THE TRAIL OF THE LONESOME PINE (1936) is a landmark color film of considerable dramatic power that has been neglected in Hollywood history. It was the second full-length feature to be produced in the newly-developed 3 strip Technicolor process. The first Technicolor feature, BECKY SHARP, had opened the previous year (1935) but did not find audience favor. There is strong evidence to suggest that THE TRAIL OF THE LONESOME PINE was the film that really popularized color.

Aside from the superb color photography, the film has much to recommend it. There are very strong performances, particularly that of Sylvia Sidney as the backwoods mountain girl - a very convincing portrayal. She is supported by two handsome newcomers, Henry Fonda and Fred MacMurray, plus veterans such as Fred Stone, Beulah Bondi, and Spanky MacFarland. The story line is very compelling and there is the strong direction of Henry Hathaway (LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER, KISS OF DEATH, TRUE GRIT). In its original release, audiences reportedly burst into applause while viewing some of the color scenes. The film was a box office smash for Paramount, playing to packed houses in both large and small towns. (This is well documented.) It remains compelling entertainment today. The high-quality color photography was very much in evidence in the VHS tape that MCA released in the Nineties. It is to be hoped that the same high quality will be seen in the projected 2009 DVD release of this beloved film.

John Fox Jr.'s novel "The Trail of the Lonesome Pine" was an enormous best seller in the early years of the 20th Century and was made into a movie several times, but I think this was the last version, way back in 1936. The fact that it was made 4 times (I believe) within a little over 25 years of the book's publishing date and hasn't been redone in the almost 80 years since would seem to indicate that the story is dated. Also, that this once very popular novel is not read anymore.

Well, actually, I read it and I think it still holds up well. It's an affecting piece of fiction, very well written, but there's one big problem with it for modern audiences. The main relationship in the story is a close friendship between a grown up man and a young hillbilly girl. I'm not quite sure what the girl's age is at the beginning of the story, but I'm guessing it's around 12 years old. You could tell such a story innocently in 1908, but you can't now. It would simply be impossible. And you couldn't film it as it's written in the book. In the book, the relationship is completely innocent, without a hint of anything sinister, but modern audiences would read a sinister motive behind every action of the story's hero.

The film, however, is actually nothing like the book. The filmmakers take the names of the characters and the setting and situation of the book and make a completely different story out of it. I'm sure this is highly irritating to those who love the book (if anyone still does), but it doesn't ruin the movie, at least not for me. Maybe because I saw the movie before I read the book. I look at them as two completely different entities that happen to share superficial similarities.

In the film, the girl is played by Sylvia Sidney, who is certifiably an adult from the beginning. This not only changes the story, but eliminates anything sinister modern audiences might find in her friendship, and later romance, with the hero, played by Fred MacMurray. Both these roles would seem oddly cast. Sylvia Sidney, a native of the Bronx, is hard to imagine as anything other than the city girl, which she usually played, in films like "Dead End" or "Street Scene" or City Streets". Yet ignoring what you know of her usual roles, and your expectations based on this knowledge, she does a good job in the part. Same goes with MacMurray. This was early in his career, before he had become known as a light comedian and occasional heel. His character actually has a lot less to do in the movie than in the book, and MacMurray does well with what he has.

I'm not a Henry Fonda fan, finding him often preachy & whiny, but as this was early in his career, before he made films a political platform, I thought he did very well with his part, and made what was a secondary character in the book really the male lead in the picture. But his character is nothing like the same-named character in the book, who is younger, meaner, ignorant, inarticulate— almost a villain. The supporting cast was very good. Robert Barrat, one of my favorite character actors, who almost always had very small parts but always made them pay off, is terrific in a couple of short scenes. Same goes with Alan Baxter. Spanky, from Our Gang, has a big part in the picture, and it's peculiar to see him playing serious, but he pulls it off OK. Also, from the Our Gang angle, I could swear one of the other hillbilly kids is Mary Ann Jackson. She is in a couple of very brief shots and you'll miss her if you don't look quick. She is not listed in the cast, nor is this film listed in her filmography. if it's not her, it's a girl who looks exactly like her and there couldn't be two faces like that! Also must give a mention to famous vaudevillian Fred Stone as head of one of the feuding hillbilly clans. Stone, on stage, was known as a comedian and eccentric dancer, but in pictures he seemed always cast, as in this film, as a put-upon old man carrying heavy burdens and on the edge of tragedy (for example, Alice Adams). He acts his part well and even gets to do a stunt with a wagon wheel that called on his old time dexterity as a physical comedian.

It's sentimental, but without being hokey. The color is fantastic for what was really an experimental film. I recommend it, but don't expect it to be anything like the book.

It's a wonderful movie - good story - well written & well acted by a better than ordinary cast. Spanky Mac Farland was a jewel in his role & Fred MacMurry & Henry Fonda performed well. Buelha Bondi proved to be a surprisingly good (to me, at least), actress. She carried more than her share of the movie. The scenery, the filming of that beautiful area, the first movie, shot outside, in color, should have won an Oscar. I'm still disappointed that it didn't. if you haven't seen it - SEE IT!!!