by Sam Juliano
Today’s review of Stanley Kramer’s “Bless the Beasts and Children” is the first of a planned series that will examine films from the 1970’s that were either forgotten, undervalued or misunderstood at the time of their release.
Producer/director Stanley Kramer has been the recipient of both glowing praise and outright condemnation from the film community, yet there’s little denying that his fame rests mostly on the former of his two vocations. Kramer, who passed away at age 87 in 2001, produced a half-dozen Hollywood classics and semi-classics: Champion, Cyrano de Bergerac, High Noon, A Member of the Wedding and The Caine Mutiny. His direction, which in large measure has centered around the genre of socially-conscious cinema has yielded some well-respected even venerated films like The Defiant Ones, Inherit the Wind, Judgement at Nuremberg, On the Beach, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner and Ship of Fools. His most popular film of all of course is the comedy It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World,(1963) whose title was used for his published autobiography. The confusion or overlap of Kramer’s dual artistic roles drew wide criticism from the intelligentsia, including David Thomson who declared “Commercialism, of the most crass and confusing kind has devitalised all of his projects.” Pauline Kael, no less kind, claimed deception when she wrote: “Kramer’s reputation as a great director (was) based on a series of errors.” Of his late work as helmer, one film, reviled by many upon its release in 1972 stands today as both an moving treatment of its subject and an epitagh to the kind of films Kramer gravitated to through his career.
Kramer won a bidding war in 1970 for the film rights to Glendon Swarthout’s critically-praised novel Bless the Beasts and Children, which concerned the indiscriminate killing of bison, and a group of young male campers who plot their release. It was no surprise at the time that the filmmaker would make a strong pitch, as animal rights was a subject that both interested and moved him, but it was another project in a long line of controversial issues that ranged from the Scopes Trial, Nazi war tribunals, black and white bonding, and nuclear fallout. Swarthout’s novel was a validation of late 60’s liberal bleeding heart sensibilities, which accentuated a need for compassion and respect for life. The novel also celebrates the joy of living life as it was meant to be lived–free in body and spirit. These themes translated most effectively in the film version, which by and large was unemcumbered by any kind of a cinematic style. Kramer chose to follow the content of Swarthout’s novel closely, which in hindsight was the correct decision in view of the piece’s inherent emotional essence.
The central characters in Bless the Beasts and Children are six adolescent boys, whose preoccupied parents send them off to the Arizona Box Canyon Boys Camp for the summer. John Cotton leads this bunch of “misfits” who are all, to varying degrees, emotionally or psychologically disturbed. Cotton’s group, composed of rejects and outcasts from the other cabins, is known as the “Bedwetters” and the boys are constantly demeaned and ridiculed, which inevitably crushes what little self-esteem they posessed in the first place. Cotton through trial and tribulation, becomes the leader of this tight-knit group, and he sets out to mold his followers into a unit that commands respect rather than derision. Of course it’s a formidable task in view of the fragile psychological state of the small group which includes two warring dysfunctional brothers who are known as “Lally 1” and “Lally 2.” Lally 1 reacts to threats against his emotional security by throwing violent temper tantrums, often directed as his younger brother Lally 2, who in the face of these attacks plunges himself into a fantasy world that is filled with tiny creatures he calls Ooms, and seeks solace in the scorched foam rubber pillow he always carries. Lawrence Teft III is shown in the film as quiet and sullen, but when confronted with authority he is rebellious. Before he came to camp, one of Teft’s favorite adventures had been stealing cars, but because of his father’s “connections” he was never arrested for his offenses. Hoping that he will learn some self-discipline which will make him worthy of attending Exeter or Dartmouth, his parents enroll him in the camp. Cotton’s group also includes Sammy Shecker, and overweight, paranoid Jewish boy, whose father is a successful comedian, who trades upon the Jewish stereotype. Much to the annoyance of the other boys, Sammy mimics his father’s routines and compulsively bites his nails and is loud, nervous and obnoxious. The designation “Bedwetters” applies especially well to Gerald Goodenow, the sixth member of the group who often wets the bed at night–a behavior that gets him ejected from two cabins before Cotton takes him in tow. Bedwetting, however, seems to be the least of Gerald’s problems, as he suffers from a phobic reaction to school, which results in several unsuccessful sessions with a psychiatrist. Goodenow is also handicapped by a heavy-handed stepfather who is determined to make a man out of him by physical force if necessary.
