making the green hair stand out very dramatically.

Dean Stockwell is a major reason this film succeeds - I think a less charming and less talented kid would have sunk the whole thing. The talents of Robet Ryan and Barbara Hale are not utilized at all, but it was good to see Hale in all of her 1940s wholesomeness. The insertion of O'Brien's little song-and-dance number I found to be rather odd and unnecessary.

Then there is the letter that Peter's father wrote to him that was not to be opened until Peter was sixteen. In fact the letter was read to Peter, some six years early, toward the end of the movie and its contents were rather simplistic and nothing that Peter could not understand and accept. The letter was a hook to keep your interest, but the payoff was a letdown. And the letter could be viewed as contradicting the anti-war theme of the movie by its mentioning that Peter's parents were to die in the war for a "fine and worthwhile" cause - there are some good wars. And I doubt that Hitler would have been turned into a pacifist by his having seen this movie.

But there is enough here of interest to make this worth viewing for most people: Losey's first major film, Stockwell's performance, a historical perspective, the opening song (Nature Boy), and the unusual storyline.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a movie having a strong anti-war slant with a pacifist message, provided that there's some element of reality inserted as well. Released approximately three years following the end of World War II, director Joseph Losey was obviously commenting on the horrors of war leaving many orphans in it's wake on both sides of the conflict. What I found fascinating, and this has some bearing on modern times, is when the 'ghost' of the poster boy orphan called upon Russians, Americans, Chinese, British and French to find a way to live in peace and condemn war because war is bad for children. Did the film makers not include Germans, Japanese and Italians for fear of offending those countries? Something to think about when political leaders of many nations today refuse to call terrorists 'terrorists' for that very reason.

I liked the green hair idea though. The concept was effectively used to show that differences among people should not automatically be cause for exclusion. I think the younger one is when they hear that message, the better chance for understanding there is among those of different nationality, color, race, etc. I realize Gramp (Pat O'Brien) was just trying to do what was best for Peter (Dean Stockwell), but I can't help but wonder if the boy would have been better served by having an adult stand with him against the rest of the community and advise against the haircut. That's why I thought the teacher Miss Brand (Barbara Hale) was the most insightful character in the story; her survey of kids with different hair color had a way of putting the class at ease and not make a big deal out of Peter's 'abnormality'. After all, there was only one kid in class with red hair, and nobody had a problem with that, did they?

Overall I think the movie's positive message outweigh it's faults, and has sort of a timeless appeal making it appropriate for younger kids to watch today if you can wrestle them away from their cell phones. One kid in the story I'd have them keep an eye on is the young teen who lost his glasses chasing Peter who turns on him as soon as he got the glasses back. He reminded me of a politician who'll make any promise to get your vote, only to have it turn out a lie once elected. How many times have we seen that?

Peter Fry is a war orphan because his parents died during the London blitz trying to help war orphans. The school he ends up going to is having a clothing drive to help war orphans. When Peter's hair turns green, this marks him as having a special mission to tell everyone that war is bad because it causes war orphans. But the other children make fun of him on account of his green hair, and the adults pressure him into having it cut off because it is a public nuisance, an inauspicious beginning for Peter's special mission.

Children might have enjoyed this movie when it first came out, and adults might have enjoyed it with them vicariously. But its simplistic message, never very credible in the first place, is drained of what little plausibility it might have once had by the fact that the world has not changed: we are still fighting wars, presumably causing children to become orphans. The idea of a little boy with green hair wandering around telling everybody that we need to stop fighting wars might have been an expression of hope in 1948 when this movie was made, but now it just seems naïve.

The worst feature of this film is that it is premised on something supposedly noble, but which is in fact quite irritating. When Peter was very young, his parents left him with an aunt so that they could help the war orphans in London. Even if one of his parents felt the need to participate in the war effort, say, the father, we would expect the mother to stay with her son and take care of him, but they both figure they have more important things to do than raise their own child. When the aunt gets word that Peter's parents are dead, she passes him on to other relatives who don't want him either. This continues until he ends up with his grandfather.

We are supposed to think of those relatives as being cold and selfish, but after all, they did not bargain on having to raise someone else's child. It is actually Peter's parents who are selfish. They are that strange breed of do-gooder who becomes so enamored with the idea of saving the world that he neglects his own family. Without pausing to be sure that Peter would be raised to maturity by a loving relative happy to take care of him if they died in the war, they just dumped him on his aunt and took off.

There is one moment in the movie when Peter correctly concludes that his parents cared more about other children than they did him, but the movie insists that he is wrong, and at the end Peter is seen as understanding that they really did love him and that what they did was right and good. As insistent as the movie is in this regard, it still leaves us with a feeling of revulsion for parents who would abandon their child so they could devote themselves to some higher purpose.

