The Young Doctors (1961) User Reviews

Life In The Pathology Department

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 24 April 2007]

The title of this film, The Young Doctors, is quite misleading. The film focuses on a generational conflict between two doctors in a big city hospital, the older man Fredric March the head of the Pathology Department and a new man, Ben Gazzara, put in charge of the Serology section. There are other doctors in the film, but their parts are merely in support of these two.

March is an older guy who feels a not so gentle nudge from the higher ups who feel maybe it's time he put in his retirement. Like a lot of people in his age bracket, his job is his life and he can't separate where one begins and the other leaves off.

Ben Gazzara's character is borrowed heavily from Robert Mitchum's in Not As a Stranger. He's the young idealistic type with more than a touch of arrogance however. Put Gazzara and March in the same work environment and we have the recipe for a pretty good medical drama.

Medical settings have been almost as good as courtrooms for drama. That's because in both you are dealing with life and death issues. What makes The Young Doctors unique is that this is the only film in my memory that has to deal with the Pathology Lab. Usually medical dramas take place with surgeons or researchers as the protagonists. What I like about The Young Doctors is that it shows another part of the hospital does play a critical role. My mother was in fact a secretary in a Pathology Lab in a hospital and if she were alive now, she'd be the first to applaud this film.

Both March and Gazzara turn out to be very human after all and both make a major blunder each on a given case. Yet they develop a healthy respect for each other as time goes by.

Other performances you will like here is Ina Balin as a student nurse with a major medical condition, Edward Andrews as another pathologist, Dick Clark who's another young doctor whose wife, Phyllis Love, is having a difficult pregnancy, and Aline McMahon, friend and confidante of March. I have a feeling that Florence Eldridge may have been offered the part before McMahon.

One guy here who is outstanding is the ever dependable Eddie Albert who plays a pediatrician. The most harrowing scene in the film is during an operation on Clark's newborn infant to give him a blood transfusion. Watch Albert's performance with minimal dialog during the procedure. As the sweat pours down him you feel right with him the worry and concern he has for his littlest patient barely able to taste life. His skill allows the newborn to have that crack at making his mark in the world.

We've seen medical dramas from Arrowsmith to ER and The Young Doctors takes an honored place among them.

Poignant moments that still resonate.

[graduatedan · 8/10 · 30 October 2008]

Watching The Young Doctors again after many years, I was struck by the film's no nonsense approach to the vagaries of medicine. While circumstances-and science have changed in the intervening 47 years since the movies' initial release, the drama of life and death in a hospital, as trite as that sounds, plays out with earnestness and poignancy. Ben Gazarra plays pathologist David Coleman, assigned to a lab headed by the incumbent Doctor Pearson.(Fredric March.) Pearson, (played to perfection by March), resents the younger man's attempts to modernize the antiquated path lab. The push-pull dynamic between the two men is believable,even if it does, at times, creep toward cheesiness. Coleman's budding relationship with nurse Cathy Hunt (Ina Balin), has to hit the right note, as their interaction figures prominently in the climax of the story. Both actors are up to the task, especially Gazarra, who makes his character live and breathe-and be real. The poignant scene of an exhausted Eddie Albert as a doctor trying to give a dying infant a chance at life resonates-even today. I found the film compelling and genuinely moving, just as I did when I saw it for the first time.

Soapy but Well-Acted and Scripted Hospital Drama

[mrb1980 · 8/10 · 21 September 2005]

This film probably could have been a dud if not for one reason: Fredric March, who outshines everyone as the crusty Dr. Pearson, head of pathology at a big-city hospital. The movie, like many hospital dramas, has a number of plots going on at the same time, and it takes quite a bit of attention to keep them straight.

When the hospital hires Dr. Coleman (Ben Gazzara) as his assistant, March has quite a hissy-fit, feeling that his lab has been invaded, and picks fights with the meticulous Gazzara at every chance. Gazzara can't stand March's sloppy housekeeping, and tries to clean things up, much to March's outrage.

The ultra-dedicated and hard-driving Gazzara meets a pretty hospital nurse, Cathy Hunter (Balin) and falls hard for her, although he thinks she is faking her supposed knee problems. It turns out that March diagnoses her with bone cancer, and recommends that her leg be amputated. This causes all sorts of emotions, and Gazzara actually becomes human toward the end of the movie.

