MovieChat Forums > Random Harvest (1943) Discussion > Colman Toooooooo Old!

Colman Toooooooo Old!

posted 15 years ago by pedro4300
21 replies | jump to latest

I liked the film, it was a good romantic story and Greer Garson is lovely and Colman is a fantastic actor with great presence and a great voice, but I'm sorry, I tried and I tried to get past the fact that Colman was just too old for the part. Especially the scenes with the irritating Kitty, which just came off as too creepy. Also the talk of him going back to the university made me laugh out a bit as well as early on when his "potential parents" came to identify him at the asylum. I was like, they must be 85 years old if he had any parents! I really wish another actor was cast in the role, a way younger actor. Don't attack me for feeling this way, it was something I fought and fought and tried not to think about while watching the movie, but to no avail. I was reminded of Connery in Entrapment, with Zeta Jones. That was a January/late December romance that creeped me out as well!

[–] Dr_Miklos_Rozsa 15 years ago

Do you suppose, if age was an issue, this English gentleman actor should have played John "Smithy" Smith/Sir Charles Rainier? However, he was under contract to 20th Century-Fox at the time:

www.myspace.com/mrjohnsutton

"I do write music for people, not for computers." - Dr. Miklós Rózsa (1907-1995)

[–] Harold_Robbins 15 years ago

Colman was too old to play Charles Rainier, who does indeed go back to University in the novel. But he was the most likely big-name actor/star to play the role. He and Garson look so good together that one doesn't really mind - the age difference is more obvious in the Charles/Kitty situation, and thus perhaps a bit troublesome.

"Remind me to tell you about the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke."

[–] pedro4300 15 years ago

I guess the Kitty/Charles thing was the one that pushed it over the edge, because Garson and Colman do make a great couple.
Sutton is closer to the ideal, but Colman beats him with star wattage.

[–] joeparkson 15 years ago

The character Charles Rainier is not supposed to be 51 as was Ronald Colman when he made this movie. Remember, he is a recent WWI veteran. You're supposed to suspend disbelief.

I thought Colman looked pretty good for 51, so it was easy for me to accept Colman in this part.

Humphrey Bogart was even older when he made "Sabrina" and wooed Audrey Hepburn away from William Holden. Poor Bogie looked every inch his age (and then some) yet Sabrina is considered a classic.

[–] justaudrey 14 years ago

I know, Sabrina with Bogart? What the heck? I'm still a little sore about that.

As for this movie, I loved Colman in it. Sure, he's a little old but I thought it was still believable. In real life my parents are 14 years apart and they have had a wonderful marriage. It happens. Still, they look okay together. Some couples don't--there are limits. For example, Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire in Funny Face. I could not get past that, as fun as the movie was. The romance there did not work. It was almost creepy. He looked like her grandpa.

[–] geode 14 years ago

My grandmother was about the same age as Ronald Colman. When she was in her mid-20's she married my grandfather who was 40 years older.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] PretoriaDZ 9 years ago

I was just going to say that about Astaire and Hepburn in Funny Face. They made the scenes of them by the water so blurry (to hide his age) but I could still see his ol' creped neck while they were dancing. Yuck!

This positively infantile preoccupation with bosoms!Terry-Thomas about US 1963.Hasnt changed much!

[–] marhefka 9 years ago

@Harold_Robbins.

Your comments are pretty much spot on. The age differences didn't bother me but I admit that I cringed a little in the beginning when Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd thought he may have been their son.

[–] spasek 15 years ago

This issue didn't stand out for me at all. The performances by both Coleman and Garson were fantastic. Who cares if he was a older than Kitty. You've got people today (much older men) marrying very young women. Heck, there are even older women marrying much younger men!

The story and performances held my interest and attention. The "age factor" was never a factor for me.

[–] justaudrey 14 years ago

Very much agreed.

[–] roghache 14 years ago

Colman's actual age of around 50 seemed terribly off to me, especially during the first half of the movie. He simply came across as too old for this returning soldier seeking to be claimed by his parents. Even though there are 'mature' students, the comment about him returning to his studies at Cambridge didn't help. I didn't read the novel but it seemed that Smithy should have been in his mid to late 20's.

In his role as businessman/politician Charles Rainier during the second half of the movie, his character's age seemed more in keeping with the actor's age. In any case, he and Greer Garson did make a perfect couple and Colman's performance was absolutely stellar throughout.

[–] MedioSiglo 14 years ago

That was my first thought also, but once the film moved on in time and Kitty "grew up" as much as her bratty character could, it wasn't so bad.

Why ain't you at the garden party you heathen?

[–] justaudrey 14 years ago

How did she ever get an Oscar nomination?

[–] darogr 14 years ago

One of my favorite movies, but I admit, my one little quibble about it is that Colman is too old looking for the role in the beginning. I think we have to remember he was older and also was shellshocked, so no telling what an ordeal he had been through. That's how I justify it to myself.

[–] aciolino 13 years ago

Yes, he's too old AND, 'who gives a damn?"

It's RONALD COLMAN!!

Colman, I say!!

[–] 398 13 years ago

I have never read the book and so took the movie on its own terms. Movies often change the ages of characters. Charlton Heston was 36 when he made BEN-HUR. Judah Ben-Hur in the novel went from 17 to 25 from the beginning to the chariot race. Obviously the character in the movie is much older, not only on looks, but also as his opinion is sought by the leaders of the community.

As for Colman, it is not necessary to assume he was in his early twenties at the beginning of RANDOM HARVEST. WWI was an extreme effort for the European countries and many "older" men served. Some I know of who were on the front lines--the writer H H Munro (Saki) was killed in the trenches in 1916. He was 46, born in 1870. Ernest Thesiger was wounded. He was born in 1879 and so was 35 when the war began. Bela Lugosi was wounded in the war. He was born in 1882 (or by some sources 1880) and so was well into his thirties when the war began.

I assumed that John Smith was probably about 35 at the beginning. Considering what he had gone through, it was reasonable he looked older. So Colman was not that bad a fit. Note the ages of his brothers and sisters.

As for the romantic relationships, Colman and Garson seemed a perfect match to me. They were only 13 years apart. As for Kitty, we can trace her age precisely, I think. She was 15 in 1920 when she first throws herself at Charles. It was 12 years later when the two are about to marry, so she was then 27. Charles was probably pushing 50. The story ended in 1935 when Charles was probably in his early fifties.

The film is my all-time favorite tearjerker.

[–] vinidici 10 years ago

398: Excellent rebuttal of the age objections. By the end of the movie both actor (Colman) and character (Smithy / Charles) are now pretty much equal in age. In early scenes, Colman could pass for a man in his mid thirties who now looked older due to his wartime trauma.

Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!

[–] dicmar_rot 10 years ago

This film works for me despite Coleman's age and the countless coincidences that hold the plot together. Ronald Colman and Greer Garson work so well together that I supported their characters and never looked back. They made their relationship more important than the many indisputable facts that surrounded them. They were great. I've watched this film now for the third time. It holds up.

[–] imdazednconfuzd 10 years ago

Yes,yes,yes! Watched the film last night, and from the beginning, all I could think was he is so old!

[–] hugh1971 9 years ago

I did think he was a little old, but in the Great War the army was desperate for officers and pretty much anyone fit enough to walk could join up. George Orwell's father, for example, was commissioned when he was in his sixties.

[–] swlabr 9 years ago

I love this movie. I always just believe that the harrows of trench warfare and "shell shock" aged him prematurely. I love Ronald Colman in this role and can't imagine anyone else playing Smithy.