Many years after graduating college in New Hampshire in 1942, a nostalgic man revisits the campus of his alma mater in the off-season and reminisces about his roommate, a gregarious and reckless lad who goaded his friends into living for the day, breaking the rules and--most especially--jumping out of a tall tree in into the lake below. Overlooked film version of John Knowles' semi-autobiographical novel (which, in turn, was expanded from his short story "Phineas") has a deeply personal feel even on the screen. While Knowles denied any homoerotic undercurrents in the text, those who do sense an attraction between the roommates, played here by John Heyl and Parker Stevenson, are bound to be the film's biggest admirers (when the novel is discussed in schools, it is said that homosexuality is never brought up in class, yet that hasn't stopped some schools from banning the book). There's a lovely simplicity--and, conversely, an unspoken complexity--in the friendship between the young men, which screenwriter Fred Segal cautiously, carefully tiptoes through (which is better than being tiptoed around). Director Larry Peerce works well with his actors, most of them non-professionals, and shows a keen, stylish eye for the period (surprising, since Peerce at this point had not shown much sensitivity). Not a hit with audiences, the picture grossed just under $1M at the US box office and was promptly forgotten, but it has a special sort of gleam. **1/2 from ****
38 Reviews
Review
aidanpunk5 March 2009
As with many film adaptations, fans of the book can't but feel that they've been slightly cheated by the movie. The 1972 adaptation's faithfulness to the book can be commended, but it comes at a heavy price. The movie is so faithful that it was filmed at the boarding school, "Phillips Exeter Academy," that John Knowles attended and drew inspiration for the book from. The movie goes as far as to fill the cast, with the exception of Gene, with students and alumni who participated in the Academy's drama club. The actors' lack of experience shines throughout the movie and viewers are left with the notion to laugh. Lines, taken from the book, are delivered blandly and lack any emotion.
On positive thing that the movie brings to the table is the setting, being filmed at the boarding school where the book was "set" everything seems right. When they introduce the tree, you can't help but wonder if the novel's story is closer to non-fiction rather than fiction.
The movie makes an attempt to convey the symbolism found in the book, but without Gene's constant narration a viewer who hasn't read the book would find it very hard to grasp.
Although the movie makes an earnest attempt at greatness, the inexperienced cast, and low budget get in the way to frequently.
On positive thing that the movie brings to the table is the setting, being filmed at the boarding school where the book was "set" everything seems right. When they introduce the tree, you can't help but wonder if the novel's story is closer to non-fiction rather than fiction.
The movie makes an attempt to convey the symbolism found in the book, but without Gene's constant narration a viewer who hasn't read the book would find it very hard to grasp.
Although the movie makes an earnest attempt at greatness, the inexperienced cast, and low budget get in the way to frequently.
pretty cool
aidan-poor11 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The movie of A Separate Peace was pretty good for the most part. They told the story fairly accurately and it would be enjoyable for anyone who read the book. But naturally, since it was a movie about a book, I did have a few problems with it.
The acting was third rate. This has nothing to do with how the movie differs from the book, and is completely understandable seeing as they used students from the school, but it got very distracting at some points. My friend and I couldn't help but giggle at the "high school play" like acting at many points during the movie.
Another problem that I had with it, which is different from the book, is that Gene's narration is no longer present. In the book, we would always hear Gene's older self narrate what is happening. This would allow us to understand his inner conflicts and what was actually going on in his head. Without that there, everything seems very absolute. For example, when Gene jounces the limb, in the book we understand Gene's inner conflict regarding if he did it consciously or sub-consciously. In the movie it appears as though Gene did it absolutely on purpose.
The third and final main problem that I had with the movie was that they told the story very fast. Instead of developing an important scene like the author did in the book, they jump from important scene to important scene very quickly without giving the audience time to catch their breathe.
For the most part it was a good movie, but the book and the movie have different purposes. If you want to hear the story, watch the movie. If you want to understand, study and/ or learn from it, then read the book.
The acting was third rate. This has nothing to do with how the movie differs from the book, and is completely understandable seeing as they used students from the school, but it got very distracting at some points. My friend and I couldn't help but giggle at the "high school play" like acting at many points during the movie.
Another problem that I had with it, which is different from the book, is that Gene's narration is no longer present. In the book, we would always hear Gene's older self narrate what is happening. This would allow us to understand his inner conflicts and what was actually going on in his head. Without that there, everything seems very absolute. For example, when Gene jounces the limb, in the book we understand Gene's inner conflict regarding if he did it consciously or sub-consciously. In the movie it appears as though Gene did it absolutely on purpose.
The third and final main problem that I had with the movie was that they told the story very fast. Instead of developing an important scene like the author did in the book, they jump from important scene to important scene very quickly without giving the audience time to catch their breathe.
For the most part it was a good movie, but the book and the movie have different purposes. If you want to hear the story, watch the movie. If you want to understand, study and/ or learn from it, then read the book.
An excellent film .
fordraff25 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is a fine film and deserves a reevaluation. The film is excellently cast with boys who look exactly as I pictured the characters when I read the novel in 1960.