There's also a subplot about Dr. Alexander (Dick Clark) and his wife, who are expecting a baby. March screws up a lab test on the mother, and heroic obstetrician Eddie Albert must save the newborn's life through some pretty tense and sweaty hospital scenes. Remember, this was about four years before "Green Acres", so don't laugh.

Because of his screw-up with the Alexander baby, March resigns and turns the pathology lab over to Gazzara, with a few elderly words of advice, of course. March walks away, movie ends.

Besides March, Gazzara, Albert, Clark, and Balin, the cast is sprinkled with notable actors, including the perfectly cast Edward Andrews (March's chief lab technician), intern George Segal (in his film debut), kindly doctor Aline MacMahon, and harried hospital administrator Arthur Hill. Ronald Reagan provides voice-over narration during the opening scenes! This movie was filmed in B&W and perfectly captures the early 1960s. Great cast, acting, and story place this above most hospital dramas. Worth seeking out.

Serious - at times nail-biting - though dated, slice of hospital melodrama

[Poseidon-3 · 4 May 2007]

Featuring a title that may lead people to believe that this is a sudsy, youth-oriented flick akin to "The Interns" or "Dr. Kildare", this is actually a rather sober account of the role that pathology plays in the world of medicine, surgery and obstetrics. Gazzara plays an idealistic, confident young doctor of pathology sent to a decaying city hospital in order to assist the aging March, who is running the department his way, with his head buried partially in the sand. The two butt heads immediately as Gazzara attempts to make changes and improvements to the lab and to their procedures while jaded assistant Andrews looks on. Things get particularly dicey when hospital intern Clark asks the department to order a particular blood test for his wife who is in danger of delivering a baby with RH Factor. March, used to running the ship his way bristles at the test and rebuff's Gazzara, who wants it done. (These two have a similar rivalry to Robert Stack and Joan Crawford in "The Caretakers" - old guard versus the new way.) Meanwhile, Gazzara romances pretty student nurse Balin who catches him by feigning a sore knee, a decision she comes to regret after a time. Albert plays a dedicated Ob-Gyn who is in charge of Clark's wife Love. Eventually, March's missteps lead to grave consequences for a new patient at the hospital and Gazzara soon has the weight of the world on his own shoulders as he has to decide the fate of a patient he knows and loves. Gazzara is strong in his role, balancing romantic scenes with confrontational ones against March. He also gets to poke fun at fellow Actors Studio member Marlon Brando in one scene. March is excellent. He adds dimension and texture in spades to a character that could have been a cardboard villain in other hands. Clark is surprisingly good in a role that requires angst and drama. Balin has fresh appeal, though she retains an aloof quality much of the time. One hilarious shot has her waking up after a particularly rough night with her hair immaculately coiffed and every eyelash in place, but that was the way back then. Albert is wonderful in his role, supplying casual humor and heart-rending suspense in equal measure. He has an operation near the end of the film that is agonizing (and features one incredibly adorable patient!) The cast is dotted with stalwart actors, some of whom get almost nothing to say or do. MacMahon has a nice part as a caring and concerned physician and Hill has a lengthy opening scene, but Hughes hardly clocks any screen time and Murphy has maybe one line! Segal, making his first film appearance is seen pretty often, but has limited dialogue. TV favorite Sweet has a small role as a, what else, policeman. Only a die-hard fan or a detective could successfully seek out Olympic Figure Skating Medalist Button as an operating intern. (Oddly, there's an ice-skating scene in the film, but he's nowhere to be found there.) A series of documentary-like vignettes opening the film are narrated by none other than Ronald Reagan! It's a fascinating glimpse into what medical procedures were like 40 some odd years ago (much has changed!), kept interesting by a talented cast that does very well with the material.

Good film

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 1 April 2010]

"The Young Doctors" is a 1961 film that is primarily about an old doctor (Frederic March) and a young doctor (Ben Gazzara). Gazzara, as David Coleman, comes to work in the pathology lab, the universe of Dr. Pearson (March), who resents this young whippersnapper's attempts to update the practices and equipment. It's the practicality vs. the idealism of youth - the budget, the energy fighting with the board, all of which Dr. Pearson is all too familiar. He makes it clear that he's not about to be driven out, either.

