Customer Reviews

A Separate Peace

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

"A Separate Peace" is one of my favorite books. An absolutely horrible film version was made of it in 1974, so I knew Showtime's updated version was virtually guaranteed to be an improvement. An improvement it is... but it could - and should - have been better.

First the Good: The role of Finny has got to be one of the hardest parts out there to cast. The part calls for natural athleticism and tremendous charisma - a truly rare combination (especially in actors). Toby Moore was great casting. I have no idea who he is or where he came from. He had an almost impossible task, and he nailed it. The actors who played Gene and Brinker also performed admirably. If it had a script that stuck to the actual Knowles' story, this film might have been something very special.

Now to the Bad: Knowles' story is much more than a story about adolescent friendship and betrayal. It is about how a person can only find peace within himself when he is forced to face his own darkness. Finny, who knows only love and forgiveness, seems to be the only exception to this rule - and because of that, he is destroyed by his best friend. By the end, Gene makes peace with Finny and finally finds peace within. The writer and director missed much of these key elements. Important scenes are brought to life beautifully, but we never really get inside Gene's head, so we can't understand how or why he achieves a 'separate peace.'

The writers also decided to omit the other key theme of the book: Finny as a representation of peace in world at war. While Finny talks like he was rearing to go to war, he in fact is unable to do so - because of his leg, but also because it is not possible for him to hate (as Gene describes in the final 'you'd be terrible in a war, Finny!' dialogue). Alas, none of it makes it into the film.

All in all, it was great to see a terrific performance by Moore as Finny, as well as some great scenes from the book brought to life (The Headmaster's Tea, The Winter Olympics, The Trial). However, I will still have to wait for a film to be made that is true to the spirit of this American classic.

First let me say that a movie can never acheive the level of depth as a well-written novel. Even if this film had a script taken verbatim from the book, it would not be able to convey the same depth of meaning, the same development of characters.

That being said, I think this movie is excellent. Of course, I am in a unique position. I watched the movie first, and then was so intrigued, I went on to read the book. Had I fallen in love with the book first, I may very well have found the movie disappointing like many of the other reviewers. But since I saw the movie on its own without comparing it to the book, I was able to see how this movie is an artistic work with its own merits, irrespective of the challenges of bringing a classic novel to the screen.

The strongest actor in this film is Toby Moore, who steals almost every scene he's in as Finny. He radiates charisma, which is perfect for a character who Knowles wrote as being able to "shine with everyone, he attracted everyone he met." He's a character incapable of hating anyone or holding a grudge, and a character who no one can help but like. I could not have imagined him portrayed any better.

Some scenes are added to the movie that are not in the book, but I feel these scenes are useful in developing characters and relationships that are developed through straight description in the book. We see how the war plays a role in these boys' lives--a distant joke at first, and then one of the boys goes off to the Army and comes back different--disheveled, mentally broken. We see Gene's changing relationship with Finny, his admiration combined with thinly veiled resentment and jealousy, and finally his realization that Finny meant well all along, that there was never any rivalry, that Finny wanted to see only the good in Gene and was deeply hurt by any other suggestion.

The movie's main weakness is that much is missing in the development of Gene's character. His motivations are vague and his true feelings veiled without the internal narration of the novel. He's still well-portrayed in the film, but I can better understand Gene after reading the book.

If you're looking for an exact representation of John Knowles' novel, then you will be waiting forever. But this movie is a gem in its own right, a moving and engaging coming-of-age story.

Sometimes whenever the words "the book is so much better than the movie" are uttered, it can sound somewhat boorish. However, when it comes to a book like John Knowles' A SEPARATE PEACE stating that the book is better than the film is an understatement. The novel which has undertones of love/hate and admiration/jealousy, set at a boys' prep school during World War II has to be read to be experienced. This is not to say the film is not without merit. This film, originally made for SHOWTIME has many strengths: perfect attention to detail as far as set is concerned, believable actors who seem to belong in a prep school setting, and reasonably good acting. All of these qualities should make a great film. Something fell short for me, however. I think it's because the characters in the book become so real and engrained in a reader's mind, any film version will pale in comparison. I say this as someone who read the book first by choice, then as a requirement in college, and years later taught the book.

That being said, of you are thinking about purchasing this film and have never read the book, you may very well enjoy it. As I said, there are many good attributes to this film and people not familiar with the book could find it riveting. If you love the book, you may be somewhat disappointed that the film seems to lack some intensity and may also find it somewhat slow paced. Of course, if you are a student purchasing the film to avoid reading the book, I would not recommend. The film does follow the basic plot line of the novel, but that something that makes A SEPARATE PEACE such a great work is missing in this film version.