And the film is well acted. None of the boys, with the exception of Stevenson, were professional actors but students at Phillips Exeter Academy at the time, and Stevenson was making his film debut here. These boys convey the characters very well. Heyl is excellent as Finny, and Stevenson is fine as Gene. In particular, Heyl does the scene at the beach very well. Peter Bush conveys the timidity of Leper and Victor Bevine the arrogance of Brinker.
The dialogue is sometimes stiff, but the boys are young and unsure of what to say or whether to express their feelings at all. Conversely, much of the dialogue is more literary than natural, presenting the actors with the problem of having to say expository lines and make that talk seem natural. Even the best professionals have trouble doing this.
This movie was filmed at Phillips Exeter Academy, where author John Knowles went to school. There is a nice sense of the passing of the seasons here, though I would have appreciated even more attention to the colors or autumn and the blossoms of spring; summer and winter are well attended to here.
And the musical score is excellent. The moment when the film goes to flashback and the boys dash out of the dorm unto the playing fields to Benny Goodman's theme, "Let's Dance," is one of the finest openings in all motion picture history. For those with a frame of reference, it instantly transports one back to the 40s.
The clothing recalls a time when schoolboys, especially at private schools, dressed well to go to class. In the 40s, no one wore sneakers, blue jeans, or t-shirts to class.
The film is well composed, which is apparent if one sees it on DVD where it is shown in its proper aspect ratio. And it makes excellent use of color and lighting. The shot of Finny lying at the bottom of the white marble stairs after his second accident is a fine example of this. Another excellent example of the use of color (brown), lighting (shadowing), and composition (Gene is foreground left; Finny in background right) can be seen in the scene where Gene and Finny are in their room and Finny tells Gene he's seen the AWOL Leper on campus.
It's filled with the symbolism that was in the novel but also small bits like this one: during the trial scene, notice that Finny has his arm on the back of Gene's chair, symbolizing a closeness, an embrace of Gene, but as the truth of what Gene did penetrates fully to Finny, he lets his arm drop, symbolizing the break between the two. And what an excellent moment we have when the boys are shoveling snow from the tracks for the troop train to pass. There we have the soldiers in the train, already hostage to war, and the boys outside with their shovels, still free--what is, what will be.
The film isn't the book and to condemn it on that basis is unfair. The book can deal more completely with the interior lives of Gene and the others than the movie can, but the film does as good a job as it can without giving us arty stream-of-consciousness scenes.
About that scene at the beach and why a voice-over by Gene would be a helpful addition to the film. I'm quoting from the book here:
Finny: "I hope you're having a pretty good time here. I know I kind of dragged you away at the point of a gun, but, after all, you can't come to the shore with just anybody, and you can't come by yourself, and at this teen-age period in life, the proper person is your best pal." He hesitated and then added, "Which is what you are," and there was silence on his dune.
It was a courageous thing to say, Gene thinks. Exposing a sincere emotion nakedly like that at the Devon School was the next thing to suicide. I should have told him then that he was my best friend also and rounded off what he had said. I started to; I nearly did. But something held me back. Perhaps I was stopped by that level of feeling, deeper than thought, which contains the truth."
That level of truth is not that Gene loved Finny. Gene didn't trust Finny, was suspicious of Finny's motives toward him, had his defenses up, and no one can truly love another in that state. Nonetheless, the paragraph following Finny's dialogue should have been in a voice-over. Knowles agrees and made this point in the July/August 1987 issue of "American Film."
It's fashionable to see a homosexual subtext in the novel now. But I read and taught the novel before the 1969 Stonewall rebellion, in a time when a relationship between boys could be "just friendship and intense devotion" without its being sexual.
I had great success teaching this novel for two or three years at Harford Junior College in Bel Air, Maryland. I valued so much the joy of teaching the book and the response of the students there that I never again taught the book because I didn't want to have those memories tarnished by a later generation of lethargic, rebellious, resistant students. The male students of 1964 and 1965 were still subject to the draft, and the Vietnam War was reaching the boiling point. Like the boys of Devon on the rails shoveling the snow, my students (male, at least) could well understand that in the not-too-distant future they would be in the train on the way to war. And among those students I taught, several lost their lives in Vietnam.
And the film is well acted. None of the boys, with the exception of Stevenson, were professional actors but students at Phillips Exeter Academy at the time, and Stevenson was making his film debut here. These boys convey the characters very well. Heyl is excellent as Finny, and Stevenson is fine as Gene. In particular, Heyl does the scene at the beach very well. Peter Bush conveys the timidity of Leper and Victor Bevine the arrogance of Brinker.
The dialogue is sometimes stiff, but the boys are young and unsure of what to say or whether to express their feelings at all. Conversely, much of the dialogue is more literary than natural, presenting the actors with the problem of having to say expository lines and make that talk seem natural. Even the best professionals have trouble doing this.
This movie was filmed at Phillips Exeter Academy, where author John Knowles went to school. There is a nice sense of the passing of the seasons here, though I would have appreciated even more attention to the colors or autumn and the blossoms of spring; summer and winter are well attended to here.
