A Separate Peace

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.

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.

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.

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 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 ****

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.