There are two subplots - one concerns Cathy (Ina Balin), a nursing student whom Coleman falls in love with; and Dr. Alexander (Dick Clark) and his wife, whose baby is born with erythroblastosis. This is the most dramatic, emotional, and suspenseful part of the film as the baby's doctor (Eddie Albert) transfuses the child. You really hold your breath.

This is a well-acted film, if a little bit predictable and dated, with excellent performances by March, Gazzara, Balin, and Albert. Dick Clark could have been a stronger presence. Aline MacMahon, a real old-timer, does a great job as a surgeon.

Recommended.

Dated, but still relevant

[maryszd · 7/10 · 29 March 2010]

The Young Doctors is a low-key medical drama involving (among other things) the clash between an older pathologist Dr. Pearson (Frederic March) and a younger doctor Dr. Coleman (Ben Gazarra) who challenges his authority and medical know-how. March is excellent as the crusty, experienced older doctor who is forced to confront his own aging and fading medical competence. Gazarra's youth and rebelliousness provides the perfect foil for him. The film also features one of my favorite character actresses, Aline MacMahon, as a one of the hospital's few female MDs. The weakest acting is by Dick Clark as Dr. Coleman, whose RH positive baby provides a harrowing dramatic moment in the film. This is a slow-moving black and white film, but it's surprisingly engrossing.

"Keep Yourself Up to Date. Lock Yourself in the Closet if You Have To."

[romanorum1 · 7/10 · 12 November 2010]

In an early scene of The Young Doctors, The hospital administrator, Tomaselli, has a conversation in the sweltering boiler room with the new doctor in town, Dr. David Coleman, who is learning the ropes. Coleman takes out his handkerchief and wipes his brow. Does he suspect that there will be confrontations in his new assignment? He has the look of one prepared.

The Young Doctors reflects the new trend in medical dramas at the time. In the fall of 1961 both Dr. Kildare and Ben Casey premiered on TV. At the movies there were The Interns (1962) and The New Interns (1964). Of course, the first craze in medical dramas was in the late 1930s with the original Dr. Kildare movie series. The central focus of The Young Doctors is the clash of generations represented by the old guard (Dr. Joseph Pearson = Fredric March), head of Pathology and the new breed, Dr. Coleman (Ben Gazzara), assistant head of Pathology. At a doctors' meeting the recent problems at the hospital are reviewed. Among other issues, there was exploratory chest surgery on a patient, who died on the operating table. A simple chest x-ray would have precluded both the surgery and the fatality. Some of the laboratory testing is outdated. Furthermore, there is no cross file system for Pathology, as Pearson has had "no time" to achieve the improvement. Then there is the inside common-place smoking by doctors (not unusual for the time, though). The nurses line up to review a dissection of a cadaver. At the end of the lecture Pearson says, "Enjoy your lunch." "I'll never eat again," quips a lovely nurse.

The two sub-stories center around nurse Cathy Hunt, Coleman's budding love interest, who may have a tumor on her knee, and on the pregnant wife/newborn baby of Dr. Alexander (Dick Clark). As each parent of the baby has RH positive and RH negative blood, respectively, hemolytic anemia of the new baby can develop. This condition, the destruction of the red blood cells, is a severe reaction that can be fatal. One of the doctors states with confidence that only one child in 26 of the RH negative group dies (and, by the way, the mother could become sterile). As Dr. Alexander and his wife have already lost their first child, they are obviously anxious. Perceptibly, before the baby is born, Dr. Alexander wants the hospital to add the Coombs Testing (for anti-globulins in the red blood cell) in addition to the other two standard tests (including the saline), which are not always accurate. Guess which one of the two protagonists agrees with the additional expenditure? And see what happens when the Coombs Test is not accomplished. An emergency blood transfusion becomes necessary, and so the scene is tense on the operating table as a new-born infant fights for his life. Meanwhile young nurse Cathy Hunt does not want to lose her leg, which is the case if there is a malignant tumor on her knee, and Pearson insists that is the condition. Contrarily, Coleman believes that the tumor is benign. Who is right this time? How will it all turn out? Enjoyable, and a throwback to hospital life in the early 1960s.