Kramer and his screenwriter Mac Benoff wisely decide to compromise Swarthout’s time sequence by having the entire film set in the present with flashbacks into the past of all the boys to explicate their presence at the camp. Whereas Swarthout’s novel – thematically powerful though it is- is episodic and difficult for some six-graders to follow (I have taught the novel on eight occasions over the years) the Kramer film flows almost fautlessly to it’s tragic conclusion.
The plight of the American buffalo and any other endangered (or unendangered) species is at the center of the film’s focus. Almost predicably (but this is not a mystery now, is it?) the dysfunctional group, under Cotton’s guidance set out to free a large heard of the bison, after they witnes their perverted macho camp councelor “Wheaties” shooting the animals in a festive (and deeply disturbing) western lottery, which is given validation as a proper method to thin out the large numbers by eliminating the ‘weak’ or ‘sick’ buffalo. Of course, the buffalo are not the only targets of this destructive urge, as the Bedwetters–similarly–have been have also been “tamed,” “penned” and crushed in spirit. As a result of their parents’ neglect, they have been turned into psychological misfits. Ridiculed and rejected by the other boys in the camp, they are forced to cling even more strongly to their deviant behavior. The boys’ pilgrimage to free the buffalo is also a search for freedom. Cotton perceives that success will free the boys of psychological crutches and allow each to stand alone in defense of self. Cotton sacrifices his life not only for the buffalo but for the boys he has led to this one miraculous triumph. The implication at the end of the film is that the remaining boys are no longer “dings” and “weirdos”, as they have all gained a sense of pride in their abilities and have saved themselves, as well as the buffalo from extinction.
In order to gain the strongest emotional resonance from this material Kramer gets an invaluable boost from an unexpected source: Composers Barry DeVorzon and Perry Botkin, who simultaneously capture the exhilaration and defiance at the film’s climax, ultilying a piercing coda that a few year’s later was chosen as the theme to the hit soap opera The Young and the Restless. DeVorzon and Botkin also employ the Carpenter’s Oscar-nominated theme song to poignant effect. Music is an important element in a film that wears it’s sensibilities up front, and Kramer made a very good choice with the two men.
In a film that could have easily been sanctimonious, Kramer presents the film’s allegory in alarmingly simplistic terms that emphasize that this is a film about youth, coming of age and the loss of innocence and the ultimate price one pays for transition. The earlier scenes at camp are sometimes funny, sometimes painful but almost always riveting. The cast is excellent with one glaring and rather damaging exception: Barry Robins as Cotton, who delivers perhaps the most over-the-top, stiff and amaterish performance a child actor has ever given in a film (or close to it). the fact that he has the lead role is even more lamentable. But Billy Mumy of Lost in Space and the Twilight Zone fame is convincing as the rebellious youth, and Ken Swofford is both menacing and transparent in one fell swoop as the immoral camp councelor who hides pornograhic magazines, liquor and even a revolver in his cabin trunk. Miles chapin is modestly chrismatic as the comedian’s beefy son and Daryl Glaser succeeds in nailing the flower-child sensibilities of this period. The film’s cinematographer, Michel Hugo, who worked mainly in television films Bless the Beasts and Children in a straight-forward manner (even the flashbacks are unremarkable) but he makes chilling use of real-life buffalo killings and incoroporates them into the narrative to convincing effect. The garish and saturated color scheme he uses for the kids’ clothes and outdoor adventures contrasts with the ominous night scenes that portend disaster.
The title of the film (and novel) exemplifies the dual yet unified nature of the theme. Both beasts and children need to be free to roam, to develop and to discover, but the freedom that is given to the buffalo at the film’s conclusion is worthless because their very natures have been altered by man. Outside the fence of the preserve, the tame buffalo will never find wild plains and grasslands on which to roam and their natural habitat, as well as their natural spirit has been destroyed. The children, however, have regained their spirit and independence and eventually they will triumph over the fear instilled in them by their parents and society. But it’s conspicuous that they will require the love and compassion of others.
Stanley Kramer was a risk-taker throughout his career, so it’s rather surprising he took few risks with this film, prefering fidelity to the source and full adherence to theme. But the source material was powerful and his contributors were on board. Despite it’s dismissal by hostile critics upon its release I dare say that Bless the Beasts and Children will be vindicated by future generations of movie lovers who will respond to it’s life-affirming themes of tolerance and compassion.
