Tuck Everlasting (1981)

Directed by Frederick King Keller; produced by Howard Kling

In the early years of the twentieth century, Winnie Foster (Margaret Chamberlain) is an over-protective girl with no friends. One day, she braves the wrath of her mother and explores the near by woods, where she meets a boy named Jesse Tuck (Paul Flessa). He introduces Winnie to his family. They act oddly but not sinisterly, though they are definitely evasive when confronted by a stranger (James McGuire) in a yellow suit. It turns out that the Tucks have a secret for which others would pay a lot – and for which the Tucks themselves have paid a lot.

I very much wanted to like this movie. I had heard of it decades ago, and have been since searching for a copy to watch. It is an independent production (so much that it doesn’t seem to have had a poster), filmed on just $60,000 in upstate New York, with unknown actors who have appeared in almost no other motion picture or television production. The work seems to have been done among a small group: the actor who portrays Angus is the father of the director (both worked on the screenplay), while another Keller is credited with the costume design. It was clearly a labour of love, and it deserves some fame. I am not one who automatically supports the underdog in most things, but since this was remade twenty years later, with the now-requisite big budget and big name actors, I was in the 1981 production’s corner. However, I cannot write that I was not disappointed.

The acting was adequate, more than so from the principal adults (Fred A Keller, Sonia Raimi, McGuire); that from the younger players shows promise. The low budget means little with the skill to use it, and the locations were perfect. The fault, I found, was mainly with the direction; to a lesser extent, with the script.

The direction, though competent, does not give the movie the charm that it needs. The direction seems workmanlike, rather than inspired, and I believe the movie-makers were really inspired by Natalie Babbitt’s original novel. I dismissed the poor visual quality of my version (apparent in the images displayed here), which may or may not be indicative of the production. Rather, I think Tuck Everlasting needed, as a film, someone behind the camera with more vision, or experience.

I cannot tell how much, if at all, the script diverged from the book, since I have not read the latter. But it comes across as obvious in many spots, and heavy-handed in others. For instance, when it is explained to Winnie how the secret of the Tucks might be exploited for wealth, and its benefits given only to those who could afford it, the exact sentiment, almost the same words, are used by the villain when he describes his plans.

Regrettably, Tuck Everlasting falls into the category of it being better to read the book, than to see the movie.