A modest but enjoyable look at medicine

[Red-125 · 7/10 · 12 September 2004]

The Young Doctors (1961), directed by Phil Karlson from a novel by Arthur Hailey, is one of the few films I've ever seen that highlights the work done by pathologists.

The plot lines are fairly predictable, but they hold your interest. The acting ranges from excellent (Fredric March) to adequate (Ben Gazzara) to barely adequate (Dick Clark) to inadequate (Ina Balin). (Aline MacMahon as Dr. Lucy Grainger does extremely well in a supporting role.)

The medicine that we see has held up pretty well over 43 years. However, the initial case review in which March demonstrates his "take no prisoners" approach actually was not mismanaged.

Despite the weakness of "The Young Doctors," it held our attention and brought out emotional responses.

It's not worth a special trip to find it, but if you see the film offered for rental, you could do much worse.

Young at Heart.

[morrison-dylan-fan · 6/10 · 17 February 2018]

After catching the stylish French New Wave flick The Girl with the Golden Eyes,I looked for another 1961 title that I could use for a double bill. Unable to find another disc with a movie from the year,I decided to relax and take a look at the "bonus" film the DVD seller had included. Checking online for more info,I was happy to find that it was a 1961 title,which led to me booking a doctor's appointment.

The plot:

Worn down by years of red tape and budget limitations, Dr. Joseph Pearson struggles to get use to new assistant Dr. David Coleman arrival at the hospital. Uncomfortable with Pearson's idea of doing things the old way, Coleman pushes for new medical practices to be tried at the hospital. As two new patients enter the hospital, Pearson and Coleman experience a clash of ideas.

View on the film:

Sternly ordering staff to follow the old ways, Fredric March gives a great, stubborn performance as Pearson,with March treating those who doubt Pearson's ways with a hard shoulder,whilst Dick Clark lays on his famous charm as Dr. Alexander. Entering the hospital like a tornado, Ben Gazzara breezes on a gust of youthful energy as Coleman,with Gazzara neatly balancing the blunt style of March's Pearson by giving Coleman exuberant compassion and progressive dedication to medicine.

Filmed on location in New York hospitals, director Phil Karlson & future Death Wish cinematographer Arthur J. Ornitz open the doors to the era,with Elmer Bernstein's excellent brassy score giving excitement to the shiny,new medical cures Karlson shows is being made,and also a hollowness to the run-down corridors in the back of the hospital. Despite staying close to personal Melodrama in adapting Arthur Hailey's book,the screenplay by Joseph Hayes uses a scalpel to open up questions still very relevant in the medical field, from the disagreements between doctors in making the correct diagnosis,to the running cost of the hospital putting limits on possible life-saving treatments that are the young doctors dreams.

High quality I wasn't expecting

[johnssib · 10/10 · 5 October 2011]

This movie was quite a pleasant surprise. I expected something along the lines of The Interns (which was a piece of trash), however for 1961, it was fairly authentic as to hospital and medical aspects. But but best of all, the relationships of the main characters carried the story, which included portrayals of women with intelligence and independence - a real exception for movies of the time. Talented performances by most of the main actors/actresses deserve mention: Fredric March (for the most part, eschewing his predilection for over-acting), Ben Gazarra, Ina Bilan (who's never gotten the credit she really deserves), Aline McMahon, and Dick Clark (I never even knew he was an actor). I could find nothing in the IMDb database about Oscars, but certainly some of these performers deserved at least to be nominated. I'm glad I caught it on TCM.

Interesting medical drama

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 8 April 2021]

If you liked Not as a Stranger, you're going to want to rent The Young Doctors. It follows a group of first-year doctors joining a hospital. Not only are there the usual hurdles, like losing sleep, getting lost in the corridors, workload overload, and adjusting to hierarchy and red tape; but each new doctor has his own personal struggle. Ben Gazzara is a pathologist, butting heads with the head honcho Fredric March, who's been in charge for decades. Ben falls in love with a nurse, Ina Balin, who has secrets of her own. Dick Clark's wife is expecting a baby, but they're both nervous about it because of their previous attempt.