This is a piece of irredemable excrement. Sam needs to understand that in promoting films forgotten, neglected or misunderstood. This film was forgotten (correctly), not misunderstood (they said it was crap, it was) and neglected (so it should be). Look at the size of the pics in this piece. There is nothing better on the entire World Wide Web. This film will never get a DVD release as only Sam and one other fellow who lives as a hermit in Timbuktu wants to see this film.
Get your posion pens out, guys, this is a film to abuse in every direction possible, and the same is true of the rest of the drivel Sam will be promoting over the next weeks. He read me the list and it was enough to make me want to hurl. There’s not one that rises above the level of mediocrity, and all bar one could only dream of reaching that high.
I will let this incompetant, hysterical rant stand for what it is. Allan’s history throughout his film writing (and viewing) career is always to ‘play it safe.’ If he had any kind of a grasp of American film criticism at the time of this film’s release in 1972, he would have found that the reviews were divided, with a number singing its praises. My review pointed out a few matters that were less than stellar, as my upcoming reviews will point out flaws in others of this series.
It’s easy to dismiss BLESS THE BEASTS AND CHILDREN, which is exactly the reason I wrote this piece.
I’ve only seen this once but your review has certainly spurred me on to revisit this..
Fine piece here Sam though I must say this film never did it for me. I suppose I should revisit it.
Mr. Fish in his summary dismissal here has shown a complete disregard for the veneration shown this work of literature that for years has been taught in secondary school sthroughout the US. I am 37 years old, but was assigned the Swarthout novel in grade 7 in a West New York Jr. High School. The film was used at the end of a three-week study, and it greatly enriched the experience and enforced the film’s most prevelent themes. What Mr. Fish doesn’t realize is that this Stanley Kramer film brought about immediate reform in the Arizona court system, with close monitoring and regulating of the up-to-that-point systematic destruction of bison reserves, which had brought the species dangerously close to extinction. Mr. Fish argues that the film was “rightly forgotten” and that it wasn’t released on new video formats, but this is true of far more high-profile films and classics through the years. There are vast number of films released by Columbia, that have not seen the light of day on DVD, and it has less to do with quality, than it has to do with reaching a wider commercial audience. This is a niche film, a small independent that has served schools throughout the country amazingly well, and many of the best educators have found it is an outstanding supplement, as I have.
Mr. Fish will come back at me on this thread and argue that he could care less about what reform the film brought about, that’s he was only speaking of “artistic merit” or lack thereof. But I think Sam in this tremendous review- which stands among the very best this site has ever offered – (and I’ve been here and commented from the very beginning) has made a glowing testament to the film’s vital themes, and how on balance this film works in the wide sub-genre of literature to film. Needless to say, the author Glendon Swarthout won many awards and high critical praise from the lierary scholars, and the novel is still read 40 years after its publication in schools.
Go figure. You write a fantastic, comprehensive and heart-felt review, and the reward is castigation from someone who extends a pompous edict stating what we “should” and “shouldn’t” like. I think American school teachers have been using this for many years, while so many other book to film adaptations have been scrapped. I read your review as trying to make a case for a film that didn’t receive wide circulation, but had a special quality warts and all. This is as fine a film review as I’ve read anywhere at anytime. Unfortunately I haven’t seen the film.
I salute this blogsite for drawing attention to films that may have fallen off the radar. I remember that powerful ending, with the surviving boys all lined up facing the hunters. The camp master was a stereotyped redneck, but that is an accurate portrayal. Billy Mumy was excellent, and the music works very well.
I see a “connection” here between Allan Fish and the buffalo hunters. It’s scary.
In all fairness to Allan, here is a blogger that agrees with his assessment, apparently:
“Cotton, They Can’t Understand You…”
Jump to Comments
And Neither Can We
“But we sure do appreciate the histrionics of Barry Robins, who gave a whole new meaning to Method acting. The film is Bless the Beasts & Children, co-starring Billy Mumy, which came out in 1971 and was directed by Stanley “Message Man” Kramer.
I am featuring the completely bugshit finale, with some of Robins’ finest moments, but if you’ve got the time and inclination, you can seek out the entire film on YouTube, complete and uncut in 21 parts.
Brace yourself. And enjoy.”