**SPOILERS** Young Peter Fry (Dean Stockwell) is left alone when his parents go off to fight in WWII. He's left with lovable Gramps (Pat O'Brien). His parents are killed in the war and he becomes a war orphan. He reacts with anger--and then wakes up one morning to find her hair turned green! He soon discovers it was turned green so people will notice him and listen to him as he delivers a message--war is bad for children. **END SPOILERS**

The Technicolor cinematography is beautiful and I applaud the message (especially in these times) but I personally found the movie simplistic and heavy-handed. I also thought Stockwell's character was obnoxious and there were two songs in the film that made me want to cut off my ears BUT kids will probably love this. It's made for them anyways--this is not an adult film. The acting is so-so. Stockwell is just OK (although I give him credit for taking the role) and O'Brien seems uncomfortable in his role. The only ones who pulls off any acting are Robery Ryan and Barbara Hale (looking stunning in color) as a teacher. She also has a great scene where she subtly points out to her class that there's nothing wrong with green hair. Also Stockwell's hair color doesn't look that strange in this day and age. I give this a 7 for the color and the message.

Interesting film with basically different stories. A boy's parents go off to England to save the children at the beginning of World War 11 and are apparently killed in a bombing.

The child, played well by Dean Stockwell, lives with a variety of relatives before being shuffled off to "Gramps"-Pat O'Brien.

Gramps is really not his grandfather. That's really not explained very well. Barbara Hale co-stars as a rather benign teacher. She is basically there because there is a part needed for a teacher. She says little, except when she informs the other students about what happened to Stockwell's parents. A hurt young man professes that he really knew that his parents were dead.

The film then goes to one of being anti-war in general. Over night, Stockwell's hair turns green and he is told by other children to go around preaching against war.

When it appears that Stockwell shall keep his green hair and be a non-conformist, he is ultimately persuaded to cut his hair off.

Robert Ryan co-stars as a doctor who hears Stockwell's story after the latter runs away. Ryan really must have been under contract to accept this part.

Nicely done, but too many inter-connecting themes which are merely glossed over. As a child actor, Stockwell had far better films-"Anchors Aweigh," in 1945 and the magnificent "Gentleman's Agreement," in 1947.

This song from The Boy With Green Hair (Nature Boy) movie made in 1948 directed but Joseph Losey has been going through my head.

. This movie and the song played over the opening titles is my first conscious recollection of being profoundly affected by a dramatic film .I would have been about 5or 6 years old or younger when my Dad showed it at the Brighton Cinema in the early 1950's .

The Boy With Green Hair was probably one of the first pacifist anti War movies made after the 2nd World War,it's told in the form of a parable.

It starred Dean Stockwell as Peter a war orphan and lonely little boy who's parents have been killed in the war during the London Blitz. He is not told their fate but shuttled from one selfish relative to the next.

He finally is sent to "Gramp"a loveable ex vaudevillian played so well by veteran actor Pat O'Brien and they get along fine .

One morning after Peter is finally told he is an orphan his hair mysteriously turns green and the story becomes a parable for the waste of human life and futility of War.

Peter decides that his hair has turned green for a reason and it's his mission as a War Orphan to spread a message for peace despite the various reactions and rejection of the townspeople to his hair turning green.

Peter eventually realises he does have a very special place in the world.

I love this movie it's probably dated ,long forgotten and had a tiny budget but to my mind its a lost gem well acted worth a look I treasure it in my DVD collection.

I think at the time I felt a little unusual and different and was like the boy in the song perhaps "a very strange Enchanted boy" The lyrics-

There was a boy A very strange enchanted boy They say he wandered very far Very far over land and sea A little shy and sad of eye But very wise, was he And then one day One magic day he passed my way While we spoke of many things Fools and kings This he said to me The greatest thing You'll ever learn Is just to love And be loved In return.

It seems like all the other reviewers will grab any anti-war message movie and talk about how great it is, no matter how bad the movie may actually be.

It has a good message, but it is brought about too blatantly (Stockwell speaking directly into the camera). And symbolism doesn't work well in movies when you have a character directly state what a symbol means. (As in the scene where the war orphan directly explains what the green hair symbolizes).

And why does the movie never offer any explanation for Peter's outrageous lies??? I guess it is just natural for any war orphan to tell outrageous lies about spending 3 days in a cave with a tiger.

Please do not watch this movie to try to gain any great insight. The whole message can be summed up in a simple formula:

WAR = BAD

...

BOY + GREEN HAIR = TERRIBLE MOVIE

It would seem that I am in the minority, but I found this film to be neither entertaining nor successful at getting its anti war message across. The underlying message is that war is bad, especially for children ..... do we really need a Hollywood director to tell us that? Its one and only redeeming factor is the quality of acting by a very young Dean Stockwell, that cannot be faulted, but the content I found boring and terribly condescending. It could be that this film was made in America for an American audience, I believe that in the UK we are not as sentimental as our friends across the pond. A film should be to entertain, but too many directors seem to have a penchant for jumping on the band wagon to voice left wing views, if not against war it is against capital punishment. I watched this film a few days ago and I would say that it has not worn well with age.