Fredric March has class, confidence, and presence, owning every inch of the screen. Ben Gazzara has a different type of energy, the Paul Newman bad-boy generation of upstarts; but it's obvious he loves his field as much as his predecessor. Just like Not as a Stranger, there are criticisms and praises for the medical establishment in the story. We all wish doctors were all-knowing and could cure everything, but that's not the way it is. This film could have been made today, which is remarkable how little things have changed. With just a computer and a cell phone or two, a word-for-word remake could be filmed in the 2020s. Interesting, well-acted, and a story that keeps you guessing until the end, rent this one for a stimulating evening.

a fine, overlooked movie

[rupie · 8/10 · 30 March 2019]

I was drawn to this on TCM by the presence of Fredric March, Ben Gazzara and Eddie Albert, all among my favorite actors. I had expected a pro-forma medical flick but was surprised to find a movie with depth, grit, emotion and intellectual meat. As other reviewers have mentioned the title is misleading, and might more accurately have been called "The Old Pathologist," as Fredric March's role is central, and carries the movie. He plays a once-idealistic but now burnt out chief pathologist, who comes into conflict with a young tyro brought in by the hospital board to reinvigorate the pathology department. The conflict is handled intelligently with an excellent script. The romantic interest ties in smoothly with the medical issues. One is kept in thrall throughout, and March's performance is a stunner. Despite his crustiness in the end he is a sympathetic figure. As far as Dick Clark, after seeing this you'll know why he went with American Bandstand rather than pursue an acting career. The B&W cinematography to me enhances, rather than diminishes, the movie. An overlooked gem well worth a see.

Incomplete

[omgoddess · 4/10 · 13 July 2007]

This is only vaguely based on "The Final Diagnosis" by Arthur Hailey; if it were a proper adaptation, it would have been a good half-hour longer and less sugarcoated than, say, your average Gobstopper. What we don't see is the subsequent death of the Alexander baby, the difficulties Coleman and "Cathy" (Vivian in the text) face in their relationship, and a certain final plot element that serves to hammer home the problems of a static hospital management style. That line in the beginning of the film about a hot water system malfunction? In the book, it leads to an outbreak of typhoid, as apparently Pathology forgot to check its food service staff to figure out if they'd hired any carriers. Oops.

As a film, it's not a failure; casting wasn't bad, although Dick Clark seemed oddly wooden as Alexander during that crucial last fifteen minutes. I agree with an earlier reviewer who noticed Cathy's stunning hair post-amputation. If she hadn't just come out of surgery, I'd shrug it off as some nurse's kindness to a sick colleague, even in such a gritty take on the sixties medical drama. The adaptation does not do the character justice; in the book, she has a lot more personality. She becomes depressed over the missing leg, a grief which permeates the rest of her relationship with Coleman. As I recall, they are never truly happy together, because she can't get past the "deformity" that saved her life.

The book, with its whole plot intact, would have been filmable, which is why I object to the pruning here where I've shrugged off major changes between book and film in other situations. Sometimes, when you bring a book to life on screen, you have to squeeze, push, pull, prod, and otherwise manhandle the source material into submission. I get this. I've done enough comparisons to get it. This is what I want to do someday, for pity's sake, and had I been at the helm of that project? Yes, I would have taken that third plot point and put it in, precisely because it shows how many people live and die on the decisions of our medical personnel, and why hospitals must change with the times and with the demands of the public they serve. By making it a purely personal tale, the writers lose the point of the novel. I can only wonder what Hailey himself thought of the changes, and whether he understood what I can't.

Solid performances make this a very good film

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 24 October 2011]

Of course, dating to 1961, you have to give this film a pass in terms of now being outdated. But, the real story here -- modern medicine and the men who practice it, both those up-to-date, and those whose time is past -- remains timely and powerful.

You have Fredric March as the paternalistic physician who hasn't quite kept up with recent trends in medicine. Fortunately, they don't do a hatchet job on his character, here. They show him as being pro-patient, though a tad outdated, and ultimately he knows that it's time to move over. A powerful and rather pleasing performance by Fredric March, and proof that it is possible to retire with dignity.

Then you have Ben Gazzara, the young doctor who, though circumstances, learns that March has his strengths, and begins to respect certain aspects of his professionalism. He learns some valuable lessons. Always a strong actor, Gazzara does not disappoint here.

The biggest surprise is Dick Clark. Another young doctor, who does surprisingly well here. Not sure why he didn't move into more acting; he's certainly capable here.