And the musical score is excellent. The moment when the film goes to flashback and the boys dash out of the dorm unto the playing fields to Benny Goodman's theme, "Let's Dance," is one of the finest openings in all motion picture history. For those with a frame of reference, it instantly transports one back to the 40s.
The clothing recalls a time when schoolboys, especially at private schools, dressed well to go to class. In the 40s, no one wore sneakers, blue jeans, or t-shirts to class.
The film is well composed, which is apparent if one sees it on DVD where it is shown in its proper aspect ratio. And it makes excellent use of color and lighting. The shot of Finny lying at the bottom of the white marble stairs after his second accident is a fine example of this. Another excellent example of the use of color (brown), lighting (shadowing), and composition (Gene is foreground left; Finny in background right) can be seen in the scene where Gene and Finny are in their room and Finny tells Gene he's seen the AWOL Leper on campus.
It's filled with the symbolism that was in the novel but also small bits like this one: during the trial scene, notice that Finny has his arm on the back of Gene's chair, symbolizing a closeness, an embrace of Gene, but as the truth of what Gene did penetrates fully to Finny, he lets his arm drop, symbolizing the break between the two. And what an excellent moment we have when the boys are shoveling snow from the tracks for the troop train to pass. There we have the soldiers in the train, already hostage to war, and the boys outside with their shovels, still free--what is, what will be.
The film isn't the book and to condemn it on that basis is unfair. The book can deal more completely with the interior lives of Gene and the others than the movie can, but the film does as good a job as it can without giving us arty stream-of-consciousness scenes.
About that scene at the beach and why a voice-over by Gene would be a helpful addition to the film. I'm quoting from the book here:
Finny: "I hope you're having a pretty good time here. I know I kind of dragged you away at the point of a gun, but, after all, you can't come to the shore with just anybody, and you can't come by yourself, and at this teen-age period in life, the proper person is your best pal." He hesitated and then added, "Which is what you are," and there was silence on his dune.
It was a courageous thing to say, Gene thinks. Exposing a sincere emotion nakedly like that at the Devon School was the next thing to suicide. I should have told him then that he was my best friend also and rounded off what he had said. I started to; I nearly did. But something held me back. Perhaps I was stopped by that level of feeling, deeper than thought, which contains the truth."
That level of truth is not that Gene loved Finny. Gene didn't trust Finny, was suspicious of Finny's motives toward him, had his defenses up, and no one can truly love another in that state. Nonetheless, the paragraph following Finny's dialogue should have been in a voice-over. Knowles agrees and made this point in the July/August 1987 issue of "American Film."
It's fashionable to see a homosexual subtext in the novel now. But I read and taught the novel before the 1969 Stonewall rebellion, in a time when a relationship between boys could be "just friendship and intense devotion" without its being sexual.
I had great success teaching this novel for two or three years at Harford Junior College in Bel Air, Maryland. I valued so much the joy of teaching the book and the response of the students there that I never again taught the book because I didn't want to have those memories tarnished by a later generation of lethargic, rebellious, resistant students. The male students of 1964 and 1965 were still subject to the draft, and the Vietnam War was reaching the boiling point. Like the boys of Devon on the rails shoveling the snow, my students (male, at least) could well understand that in the not-too-distant future they would be in the train on the way to war. And among those students I taught, several lost their lives in Vietnam.
I liked it in 1972, and I liked it in 2020
vincentlynch-moonoi6 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, I remember this film well back in 1972 when I was just 23. I had long wanted to watch it again, so I was pleased when it showed up on Amazon Prime (albeit as a rental). I enjoyed it both times. Admittedly, I have never read the novel, so I can't do a comparison. But I always prefer to look at a film as a stand-alone telling of a story.
I understand that most of the students portrayed were not actors, and were actually students at that prep school. I thought they did fairly well. It was the only film that John Heyl ever appeared in (Finny), and I thought he did a good job; he became an actual teacher. Parker Stevenson has had a long career in Hollywood, although more as a character actor; I thought he did well, too. Oddly enough, I thought the one professor that was portrayed teaching was a little too odd, and not well done.
I think this is a good film, although I note that it seems that people either really like it or really don't like it. I haven't been tempted to watch the 2004 version. It's a good story and a reasonably good film.
I understand that most of the students portrayed were not actors, and were actually students at that prep school. I thought they did fairly well. It was the only film that John Heyl ever appeared in (Finny), and I thought he did a good job; he became an actual teacher. Parker Stevenson has had a long career in Hollywood, although more as a character actor; I thought he did well, too. Oddly enough, I thought the one professor that was portrayed teaching was a little too odd, and not well done.
I think this is a good film, although I note that it seems that people either really like it or really don't like it. I haven't been tempted to watch the 2004 version. It's a good story and a reasonably good film.
