A Separate Peace

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.

I had to read this book for English and it was one of the few books I actually liked. Then we watched the movie and it was horrible. I have never seen a movie degrade a book as much as this did. The characters hardly said anything and it left out too many parts. When Leper was supposed to be skiing, when Gene was on the way to help clear the railroads, he was drawing. The acting was awful and there was no character development. They need to remake this film with characters who could act it out a little better. And then someone needs to make it so it actually follows the book.

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.

I went to a boarding school and this was the greatest book I ever read about boarding schools. However this movie is very weak version of the book. I wish they would make it again with a better cast. It just doesn't capture the magic of Knowles' writing.

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.