Youth Runs Wild

Youth Runs Wild is an unusually good film for this genre, and given it's short running time and engaging story-telling, I recommend it.

Most Hollywood films of the war era make every effort to depict American family life on the home-front as unrealistically perfect. Those filmmakers who strayed from this prerequisite story often found their efforts on the cutting room floor. Conversely, Youth Runs Wild makes an honest and enjoyable effort to depict the more flawed reality and with a storyline that is not too marred by the passage of time. Our story here deals with what at the time was a relatively new problem in America; parents called away from their household and family obligations to support the war effort and leaving adolescent and even younger children with insufficient supervision. The resulting consequences could just as easily serve as a warning to the parents of today called away from their obligations far too frequently in the less justifiable quest to obtain material possessions.

For what is essentially an exploitive low-budget second-feature, Youth Runs Wild must be credited for its excellent casting. Both A-Listers and unknowns impart depth and warmth to their characters, and the largest contributing factor to the film's impressive honesty is that none of these people are purely good or purely evil.

I think the most touching and heartbreaking event in our story occurs when Danny's parents force him to end his relationship with his girlfriend next door, Sarah. This is exactly the kind of situation that occurs in many a home in real life. Danny has become truant from school, begun to get into all kinds of trouble, and is developing a real surly attitude at home. Sarah's parents would not be considered a good influence by anyone, Danny's parents naturally presume the apple does not fall far from the tree and blame Sarah for Danny's delinquency and forbid him to see her anymore. While entirely well intentioned, it is the worst thing that happens to him in the whole film, they have removed the most positive influence from Danny's life and nothing good comes of it.

The character of Sarah is well played by an unknown Vanessa Brown. This type of character was often given to Cathy O'Donnell, who would never have been able to give Sarah the underlying level of pathos that Ms. Brown does. Once Danny is removed from her life, Sarah attaches herself to the local bad girl, Toddy – played by Bonita Granville who is always wonderful in this type of role. Toddy leads her into a sordid nightlife, badly sanitized to meet 1940's standards of acceptability, but I think even contemporary audiences knew the life Toddy led her to was not being a simple "hostess", but a shill for a clip joint and probably eventually prostitution. Toddy does, after all, live rather well for an essentially orphaned girl in small town middle America.

It might not stand up to repeated viewings for some, and as others have pointed out, Turner Classic Movies' print of Youth Runs Wild is rather beat-up looking; but I would describe this as unusually good work for this particular genre and certainly worth investing an hour of your time. Honest and thought-provoking character film.

Youth Runs Wild (1944)

** (out of 4)

Val Lewton produced this WW2 drama about teenagers who start getting into trouble while the older folks are either working or fighting in the war. Lewton hated horror films and wanted to be taken more serious and I guess this film was his attempt to do that but the movie is really boring and bland. The strange thing is that Lewton's horror films didn't contain much horror and this juvenile film doesn't contain too much stuff dealing with the subject. There's a subplot of a tire stealing ring, another story dealing with teenage love and yet another dealing with a soldier returning home. None of them work and together they just make for a mess of a film. The film should have centered on one story and followed it but as it is the film just becomes tiresome even at 67-minutes. Bonita Granville of Warner's Nancy Drew series gets top billing but she too is rather bland, which was a disappointment since I enjoyed most of her early roles. Glenn Vernon, Kent Smith and Lawrence Tierney co-star.

The youth are running wild while the adults are busy fighting the war. There are some youth and they're mildly wild. Mostly they're being led astray. This seems to be a sincere effort to direct kids towards more orderly pursuits. During wartimes, this could backfire in lowering morale for the adults. They have more than enough to worry about without worrying about their kids. The kids won't like it either. As a wartime film, its usefulness is a bit dubious. As a cinematic film, this is strictly in the B-movie realm. The actors are too green. The material is too melodramatic. There is little daring and it feels old. This is a good opportunity to spoof although I don't know if anybody actually did that.

With parents at war, kids apparently had idle time on their hands during the '40s and some of them turned to crime. Yawn, yawn! This is the most obvious, the most painful depiction of juvenile delinquency ever scripted, even for a B-film.

The print shown on TCM was a poor one, making the skimpy production values look even worse than they probably were. BONITA GRANVILLE and KENT SMITH get top billing, but VANESSA BROWN is lower down in the credits and yet has a sizable role as an unhappy teen-age girl. The story makes any resemblance between these juveniles and today's troubled kids purely a coincidence.

KENT SMITH, as a level-headed wounded soldier, doesn't even make an appearance until the film is half over. It's hard to believe that this sluggish B-film was directed by Mark Robson and produced by Val Lewton. It's certainly got to represent the nadir of their respective careers.

GLEN VERNON, JEAN BROOKS, ARTHUR SHIELDS, DICKIE MOORE, and LAWRENCE TIERNEY are the slightly familiar names that fill the supporting cast--but nothing helps overcome the weak plotting, the preachy attitudes and dull and obvious storyline. Thumbs down on this one.

... as in being behind them. I would be referring to Lawrence Tierney the actor, here as Larry, the bad guy, before Tierney would have his big chance with "Dillinger" the following year and then ultimately blow that chance with all of his bad behavior off the set. But I digress.

I could tell this was not an A or even B list film because TCM is airing a print that looks like it came from a public domain source - very fuzzy. And who knew that in 1944 VD did not just stand for Victory Day???

While the adults are off working double shifts in wartime factories the kids are getting involved in delinquency. The spotlight is on Vanessa Brown's character, Sarah, and her boyfriend, Frankie. Frankie gets into stealing tires to make extra money. Sarah's folks are hardly Ward and June Cleaver. They drink and play cards when they are not working and seems like they would be indifferent parents even if they didn't have intense work schedules. They throw Sarah out at the first sign of any trouble she might be in, and she is reduced to working as one of the hostesses in a dive, which seems like it is shorthand for something a bit more adult. Up to her fall, she is bullied and manipulated by the older world weary Hot Toddy Jones (Bonita Granville). But then, strangely, Toddy morphs into a mentor to the girl.

There are all kinds of unexplained things going on. When a couple of teens are spotted by a security guard stealing tires, he shoots at them! I knew rubber was valuable during the war, but really? One of the cars the teens are stealing tires from in the plant parking lot has a toddler locked inside. This is never explained or commented on. Did the harried factory worker forget about the kid, or is this all they can do for day care? And when a fight breaks out in the dive in which Sarah works and a young healthy person is thrown to the floor in the resulting scuffle, she winds up in the hospital in .... an oxygen tent? With a priest doing last rites? Things never got this bad during the frequent fist fights at the Long Branch saloon in Gunsmoke!

Too goofily constructed to be a stirring social drama with a message, and with too much heavy stuff going on to be an effective kitschy romp, this film fails on every level. It was based on a piece in Look Magazine. Look didn't like the finished product to the point that they refused to promote the film in the magazine, or even to allow their name to be used in the film's credits. .Val Lewton later disavowed the final version of the film and attempted to have his name removed from it. It really had no love 77 years ago when it was released and lost money at the box office, and today I can agree with that assessment.