When I saw a listing (in a gay film catalogue) for the DVD of "A Separate Peace", a 2004 Showtime made-for-cable movie, I recalled reading the book while in high school (apx 40 years ago) and that it did spark some confusing feelings which - now in retrospect - I recognize as my latent homosexuality. The feeling was reinforced somewhat when I saw the 1972 film version of the film, when it was first released in the theatres, which followed the book closely, though the acting was poor (It was produced mostly with non-actors who were actually students at the New England prep academy where they filmed. Trivia note: The one "real" actor was a teenage Parker Stevenson in his first acting job.) While the acting and production values are much better in this 2004 update, what was lost is essentially the subtle power of John Knowles original novel, to the point where this really should have been designated as a story "based on" the book, rather than represent that it was a cinema rendering of that story.

Before we go any further, let's clarify that "A Separate Peace" (the book or either movie) is NOT a gay story, per se. In discussing his (first published in 1959) book, Knowles made it clear he was not suggesting there was any kind of physical relationship between the athletic, outgoing Finney (played in the new film by Toby Moore) and his prep school roommate, the somewhat shy and studious Gene (J Barton). However, keep in mind that, in the 1960's and 1970's (including the release of the first film), gays were used to "reading between the lines" in books and screenplays to get some subtext of possible homosexuality, and there certainly was enough here, in the closeness that developed between the two boys in the book, and visibly suggested in the 1972 film (based on recent comments I read about it).

This 2004 version is - at best - a "male bonding" / "coming of age" story, with some eye candy thrown in (Toby Moore was a competitive swimmer before turning to acting, and Barton is also an attractive young man). Unfortunately, it deviates a bit more than it should from the original story and, in doing so, compromises not just the spirit of Knowles' book but also diminishes (perhaps intentionally, I don't know) the nuance of possible homosexuality between Finney and Gene. Relegated to tell a rather detailed story in less than two hours, it also takes some shortcuts (such as voiceovers giving information that readers had to "discover" in the book itself, deleting some scenes (and at least one character) from the book, and providing clarity to a climactic scene (the double jump from the tree) that would have been better served if left as vague as it was in the book and first film. Pure fans of the book are justified in blasting the 2004 film for this.

However, this is still a beautifully-made "coming of age" film that I think gay men can relate to, perhaps more than the general population, and I can recommend (and rate it ... 3 out of 5 stars) based on that criteria.

DVD contains no extras, just scene selection. [Trivia notes: 1. Another of the boys (Chad) is played by Aaron Ashmore, who had the lead role in the gay film "Prom Queen: The Marc Hall Story". 2. This was the final role for character actor Hume Cronyn, who passed away at age 92 shortly after completing this film.]

Although the acting, special effects, story details, plot, and such in this version were ages ahead of the 72 version, the 72 version captures more of the Love Story between the two friends.

I especially liked the music in the 1972 version, and the feel it gave me about the story between the friends, and the cold feeling of the War. When I watched the 72 version I cried, and almost could feel like I was there with Phiny and Gene, and a war was going on. After I watched the 2004 verison I felt nothing. Actually I was anxiously awaiting the film to end, so I could watch a few Twilight Zone masterpieces I recorded onto VHS.

Although I will not rate this version lower than 3 stars, I think its missing the musical score, realism, and capture of the love story between the friends found in the 1972 version.

I was greatly disappointed with Paramount's film version of A Separate Peace. Crucial dialog was deleted (which I understand must happen to make a movie under 2hrs), but scenes were added and the roles of certain characters like Brinker, Leper, and Gene were drastically changed. I felt as if the writers and director were trying to improve the story, which of course is unnecessary. Some examples of my complaints: 1) the mystery of Gene's intent to causing Finny's fall is pretty much decided for us as the movie zooms in to a serious and knowing look on Gene's face before shaking the branch of the tree. 2) The dialog during Gene and Finny's last conversation where Gene basically summarizes Finny's entire character by telling him that he would be no good in a war because he would make friends with everyone and confuse everyone on who the enemies were is completely left out.

The movie roughly portrays the events that take place in the book. None of the underlying lessons and themes, except that war disrupts peace, is conveyed.

John Knowles modern masterpiece, A Separate Peace, are one of many subtle, and subtly is the watch word, themes of love, hate, jealously, denial and regret. The 1972 version does attempt to address this style and what the book is - A love story.

The 2004 version does not use subtly at all but overtness in the portrayal of the story. What is staring you in the face when you read the novel is, as I have previously stated, a love story and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual understones everywhere in the writings and dialog. In the 2004 Showtime film version these tentions were omitted and the actors were in there late twenties playing teenagers which caused for mature acting taking away from any tenderness or hesitation of innocence in youth.

I did not like this remake for more reasons! The hair that broke the camels' back was that Phineas was given a surname on the letters he received from the draft boards! Finny is a character that does not have nor needs a last name. John Knowles did that intentionally.

Though I accept the 1972 version the acting was at times a little amateurish, so what, it attempted to be sincere to the novel by shooting on location at Phillips Exeter Academy that The Devon School was based on; which also the writer attended as a student.

The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with excepton of Parker Steveson whom attended The Brooks School, to play in a Paramount Film! Class act by preppies compared to this Canadian College shot, played with adult actors, politically correct, platonic version. No - Veto on this sham try again. The 1972 film version with John Heyl and Parker Stevenson was the real deal for A Separate Peace on the screen. The Showtime 2004 film made for cable version was not.