Ina Balin plays the role of a nurse with potential bone cancer. A very good performance.

Eddie Albert turns in a strong performance. Unfortunate that he decided to soon move to "Green Acres". Aline MacMahon turns in a notable performance as a female doctor.

This is a good solid movie. All the endings are not totally happy endings, but neither are they all tragic. A good balance, and a good film. Perhaps not one of for the DVD shelf, but certainly one to watch once or savor twice!

A forgotten gem, and also a unique movie about medicine

[bellino-angelo2014 · 8/10 · 13 September 2018]

While there are many movies about medicine (and there have been before this), I loved this one in particular thanks to the direction, the acting and the plot, very unique for a movie set in a hospital. I liked also the black and white cinematography because it truly fits the movie's dramatic moments.

The film is set in an hospital, with Fredric March as Dr. Pearson, the head pathologist that has many years of experience and teaches the job to the young students. Meanwhile arrives the new assistant, Dr. Coleman (played by Ben Gazzara) and tries to convince Pearson to use new and innovative medical strategies. But soon, they have a clash of ideas thanks to two serious cases.

I have to agree with user bkoganbing: medical dramas are sometimes similar to courtroom dramas because they both deal with life and death issues. The uniqueness of the movie is that is set in the Pathology lab, a rarely seen part of the hospital.

The cast is maybe one of the best ensemble cast ever found in a medical drama. Fredric March and Ben Gazzara shine as the two main characters, two doctors that after clashes they turn to be very human, and in the end they respect each other. Ina Balin (in the same year of THE COMANCHEROS) is a young nurse that has also a severe medical condition, and falls for Gazzara's character. Dick Clark stars as a young medic with a pregnant wife that battles to keep the baby alive.

But the real standout in the movie is Eddie Albert in his most underrated performance: as doctor Dornberger, the pediatrician that saves Dick Clark's newborn son. You can see all of Albert's seriousness and dedication in the job by the sweat crawling in his skin. And he succeds in saving the baby and making him take his first steps in the world.

In the cast also Edward Andrews as another doctor, George Segal (in his debut) as March's assistant and Aline McMahon as March's friend.

Still, this is a truly unique and pleasant movie (although forgotten nowadays) that also kept my interest until the end.

Decent drama but great look into 1960's medicine

[allstarjd74 · 8/10 · 9 November 2010]

As a medical student, I found this film to be enjoyable not because it features a groundbreaking plot but based on the wonderful insight it offers into the practice of medicine in the mid 20th century.

The characters are well developed and the actors do a great job with an average story. Personally, I thought Dick Clark's character was probably the weakest and Ben Gazzara stole the show.

If you are in the field of medicine, I think you will find this an enjoyable watch. You will also be offered a reminder of how far medicine has come, even in the last 50-60 years.

Overall, I rated this title 8/10 as it offers an average, but interesting story with some great acting.

A Typical Medical Soap Opera - But A Very Well Done Medical Soap Opera

[sddavis63 · 8/10 · 23 April 2010]

This movie surprises. It's fairly slow-moving and largely little more than a pretty typical medical soap opera. There's nothing in it that pulls the viewer in from the start, and yet, for some strange reason - this works! It gradually becomes more and more compelling, and eventually the viewer comes to care about these characters and what happens to them.

The tension in the movie revolves around the relationship between two pathologists. Dr. Pearson (Frederic March) is an older doctor, head of the hospital's pathology department, who's out of date and doesn't really care that he's out of date, and doesn't want to fight the hospital bureaucracy for the money that would be required to get the department up to date. Dr. Coleman (Ben Gazzarra) is a younger doctor, hired as Pearson's assistant, who sees the problems and sets himself to the task of bringing the pathology department into the modern world.

The conflict between the two is demonstrated through a sick baby. Coleman orders a new, more sophisticated test to diagnose the baby's illness, but Pearson vetoes the idea without even consulting Coleman. The way they've been doing it has worked all along; why bother with something new. In the end, the baby isn't diagnosed properly, and a crisis ensues. That part of the story is well done. I felt the sadness as the baby seemed to lose its fight; then I felt the relief as it took a sudden breath. Tne story of student nurse Cathy (played by a lovely actress named Ina Balin) is also well done. This story softens Pearson a bit, as he seems to go out of his way to make sure there's a quick diagnosis of whether or not she has cancer. Cathy also serves as a romantic interest for Coleman. The requisite romance in these kinds of stories is often unnecessary and distracting - but here it seemed quite natural, and it worked.

