A Separate Peace

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.

Having read the book 2x in school, I remember the story fondly. Seeing it enacted on screen gave me flashbacks and although i did not remember everything, i remembered enough. Since this is a dramatic movie, it's success depends on the viewers' emotions. I already knew the ending but i still felt a great sense of tragedy and sadness. It made me go look for my book and i ended up buying a new copy and reading it in one sitting. The book of course gives a much deeper, broader picture.

Things they coudld've done better: Reading the book, i was enthralled at its depth and complexity. the movie could've used more of that. since gene narrated the book, it is of course different on screen. and probably the biggest issue would be the war/ peace theme. the movie is called a separate peace, but what does that mean? these are 16-17 y/o boys who are enjoying their last year of "Freedom" before getting sent to war. The war hung over them like a dark cloud, but for Gene and Phinny, they managed to create their own world of peace with the two of them in it, and of course gene's fight with himself and the codependency of the two. in the book, we find gene is successful in life, at least financially, but it is never clear if he really defeated his inner demons, but it is clear that phinny i still a big part of his life. having read the book, i knew all of this and on screen i felt it but i know if i hadn't i would probably not get it.

good:

the actors for all the major character, esp gene and phineas did a great job. the scenes with the two of them were magnetic and you could feel the friendship and the tension (of gene in the beginning of the movie) between them. despite the things they left out and didn't touch upon to deeply was, they managed to nail the friendship between the two. To see it finally resolved between them only for "it" (the ending of the movie, i do not want to spoil) to happen, i felt very emotion and felt the loss as if it were my own and because of that i recommend the movie

but i highly suggest getting the book first then watching. i hope this helps some

After watching the film, a bitter felling comes from what is friendship, after all. Regardless the merits of the book, which I didn't read, one comes to the real hatred that can develops from one side of a friendship otherwise quite strong, coming in our terms to a bro bond, where sex isn't involved, but a real link can be developed between friends. At least, from one side of the fellows. The behavior of one of the 'friends' remains a mystery if we don't go to Freudian explanations of love and death. The performance of principals is mediocre, according to a TV movie. We can't see inner motivations that make Finny (Toby Moore) behaves as he does, and Gene(J Burtons) is perhaps a little too innocent is his movements. As a hole, a watchable film. But don't wait for a masterpiece.

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 with war looming in the background.

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 a love story, and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual undertones everywhere in the writings and dialog.In the 2004 Showtime film version these tensions 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 Acedemy was based on; which also the writer John Knowles attended as a student.

The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with exception of Parker Stevenson 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.

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.