Mostly dull and depressing
highwaytourist5 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was disappointed. The source material was interesting, although overrated. So it had the potential to be a pretty good story. But this doesn't do it. Part of the problem was that they attempted to convey a late 60's - early 70's mood to a story that took place during World War II, and they did a poor job of capturing the time and place. Obviously, there are parallels to the Vietnam War for those who care to look for them, but that was not suited to this story. The plot is somewhat mysterious. Gene, a nerdy honor student, has become roommates with a handsome, charismatic jock named Finny, and becomes very enamored with him. To Gene's surprise, Finny seems equally devoted to him, but he can't figure out why. Partly as a result of that and the pressure to excel at school, he fears that Finney is plotting to undermine him academically, so when they are preparing to jump off of a large tree together, he makes a fateful and decision with devastating consequences. There is a message that the story tries to convey- perhaps about the competitive atmosphere of school, perhaps about the nature of friendship and devotion, or perhaps Gene thinking that no one would want to be friends with him without having an ulterior motive. And there are other possibilities as well. But the film never explores this in anything more than a superficial way. Because of the source material, there are some interesting scenes and some nice scenery, and the inexperienced cast does well enough. But it never gets the viewer all that interested in the story, even for fans of the novel.
It's a decent movie that is more entertaining than the book.
andrew-683-29226312 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A Seprate Peace is a story about two boys and their experiences throughout the year at an all boy's boarding school in New England. The movie was filmed at Exeter Academy, the school Knowles, the author, attended as a boy and all the actors in the movie are actual students at Exeter.
The movie itself I thought was quite well done and followed the book closely except for a few minor parts. Although the acting was done by students and not professional actors, I thought the kids did a very good job. Although cheesy and a little unrealistic at some parts, they played their roles very well and using actual students allowed for them to fit into their rolls perfectly.
Because it is a movie and under time constraints, not every event that took place in the book happened in the movie. This can cause a little bit of confusion for those who are watching the movie but have not read the book. The book is written in first person and allows for much more insight into the characters head than a movie can offer. Sections where an insight from a character had to be skipped or shortened or modified to fit into the movie like SPOILER ALERT Finny's conversation with Leper after Leper has deserted in order to avoid a section 8 discharge. This section was confusing because the inner workings of the two characters brains cannot be seen or understood clearly unless the viewer has read the book. It is also very difficult to understand that Gene intentionally jounced the limb. The scene in the movie was extremely hectic and awkward and it is hard for the filmmaker to convey Gene's inner savageness without being able to get inside his head END SPOILER.
Some of the symbols that were used in the book were not used in the movie either such as the contrast of the two rivers and Gene's "baptisms" in each or how blitzball is the perfect game for finny. Although the absence of these symbols does not detract from the viewers ability to enjoy the movie, they are an added bonus that readers can gain that viewers cannot.
Overall I thought the movie was well put together and much more entertaining than the book. The book seemed to move to slowly and the movie seemed to skip the boring parts and cut right to the action, which means that without having previously having read the book, the viewer might be a little lost at some points throughout the movie.
The movie itself I thought was quite well done and followed the book closely except for a few minor parts. Although the acting was done by students and not professional actors, I thought the kids did a very good job. Although cheesy and a little unrealistic at some parts, they played their roles very well and using actual students allowed for them to fit into their rolls perfectly.
Because it is a movie and under time constraints, not every event that took place in the book happened in the movie. This can cause a little bit of confusion for those who are watching the movie but have not read the book. The book is written in first person and allows for much more insight into the characters head than a movie can offer. Sections where an insight from a character had to be skipped or shortened or modified to fit into the movie like SPOILER ALERT Finny's conversation with Leper after Leper has deserted in order to avoid a section 8 discharge. This section was confusing because the inner workings of the two characters brains cannot be seen or understood clearly unless the viewer has read the book. It is also very difficult to understand that Gene intentionally jounced the limb. The scene in the movie was extremely hectic and awkward and it is hard for the filmmaker to convey Gene's inner savageness without being able to get inside his head END SPOILER.
Some of the symbols that were used in the book were not used in the movie either such as the contrast of the two rivers and Gene's "baptisms" in each or how blitzball is the perfect game for finny. Although the absence of these symbols does not detract from the viewers ability to enjoy the movie, they are an added bonus that readers can gain that viewers cannot.
Overall I thought the movie was well put together and much more entertaining than the book. The book seemed to move to slowly and the movie seemed to skip the boring parts and cut right to the action, which means that without having previously having read the book, the viewer might be a little lost at some points throughout the movie.
A Separate Peace the movie does little justice to Knowles
Kevo23228 January 2005
The only way you can compare Larry Peerce's movie version of A Separate Peace to John Knowles book, is in its specific lines. It is almost word for word, and that's one of the only things I can give it. As a lone movie, with no book responsibilities, it is not a horrible film. There are creative shots and the cinematography in some scenes is very passable. For example, the scene in which Leper has been pushed to the ground, and the camera is pulled out to show them being the only color figures on a pure white background, is very powerful. Also, the tree is well represented as a looming giant to whom the film works around. I enjoyed Gene's character, played by Parker Stevenson. He was very believable in playing the part of a confused young man trying to figure out where he is in life and where he needs to go to be fulfilled. On the other hand, I disagree with Peerce's choice for Phineas. John Heyl did Finny little justice in his lack of presenting the legendary boy as a super hero of high school adolescence. All together, this movie is five stars out of ten. Most of the points are lost on the acting. A better cast would make this a much better movie.