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.

A SEPARATE PEACE, based on John Knowles' novel that became a standard in the college student library, is a finely wrought, ultimately transformative story that is well adapted to the screen by Wendy Kesselman. Given the broad spectrum of the novel's story, the script opts for focusing on the special interplay of four youths attending Dover Boys School in 1943. Director Peter Yates ('The Dresser', 'Year of the Comet', 'Breaking Away', 'Bullit', etc) understands the special atmosphere of the boys' boarding school and the impact on young American youth living under the threat of World War II and translates that tension and impact well.

Gene (J Barton) enters Dover (a school populated by boys from families of wealth and position) from his meager home in the South, determined to achieve on the basis of his abilities in this 'foreign atmosphere'. He is assigned to roommate Finny (Toby Moore) who is a natural athlete and a lad who lives entirely in the moment, achieving goals in private without the need for applause. He grows to deeply admire Gene, taking a while to see that Gene's academic accomplishments come through very hard work and not as a 'natural gift' as is the case with the rest of the classmates. They bond with fellow students Brinker (Jacob Pitts) who is the school's top scholar, and Leper (Danny Schroeder) who manages to interject bizarre humor about Hitler and the current war situation on the European front whenever possible.

Finny constantly challenges Gene out of good graces to perform acts of liberation, including jumping from a tree into a pond, a feat reserved for those higher classmates in the school who are preparing ROTC style to volunteer for the war upon graduation. Finny and Gene become very close while at different ends of the spectrum of self-perception and evaluation. On a routine revisit to the tree from which they jump, Gene shakes the limb and Finny falls to the ground breaking his leg. Apparently with a memory loss that prevents him from the truth about his accident, Finney simply recovers, knowing his career as an athlete is over, but not placing blame on anything but accident, a fact that shakes Gene's perception of himself and his guilt.

When the war increases tension, Leper volunteers and 'goes off to be a skiing GI', Brinker decides to enlist at the end of term, Finny bemoans the fact that his accident prevents him from staying with his friends, and Gene is ultimately brought to a student trial about the 'accident'. How each of these young men enter adulthood with the war on their heels and the effects of their loss of innocence forms the ending to the story - an ending that clearly paints the way each of us interacts with those around us and finds our separate peace.

The acting by a group of young men whose previous roles have been in forgettable films is uniformly superb. There is an honesty and clarity drawn by each character (with the able direction of Yates) that makes us identify with these innocent youths. The musical score is appropriate, the photography captures the beauty of New England, and the feeling at the end of the film is one that creates the desire to return to the Knowles novel to relive the lives of these boys becoming men. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp, 2005

This film adaptation of John Knowles' classic coming-of-age novel is extremely disappointing, to the point of being downright awful.

The central question of the book--was Gene responsible in any way for the accident in which Finny fell out of the tree and broke his leg--was left tantalizingly unanswered in the book. John Knowles meant to do that. The reader is thus left to scour the novel for ideas with which to develop an answer. After 30 years and more than that many readings, I have a sense of what I believe happened...and an awareness that not everyone agrees with me.

This film leaves no doubt as to what the director thinks happened. The famous "jounce" that caused Finny to fall from the tree appears premeditated, and his last conversation with Gene before his death includes his conclusion, "You really did it, didn't you?" That sentence is nowhere in the novel and is highly prejudicial to its interpretation. The filmmakers made up their minds, and spared no effort in clobbering us viewers over the head with their interpretation. Wrong wrong wrong...one of the inviting qualities of the novel is that Knowles deliberately left it up to the reader to decide whether or not Gene bears responsibility. He took his own answer to the grave and thus heightened his masterpiece's appeal by making the reader THINK. This film did not do that, and suffers because of it.

I also had a hard time believeing that Gene and Finny were "best friends" in this adaptation. It started off on the wrong foot by portraying Gene as a new student at the Devon School at the time of the 1942 summer session, instead of a continuing student, as he was in the book. Their friendship thus lacked any depth and plausibility. If you accept that Gene bore the requisite animosity toward Finny to cause the accident, how he have possibly developed that tension in just a few short weeks?

The portrayal of Finny must be one of the most difficult assignments for an actor and Toby Moore did a passable job, but he still didn't nail it. He was no further off the mark than John Heyl was in the 1972 adaptation, but neither was he any closer. Of all the main characters, I think Brinker Hadley seemed the truest to his print counterpart, but Gene seemed paper-thin, and Leper Lepellier was a caricature (the portrayal of Leper in the 1972 film was much closer to the spirit of the character in the novel).

And then there's the final "reconciliation" scene in the infirmary the day before Finny died. Flat, unemotional, no spirit. Along with Finny's blatantly unnecessary assertion that Gene "really did it," this pivotal scene was perhaps the most disappointing part of the entire film. In the book, you really get a sense that Gene and Finny have had a meeting of the minds are spiritually united. In this film, there is no such sense of closure.

The definitive filming of "A Separate Peace" has yet to be produced.