This is, in fact, a surprisingly good movie.

..a view of how "doctoring" has changed..

[fimimix · 10/10 · 15 July 2007]

"The Young Doctors" has a cast of power-actors easily recognized during the past 30 years, who at that time were hardly known: Marlon Brando (gotta look hard to see him); Dick Clark of TV fame; George Segal (again, look close); Dick Button (Olympic skating-star); etc. Of course, "the studio system" was in full force then: the studios cast whomever of their gigantic list of actors/actresses under contract to them. Frederic March was very popular when this film was shot, and also a very good actor in a variety of roles.

One must also take into account that "doctoring" (until shortly after that era) was considered to be right next to God; dedication and honor were their driving-forces, not the huge fees they receive today. Even in this early film - just one of several, major movies on this subject - the point is explicitly stated "you'll never get rich" by a policeman to "Dr." Dick Clark, who is in general practice.....not too many of those around today, when everyone is a "specialist". Although March drives-home "I am in charge here" with charisma and wit, with a dash of dedication thrown-in, it also demonstrates that even today a doctor's position was/is a highly-protected one. This was the beginning of "second opinions", and this film drives home how hospitals in a large city like NYC can get that done in hours......small cities (for then)? Eddie Albert plays a very good role in "The Young Doctors", allowing him to move away from a silly-young-man type-cast by a studio which discovers he has acting-ability - and demonstrates an early confrontation of one doctor toward another: "mess-up, and I'll tear you apart before the medical board".

Established pathologist Fredric March confronts a new assistant, Ben Gazzara - one of the truly beautiful young actors, who got scarce opportunity to display talent. Gazzara is dedicated and cleans-up a messy lab. However, like March's dictatorial decisions - how many accurate? - also gives an inaccurate diagnosis, because it involves his love-life.

The plot is highly predictable by today's sophisticated audiences, but is a well-acted story about the medical profession and the tensions of keeping one's emotions (and careers) under control. One wrong diagnosis spelled career-ruination. However, in that era the doctor could just move to another part of the country and continue to "practice" - the "net" prevents that today, but also demonstrates how much unnecessary surgery has been and is being done today: big bucks. Malpractice is a familiar story.......cleverly covered-up.

"The Young Doctors" is a forerunner of many popular TV-productions which keep us glued to the box. Yeah, it IS rather "soap-opera-ish" but IS a good watch. Get past Gazzara's beauty, you find a very entertaining movie, with March walking-off into a blue horizon, at last freed of making life-changing prognoses. For those of you who don't know what a pathologist is, they're in charge of "the morgue".....

A movie well worth watching but sadly also incomplete due to what was cut out

[lippylip26 · 9/10 · 7 December 2020]

This is the third time I have watched the Young Doctors and I must it is an excellent adaptation of Arthur Haley's The Final Diagnosis Which each time I read it could not put it down Likewise with The Young Doctors it is very good and does follow one of the main story lines to its fullest and the other only partially The two main story lines are the birth of baby and a growth on one of the nurses and the dilemma as to whether the Growth is Benign or Malignant However there is a secondary story line omitted that would have heightened the tension even more that was left out The Final Diagnosis has al, the makings of a mini series if it was kept to the original story The Young Doctors just concentrates on the baby and the tumour The acting was very good and the actors handled their parts well Watching the show then reading the book The Final Diagnosis brings a great deal of picture to the book because of the type casting of the actors As described in the book most of the actors are very well illustrated to the book portrails Dr Pearson and Dr Colman blend the book and the movie as one Some of the other actors sadly don't Dr Lucy Granger Is years older than the book portrayal but then the director of the hospital is missing from the movie and it is their love affair that brings the book to life more The other actors are reasonably portrayed and one can see their likenesses in the book What is also missing is the Eunice Swain segment which plays a big part in the book and the attitude of dr person and dr Colman As I said If the book was taken and the movie was expanded to encompass all the side stories it would make a brilliant mini series just like Hotel, Airport, Strong Medicine, Wheels (I believe was also made into a mini series) Detective, Flight into Danger (just a Film and a spoof Airplane) and the Money Changers I loved this show The only reason I gave it a 9 and not a 10 is because of the omissions made Interestingly enough The Final Diagnosis has been rated in the medical fraternity as one of the most accurate depictions of the medical profession But then Arthur Hailey did many months research into each of his subjects to ensure the details were as close as Damit to the real thing the Death of Arthur Hailey is a tragic loss to the world

Passing the flame.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 9 August 2020]

While "The Young Doctors" is not a famous film by any standard, it is an amazingly good movie...mostly because of it's incredibly impressive cast as well as the writing. It really has held up well over time and is well worth seeing.