There is no Peace
gaoshan10 July 2003
The many negative comments on this elegant tale of the rites of adolescent angst insisted I watch again to see what they are talking about. These are teenagers so their actions aren't obliged to make sense. The pregnant pauses and alleged poor acting is awkward emotional teenage behavior mildly obscured because they're bright, articulate kids with lots of rivalries - but there is more going on here.
No one has even mentioned the emotional range of the very powerful snow-shoveling scene euphoria to unutterable sadness, screaming to silence: terrified kids. While the war is symbolic for the emotional swings of the children throughout the film it is very much less important as an influence.
Thematically what no reviewer seems to see here is the love story which foments the jealous, insecure, blind, ignorant savage underneath', illogical urge to strike out. When you don't know what else to do somebody's going to get hurt: these are scared, hormonal, vulnerable, lonely, forty's boys and coming out just isn't done.
Worse still - it may be unrequited love - even though it's just you and me buddy', and I'm good for you' and the beach is where you don't just come with anybody' and Finny's got himself and Gene undressed down to their underwear every chance he gets. Confusion reigns supreme afterward in the dorm when Gene - hasn't been the same since the beach' - and he's worried about something' unrevealed. And again later when he's wearing Finny's clothes and then again when he's stuttering on the phone.
Consider the reaction devastation when Finny thinks Gene might enlist and the ode to friendship that is the Winter Carnival where Gene wins all the gold - after training for the Olympics'. These boys are experiencing feelings which are strong and bubbling over all the time and they have no experience to cope with them.
The confession deals marvelously with the ethical problem of the selfish, sociopathic moment the stupid impulse the temporary insanity, when everything was changed forever, but in tears stops just short of Gene telling Finny he loves him. Then again in the hospital - a confession and forgiveness, but no relief from what the lad cannot express: there is no unraveling, no spilling his guts and no moment of truth.
Years later, all the fear and anger returned' - there is no peace, ever.
No one has even mentioned the emotional range of the very powerful snow-shoveling scene euphoria to unutterable sadness, screaming to silence: terrified kids. While the war is symbolic for the emotional swings of the children throughout the film it is very much less important as an influence.
Thematically what no reviewer seems to see here is the love story which foments the jealous, insecure, blind, ignorant savage underneath', illogical urge to strike out. When you don't know what else to do somebody's going to get hurt: these are scared, hormonal, vulnerable, lonely, forty's boys and coming out just isn't done.
Worse still - it may be unrequited love - even though it's just you and me buddy', and I'm good for you' and the beach is where you don't just come with anybody' and Finny's got himself and Gene undressed down to their underwear every chance he gets. Confusion reigns supreme afterward in the dorm when Gene - hasn't been the same since the beach' - and he's worried about something' unrevealed. And again later when he's wearing Finny's clothes and then again when he's stuttering on the phone.
Consider the reaction devastation when Finny thinks Gene might enlist and the ode to friendship that is the Winter Carnival where Gene wins all the gold - after training for the Olympics'. These boys are experiencing feelings which are strong and bubbling over all the time and they have no experience to cope with them.
The confession deals marvelously with the ethical problem of the selfish, sociopathic moment the stupid impulse the temporary insanity, when everything was changed forever, but in tears stops just short of Gene telling Finny he loves him. Then again in the hospital - a confession and forgiveness, but no relief from what the lad cannot express: there is no unraveling, no spilling his guts and no moment of truth.
Years later, all the fear and anger returned' - there is no peace, ever.
alright
rtrigga1236 March 2009
The movie A Separate Peace takes place at the actual school that is believed to be portrayed as Devon so everything that went on in the book was envisioned happening at the school that this movie was filmed at. This movie really try's to cover most of the important events that happen in the book unlike any other movie I have seen that has been based off a book this one has the most information from the book put into the movie. Some things in the movie have been changed like when Finny broke the world record for swimming it was switched to Finny breaking the world record to Pole Vaulting. One thing that is a little different that is a good and bad thing is that they used ordinary people who went to school at the school of where this film was filmed and they were the ones who acted in this movie. It makes it so it grabs the age and the personality of these kids more but then it also made the movie a lot cheesier because they don't have the acting skills of the pros. This movie was actually pretty good I would recommend it if you are looking to watch the movie of the book you enjoyed so much.
Don't watch this
prattle1286 March 2009
A Separate Peace was a very popular and critically acclaimed book that helped illustrate the many things that war, competition, and evil do to the people that live in the world. With the loss of innocence, comes the knowledge of evil and perhaps then the knowledge of how to defeat it comes then as well. But with this knowledge, you do lose your innocence, and when that happens, the natural malice that lurks in the heart of every human being can arise and destroy the hopes of any person. The ultimate fight is the one of battling this darkness, to dry and bring about the return of goodness. A Separate Peace shows us what happens when innocence is lost, and when evil reigns in the heart of man. There are many, many symbolic and thematic elements to A Separate Peace. The movie I thought did a good job of showing these, and really just following the book. Personally, I didn't really like this movie at all, and would suggest that anyone thinking about watching the movie avoid it, but you have been warned.
P.S. The book isn't that great either.
