A Separate Peace

ASP is my favorite book or at least in my top 3 or 4. I remember watching the 1972 film near where I went to college. I was blown away by that film with Parker Stevenson playing Gene and John Heyl as Finney. In my mind, sometimes I intertwine the pair of remakes, and while I preferred the original version, I didn't think this one was that bad the second time I viewed it. It's just a different take but the substance of the book is true enough. I recommend watching both films and just decide for yourself which one you prefer - no sin in liking both of them. As a rule I hate remakes since I am all for original ideas more than rehashing stuff that has already been done.

First I must confess that A Separate Peace is my favorite book. So of course, I have some bias against any attempt at adapting it for a feature film or television movie. But as I began to watch this film, I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The original version from the early 1970s, though shot at Phillips Exeter Academy where the book's author attended school, and though it stayed as faithful as it could to the book, lacked any real depth of feeling and failed to capture the essence of the characters. The original seemed to simply go through the motions. Reading the trivia about the movie, you discover that it was cast mostly with non-actors. Thus, the original has an amateurish feel to it and it ultimately fails.

This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.

If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.

Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.

to the 1972 version (which I have not seen). But I can't agree that there is no suggestion of a homosexual love interest in this movie. The director didn't beat you over the head with it, but the signs were pretty obviously there--or at least it was obvious to me.

Not being familiar with the novel it's based on, I can't say how well this film stuck to that story. There did seem to be quite a lot of loose ends that were never satisfactorily tied up (or even loosely laid back into place). But I found no faults with the location or the actors. A good piece of work, though not stellar by any stretch of the imagination.

This film proves that a small story can be much more meaningful than a large one. The setup is simple: Strong friendships between students slowly turns into bitter rivalry with fatal consequences. I really like this type of film, as it reminds me of French movies where it's more about the characters and their environment. My only problem with the film was the supporting cast. From an artistic standpoint, there were some plot elements and character developments I didn't think were totally needed. They do however drive the story, which seemed to be their purpose, so I can accept them at the end of the day. A final rating of 7/10.

Some books seem natural for high school study. They need to be simple to read, but contain enough ambiguity and analogy to show students that real literature is more than a plot. If the book is set in high school, so much the better. I think the existence of this market niche is why this book has survived. There can be no other reason.

I mention the ambiguity, because that is why the book works; you never really know for sure what happened on that tree.

Alas, but TeeVee movies do not like ambiguity because they find their own market niche. So the only potentially valuable bit from the book is scrubbed out.

Still....

It did resonate with me. Its an odd thing when you encounter a story that has accidental settings and events that mirror important events in your life. I went to an elite boarding school, a military school in fact. The dynamics among boys in such an environment can have no analog anywhere else in the world. There were a characters like these (in the movie). There was at the time an expectation that many of us would go to the then current war in Viet Nam. There was anxious enthusiasm about roles that could in our imagination be achieved and a black market for swapping dreams of which of these roles were claimed first.

All this you see on the screen is true.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.