Speaking of cast, the film stars Frederic March, Ben Gazzara, Ina Balin, Eddie Albert, Aline MacMahon, Edward Andrews and Arthur Hill--all actors who weren't necessarily mega-stars but all amazingly solid and dependable. In other words, it's a who's who of fine character actors of the day. The only seemingly weak link, and he was actually fine here, was sticking the inexperienced Dick Clark into the film as one of the doctors.

The film is naturally set at a hospital. A relatively young but very capable doctor, Dr. Coleman (Gazzara) has just arrived for his first day of work with the pathology department. The chief pathologist, Dr. Pearson (March), obviously did not want Coleman in his department....and it soon becomes obvious this is because he's afraid this new hot-shot doctor will take over or make too many changes. And, change is definitely something Coleman brings...which brings him into a confrontation of Pearson. Along the way, a couple challenging cases are brought to them...and it's make or break for the new versus the old way of doing things.

The film simply is extremely well written and acted. Sure, it's only a hospital drama...but it's also an exceptional one. Well worth seeing and like a textbook example of fine, realistic acting and writing.

What's "DATED?"

[lrrap · 10/10 · 22 July 2023]

If a film made in 1960 portrays real, up-to-the-moment drama and situations...and you only see cars on the street from 1960 or earlier, does that make the film "Dated?" Similarly, the medical technology and practices in a small-town, UNDER-funded hospital in 1961 (as shown in this film) should be regarded as EXACTLY THAT: a reflection of the real-world at that time.

If the film is honest in its portrayal, it's quality or reputation does not suffer 60 years later due to the passage of time, except in the opinions of younger, snark-prone "critics" who can't seem to appreciate the culture and history from the past as preserved on film.

The Young Doctors is an excellent film in every respect: script, direction, acting, pacing, cinematography, etc. Fredric March again displays his unique brand of confident, natural underplaying and the ability to totally dominate a scene..in a good way. His Dr. Pearson may be cantankerous and authoritarian, but he is also good-humored and willing to learn and change.

The rest of the cast is first-rate, a sure sign of the director's strong, guiding hand. There is a true-to-life, natural feel about all of the performances, with Eddie Albert contributing a couple of intense dramatic scenes. Dick Clark also "holds his own" very well alongside the pros. Solid all around.

OK...when Ina Balin wakes up after her surgery near the end, she's fully made-up and coiffed...which is DATED, I suppose, since that was the rule in film and TV back in the day. Still, she is photographed and lit to look like an alluring goddess, emerging from a deep, mystical trance. It's quite an effective use of the old, "dated" on-screen custom where actresses were concerned.

Also-- in reading the other comments here, I understand the disappointment in discovering the events from the novel that were OMITTED from the screenplay. But:

1.) The death of Alexander infant would have been too much of an emotional blow for audiences of the day; the film may not have even been approved for release (I was squirming and near tears during this intense scene; excellent direction, editing, and a superb performance by Eddie Albert).

2.) At 102 minutes, the film seems perfectly balanced and structured as it is: a "chamber" drama with fascinating characters and situations that resolve themselves beautifully at the end. A full-length novel MUST be pared down for the screen for running time considerations.

3.) Without having been aware of the differences with the novel, I thoroughly enjoyed "The Young Doctors" and was totally engrossed in its artful storytelling.

----------------------------------------------- Note: actor Joe Bova (who plays Dr. Shawcross in the opening autopsy scene.."Right this way, ladies...") had recently created the role of the wimpy Prince Dauntless in Broadway's "Once Upon a Mattress", the 1959 musical that made a star of Carol Burnett.

Just thought you'd like to know. LR.