P.S. The book isn't that great either.
A Great Film, A Great Book
fireprotectguy6 December 2002
When I read this book some years ago it was because I was forced to read it in English class in High School. I grew up in the town where the book and movie were set, Exeter New Hampshire. Seeing the film brought back memories of my childhood in Exeter and all the visits I made to Phillips Exeter Academy, otherwise known as Devon in the book. The character development is much better in the book, but the movie does do the book some justice. This movie is a must-not miss and should always been shown to a child growing up.
well portrayel
finch_fan3724 May 2003
All the actors in this film portrayed the characters very well. For the most part the film follows the novel, despite a few important facts left out. I only gave this film a 3, because, like the book, I find it very boring and it has no solid concrete plot.
Hey, give this movie a break!
jost-120 March 2003
Ok, I read the book too, but that was in - oh say- 1964 and I forgot it all. But the movie worked for me on its own merits. First of all, how many movies today are all about groups of 17 year old guys. Gone are the all-male schools and seminaries of the past. So it's a nice window onto a vanished (mostly, I think) subculture. Naturally someone in our own decade is going to read "homosexuality" into the relationships, but there was, in fact, a time when Finney could say to Gene "in this teenage period of your life, the best person to come to the beach with is your best pal, and we believed him. The cinematography was beautiful, even lyrical. I think the character of Finney was very well portrayed by John Heyl and wonder what ever happened to him. We know what happened to Parker Stevenson (he married Kirstie Alley). All in all, a succesful evocation of a time and place, whether or not it measured up to the themes and meanings of the book (which I note Leonard Matlin called "overrated" anyway.
Must see--it can't get any worse
rmestl226 May 2009
This may be the all time worst movie ever made--I ignore anything by Ed Wood as all his work is sui generis (and also quite humorous) This move totally misses the book, adds scenes not found in the book, and could not even find the proper tree at Exeter--awful! The only one I liked was Ed Echols as Ludsbury
Not sure why paramount chose to film this, anyway, as it is a psychological novel full of "interiors"--on a lesser level like trying to film stuff by Woolfe or Kafka (that takes an Orson Welles and Larry Peerce did not measure up).
Nice shots of the Academy and the town, and the tea party is somewhat realistic--the scene in the church with the choir is the worst of many bad scenes--just awful
this movie is shown once a decade on cable channels which have run out of MASH reruns--don't bother
don't watch it
Not sure why paramount chose to film this, anyway, as it is a psychological novel full of "interiors"--on a lesser level like trying to film stuff by Woolfe or Kafka (that takes an Orson Welles and Larry Peerce did not measure up).
Nice shots of the Academy and the town, and the tea party is somewhat realistic--the scene in the church with the choir is the worst of many bad scenes--just awful
this movie is shown once a decade on cable channels which have run out of MASH reruns--don't bother
don't watch it
A class act by Exeter Academy
mmalcolm_9820 October 2004
The 1972 film version of John Knowles modern masterpiece is a class act for the reason that Paramount Pictures went to Phillips Exeter Academy and filmed it on location with all student actors from Exeter with the exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School. Though the acting is a little amateurish,so what,it should be, for it is the drama society of the school and alumni putting on a Paramount Film!
John Heyl,a former Exeter Student, was eighteen and son of the school's doctor. John Heyl does a great job as Finny at the age sixteen,seventeen that Finny would have been in the novel. This was also Parker Stevenson, at eighteen, his first film and in my view his best role as Gene.
It is a good adaptation of the book but I would strongly suggest that you read the novel first for the tensions of love, hate,jealously, denial, sexual undertone, and regret are pale compared to John Knowles' writing.
It is a love story with war looming closer to the boys of The Devon Academy. The viewer decides if this love is emotional and / or physical. What else could motivate ones "Best Pal" and roommate to do such a violent act as to attempt to maim him hence excorise him (Finny) from Genes life i.e. emotions so deep that Gene could not deal with at sixteen.
I have recently viewed Showtime's 2004 version which was filmed at a college in Canada and has actors that are in there late twenties playing the parts of teenagers. No sorry - Veto! John Heyl will always be Finny and Parker Stevenson will always be Gene. The 1972 film version shot at Exeter is the true "Preppy Classic".
John Heyl,a former Exeter Student, was eighteen and son of the school's doctor. John Heyl does a great job as Finny at the age sixteen,seventeen that Finny would have been in the novel. This was also Parker Stevenson, at eighteen, his first film and in my view his best role as Gene.
It is a good adaptation of the book but I would strongly suggest that you read the novel first for the tensions of love, hate,jealously, denial, sexual undertone, and regret are pale compared to John Knowles' writing.
It is a love story with war looming closer to the boys of The Devon Academy. The viewer decides if this love is emotional and / or physical. What else could motivate ones "Best Pal" and roommate to do such a violent act as to attempt to maim him hence excorise him (Finny) from Genes life i.e. emotions so deep that Gene could not deal with at sixteen.
I have recently viewed Showtime's 2004 version which was filmed at a college in Canada and has actors that are in there late twenties playing the parts of teenagers. No sorry - Veto! John Heyl will always be Finny and Parker Stevenson will always be Gene. The 1972 film version shot at Exeter is the true "Preppy Classic".