Of course this was a parroting of the stock 70’s response, where is was fashionable to trash Stanley Kramer for having the temerity to deal with serious subjects at a time when genre filmmaking ruled.
I believe that much of the backlash against this film and novel started with the lack of subtlety in regards to the title. But it was in vogue at that time to wear your heart on your sleeve. This is a very touching film, and it raises some important issues relating to wildlife and (as Sam says) tolerance. This is a commanding review, wonderfully-written and with deep feeling.
I’ll say that the Carpenters were the kiss of death, even though the song is innocuous enough.
I haven’t seen this film so I can’t get involved in this controversy. However, the review is beyond reproach. My congratulations to you Sam.
Great review Sam. I am a lower-grade teacher, so I am unable to use this book. But I remember it being assigned to me in Grade 6, and the class was treated to this film version afterwards. It’s funny, but the film left even a greater impression on me than the novel did. I’ll never forget the shivers I experienced during that final, fateful scene.
Mr Gallo, perhaps you should start to learn the difference between A PIECE OF LITERATURE as you call it, AND A FILM. I was attacking the film, not the piece of literature, they are not one and the same. At least not where we speak English…
I notice one thing, though, you have to be a teacher – and a literature teacher at that – to like it. Any serious film studies tutor would see it as the turd it is.
Mr. Fish:
I thought I made it clear that I was ultimately speaking of THE FILM in my comment.
I will voice two observations here and no more:
1) This is definitely one of the best reviews of any film by any writer written at any time, ever posted on this site since it began over the summer.
2) This movie sucks.
Well, I will most certainly refrain from voicing my opinion of this film and the source novel it’s based on specifically to avoid any violent responces from either Sam or Allan. I will praise Schmule on two things here, though: the piece is exceptionally well written, and Sam has grown since the inception of this web site as one of the most formidable writers of our group. Secondly, I will champion Sam, whether you think the film in question is a “turd” or not, for continuing to bring to attention (as Allan did with his “GUILTY PLEASURE” posts) films that might never make a top 25 list but are worthy of a quick look. Whether you like this film or not, it is clear that Sam has a passion for it. Nice piece Schmuley.
Your bluntness is refreshing there Fred, but I think you are way to harsh on the film. Still, to each his own.
Oh yes, lovely piece, just wasted on this film…
I like the film, if not quite as much as Sam. But again this review confirms the value of passion and enthusiasm. I don’t think anyone could question it’s thmes, nor it’s hope to change some of the most shameful aspects of our society. Apparently the film did reach people in high places as per the assertion made above on this thread. Your examination of character and theme here is brilliant.
What I remember most about this film are the flashback sequences. They were woven well into the story, and were timed to shed light on the dysfunctional nature of the characters.
I’d like to expressive my gratitude to all who have spend their free time visiting this thread and sharing your own insights. I am most pleased with the launching of this series, and I think it’s a testament to this film’s polarizing premise (and execution) that has fueled this fantastic thread. My work here has not been in vain.
There it is, Sam’s Lina Lamont speech, enough to make anyone want to hurl buckets…
If he brings a little joy into your humdrum lives, it makes him feel his hard work aint been in vain for nuthin…bless you all!
I just found two reactions on the web on the film that are worth sharing:
“More than twenty-eight years after its release, this poignant and exquisitely affecting film based on the Glendon Swarthout novel still resonates deeply with this 41-year-old film buff. I first saw the film in January 1972 as a gawky, hideously homely 13-year-old who was taller than everyone else at Kennedy Junior High in Hays, Kansas and who faced constant cruelty and teasing – simply for being “different.” Thus, I related to the “Bedwetters” as I was convinced no one else could have. The boys’ camp counselor, portrayed with menacing conviction by Ken Swofford, was familiar to me as well. There was a “Wheaties” in every schoolhouse, townhouse and outhouse of my young life. Moreover, I was and have always been an avowed animal lover, and the young men’s efforts to save a herd of buffalo from extinction touched my heart and stirred my soul. The excellent cast is notable for the presence of then-17-year-old Bill Mumy, four years removed from his starring role as little Will Robinson on TV’s “Lost in Space.” As the brooding, taciturn Lawrence Teft III, Mumy brings a sauntering, sexy charisma to his performance – light years away from the apple-cheeked cherub of the 1960’s. This haunting and instructive film leaves us with disturbing lessons about the price enacted by pervasive rejection and negativity – and the redemptive power of unity and compassion.” -Shelley Shay
and this:
“I first started going to camp when I was 5 years old, just a year after this film was released, but I didn’t see it until a few years later, when it was on TV. The first camp I went to was a co-ed camp. Kids ranged from 5 to 18 and were sometimes in a camp-wide group, but more often than not, age groups and genders were separated. As a group of hyper 5-year-old girls, we were taught some cheesy crafts, we went fishing, a little archery and “snipe” hunting. The purpose of snipe (an imaginary creature) hunting was to supposedly capture a live (never before seen) specimen.