Comparing the book to the movie
hughesk-24 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
(Posting this was extra credit for my English class.)
It's not very often that one can find a movie based on a book that can compare to the book. In the case of comparing the movie A Separate Peace and the book "A Separate Peace", the movie was accurate with the events that took place and the overall plot line. Emotions conveyed from the actors seemed as if they were overcompensating and overdoing their character at times, and the novels' noticeable themes were not as apparent. A big theme discussed was 'war and peace' this was touched on in the movie and made known in other ways than the book did. In the movie when Gene and Finny go to the beach, as they are walking along the boardwalk there are several propaganda posters that they passed. Which helped show the time this story was taking place, and how the boys were being influenced to join the war effort. This theme of 'war and peace' also carries over into Finny's game of 'blitzball'; his hints to the war were much more noticeable in the movie and you can see this when the boys are actually playing the game.
The tree was a huge symbol in the book, the tree was everything to the boys; it represented life, freedom and spontaneity, but in the end the tree ended up causing death. This motif was made very well known in the book due to its description, the events that took place there and the subtle references made throughout the novel. It is hard to personify a motif as big as the tree in a movie without being too repetitive. The movie tried to show the tree many times as if seeing different angles of the tree would show how large its role was. Overall the movie was not horrible; it just followed the plot line too closely. It was 'safe', but that's not what makes a good movie. If there would have been more subtle references to the motifs and themes of the novel, this would have been the symbolism that the movie needed. I give it 3 stars.
It's not very often that one can find a movie based on a book that can compare to the book. In the case of comparing the movie A Separate Peace and the book "A Separate Peace", the movie was accurate with the events that took place and the overall plot line. Emotions conveyed from the actors seemed as if they were overcompensating and overdoing their character at times, and the novels' noticeable themes were not as apparent. A big theme discussed was 'war and peace' this was touched on in the movie and made known in other ways than the book did. In the movie when Gene and Finny go to the beach, as they are walking along the boardwalk there are several propaganda posters that they passed. Which helped show the time this story was taking place, and how the boys were being influenced to join the war effort. This theme of 'war and peace' also carries over into Finny's game of 'blitzball'; his hints to the war were much more noticeable in the movie and you can see this when the boys are actually playing the game.
The tree was a huge symbol in the book, the tree was everything to the boys; it represented life, freedom and spontaneity, but in the end the tree ended up causing death. This motif was made very well known in the book due to its description, the events that took place there and the subtle references made throughout the novel. It is hard to personify a motif as big as the tree in a movie without being too repetitive. The movie tried to show the tree many times as if seeing different angles of the tree would show how large its role was. Overall the movie was not horrible; it just followed the plot line too closely. It was 'safe', but that's not what makes a good movie. If there would have been more subtle references to the motifs and themes of the novel, this would have been the symbolism that the movie needed. I give it 3 stars.
A Separate Medium: A Title Worth Seeing
gabemoss14 March 2010
"A Separate Peace," in novel form, is a nicely paced story filled with deep, sometimes complex metaphors and symbols. It is not for the reader who prefers the path of least resistance; the majority of enjoyment in reading the book is in the process of decoding the story. But that's what book-to-film renditions are for, right? "A Separate Peace," in movie form, is not such a far cry from the book as far as storyline goes. Instead, it follows the key points of the story while ignoring additional details that would create depth within the novel. In essence, streamlining the content of the novel. Much like in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" adaptation, "A Separate Peace" is short, sweet, and to the point.
Being from the early 70's, this movie should not be expected to have the "best" visuals. For what it is, the cinematography does a fantastic job of illustrating what was conjured into my mind as I read the book. As does the acting, which is remarkable- actual Devon (the school in which the story is set) students and faculty were casted for leading and supporting roles in the movie.
I personally found this movie both entertaining and well adapted in relation to the novel. I'd say that it is definitely worth watching for anybody who has read, is currently reading, or plans to read "A Separate Peace".
Being from the early 70's, this movie should not be expected to have the "best" visuals. For what it is, the cinematography does a fantastic job of illustrating what was conjured into my mind as I read the book. As does the acting, which is remarkable- actual Devon (the school in which the story is set) students and faculty were casted for leading and supporting roles in the movie.
I personally found this movie both entertaining and well adapted in relation to the novel. I'd say that it is definitely worth watching for anybody who has read, is currently reading, or plans to read "A Separate Peace".
A Separate Peace Movie Review
tennismaniac19925 March 2009
The filmmaker did not focus on the importance of the tree that Finny, Gene, and the rest of the suicide society jumped out of during the summer at Devon. Although the movie was poorly made and done with horrible acting, the film fails to recognize the significance of Finny's accident with the tree and how it changed Finny's and Gene's lives forever. The scene should have been made more dramatically and intensely as it was a major turning point in the novel. Even the theme of "losing innocence" is not really addressed towards either character. Although, they both do admit something private about the accident, but again, both scenes were poorly done. Another aspect that was completely ignored by the filmmakers was that of Gene's inner turmoil. Throughout the novel the readers can feel Gene's emotions and conflict within him: we were actually inside his head. Instead, in the movie, all we see is a quiet Gene getting himself into trouble and bursting out with anger and violence. Other important parts of the novel that are not mentioned are Gene's imaginary rivalry with Finny, the enlistment into WWII, Finny's athleticism, and the major differences between the summer and winter sessions at Devon.
tepid film version of a landmark young adult novel
thomandybish4 June 2001
The novel A SEPARATE PEACE is one of the benchmarks of American adolescent literature, second only to CATCHER IN THE RYE in terms of an accurate portrayal of 20th century young adult angst. The novel is a complex, ambivalent portrayal of friendship between two dissimalar friends at a stuffy New England boys' school during the opening years of WWII. The film version captures to a great extent the feel of the era and the New England setting, yet fails to really convey the conflicted feelings of Gene, the narrator in the book. The all-important scene in the tree is rendered in a murky manner; one not famililar with the book would be confused as to what had happened. And the confrontation scene in Phinney's house is poorly staged and interpreted. It's interesting to note that, with the exception of Parker Stevenson, none of these actors seem to have made good in their respective careers. Begs for a quality remake.
A very bizarre coming of age film. If the novel was anything like the film, I wouldn't bother.
mark.waltz15 September 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The young characters played by Parker Stevenson and John Heyl are extremely close. So close in fact that I'm surprised at that in this teen film set in the early 1940's that none of the students commented on that, and Stevenson looks at Heyl throughout in a very loving way. They playfully wrestle on the grounds in front of everybody, and are the only two students that climb up the steps nailed into a large tree, crossing over on a strong flat branch and dive into the lake in front of it.
One day Heyl misses his mark and is nearly killed, laid up in bed for months, and debates around the school start to simmer, with Stevenson somehow believing that he caused it. The film then delves into nothing but a bunch of rants about the war, with Stevenson and Heyl trying to turn their situation into a metaphor about reality in the real world. This starts off great but quickly drags into a lifeless psychological drama, boring and as lifeless as Heyl's broken leg. Because of the switch in the later half of the movie, I can see why this has very mixed responses. A very lengthy song about the genitals of German leaders just adds to the oddness. Truly indescribable as a film.
One day Heyl misses his mark and is nearly killed, laid up in bed for months, and debates around the school start to simmer, with Stevenson somehow believing that he caused it. The film then delves into nothing but a bunch of rants about the war, with Stevenson and Heyl trying to turn their situation into a metaphor about reality in the real world. This starts off great but quickly drags into a lifeless psychological drama, boring and as lifeless as Heyl's broken leg. Because of the switch in the later half of the movie, I can see why this has very mixed responses. A very lengthy song about the genitals of German leaders just adds to the oddness. Truly indescribable as a film.
Didn't live up to the book at all
jimmyplm8 October 1999
John Knowles's novel A Separate Peace is one of my favorite books of all time. I think there is a depth to the characters that is nothing short of genius. I recently purchased the film version, eagerly waiting until the package arrived. I was immediately disappointed with the film. The characters were bland, and on a superficial level, just plain ugly. The film went by in a totally boring fashion that really let me down. The film stuck with the content of the book pretty well, but didn't seem to stress the right things in the right way. Finny and Gene just didn't live up to the creations in the book. I just wish that there would be another version of this film made in the 90's starring some actors that could bring a little more depth to the roles. I think even the guys on Dawson's Creek would have been a vast improvement on this take on a classic book. Imagine, James Van Der Beek could play Finny; Ryan Phillippe could play Gene; Nicholas Brendon could be Leper. If that sounds a little too Hollywood for you, maybe you need to check out this film and see that ANYTHING would be an improvement.
Victor and Miranda's Movie Review
day_dreamer55528 January 2005
The movie did nothing for the classic book A Separate Peace . They left out some scenes which wasn't a bad thing. It probably wouldn't have been any better if they were in the movie or not. We didn't like the fact that they altered the scenes. When Finny is supposed to break the swimming record they had him instead do pole vaulting. Another scene was when Gene went to go meet Leper they placed them in a field and in the book it takes place at Lepers house.
The acting was terrible. They showed no emotion. It was like they were programmed in one way and that was is it. They proceeded to read like robots.
The book A Separate Peace is basically all based around the fact that Finny fell out of the tree, and so you would expect this scene to be out of this world and well done in the movie but it was far from that. It was horrible. It looks like Finny jumped out of the tree himself.
We don't recommend the movie considering we both didn't like it at all. For those who are interested in getting a visual outlook on the book, then you should definitely watch it even though it's not the best version of the book.
The acting was terrible. They showed no emotion. It was like they were programmed in one way and that was is it. They proceeded to read like robots.
The book A Separate Peace is basically all based around the fact that Finny fell out of the tree, and so you would expect this scene to be out of this world and well done in the movie but it was far from that. It was horrible. It looks like Finny jumped out of the tree himself.
We don't recommend the movie considering we both didn't like it at all. For those who are interested in getting a visual outlook on the book, then you should definitely watch it even though it's not the best version of the book.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