One night we were told the entire camp was going to go on an Armadillo hunt. I was very excited… I had only seen armadillos on TV and I really wanted to be able to pet one (and sneak it home in my luggage if I could!). Little did I realize that some of the older boys had intended on really hunting one of these harmless creatures… right when I saw one, I got to see it blown to bits with a shot gun. There are moments like that that you never forget… a split second where one small part of you that was still a child, dies and turns into an adult… all in the twinkling of an eye.
I related to this movie in a million ways. I was one of those kids that no one noticed and if I had gone missing, no one would have remembered I was ever there until my parents showed up and asked for me. I was accustomed to being picked on at school, so I avoided interaction w/ the other kids and always did what I was told by adults… many of whom had no business being in charge of children.
The movie is slow in many places, but it exacerbates the feeling of lonliness and rejection felt by the group of outcasts in this film. I was in awe when I saw them stand up for what they believed in, rejecting authority and doing everything they could to save what could have very well been the last herd of buffalo on earth. They finally say, “no more! We’re tired of crying, and now we’re going to fight!”
A few funny moments, but those are there to break the tension… many poignant moments, boys confiding in their friends their deepest fears and longings… and there are the senseless tragic moments.
Even as a child, I was keenly aware from watching the news how endangered buffalo were at the time. While they’re so common today as to be served up as alternative beef, when this movie was released there were less than 2,000 living specimens. This film must have certainly inspired a more fervent effort to increase their numbers.
Excellent performances by Billy Mumy, Barry Robins, Miles Chapin and others… not to mention the title song performed by The Carpenters. While I saw this film as a child and I survived the experience, I don’t recommend this film for young children. The violence perpetrated against the animals in the film will be extremely upsetting to anyone, but especially to little kids… and some young children may find the film to be too slow to pay attention to at length.
If you haven’t seen this film, it is a classic and abounding with great talent in these wise-beyond-their-years characters.”
-Annette Munson
And there’s Allan’s patented “Marquis de Sade” spiel, aimed at anyone who has the audacity to show emotion………..
I wouldn’t compare myself to the Marquis de Sade, I’m way beyond that amateur. He was a romantic.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! You gotta admit, Schmule, that was funny!
I have always liked and respected this film.
Well, Lucille, you are also a teacher…
🙂
This film may be at worst rubbish or at best flawed, and there are professional critiques supporting the full gamut of views. I have not seen the film and offer no opinion, but simply ask why someone’s sincere response to it should be pilloried so gratuitously and with such vulgar language?
Amen to that Tony.
People here talk about great reviews and great writing, well that is overstating the case in this instance. You want to really read a GREAT review?
Visit WitD’s very good friend R.D. Finch and check out his dazzling, sensory treatment of Bergman’s CRIES AND WHISPERS right here. This one really hits the ball out of the park:
http://movieprojector.blogspot.com/2009/06/study-in-scarlet-ingmar-bergmans-cries.html
You are a very modest guy Sam. I will check out that Cries and Whispers review.
What an interesting movie review. I remember the book being offered on reading lists, and the cover was the still with the kids riding in the jeep. The story of what happens in this book boils your blood. I would love to see this film.
Frank: Thanks again for following up on this, and it’s great to hear you will be checking up on R.D.’s exquisite piece on the Bergman.
Joanne: Thanks very much. In the zeal of some to dismiss the film for a myriad of reasons, it is easy to forget that the film shoots an arrow to the heart. The subject is one of urgency, and it’s devoid of manipulation.
I saw that movie on T.V. when I was pretty young (8 maybe 9) I was profoundly moved by it. I’m sure if I watched it now I would find it laughable. It reminds me of the Billy Jack movies which fall into the “Crap with noble intentions” genre of film:)
Thanks for stopping by DW and for your valued opinion.
Well, if I felt that way myself, I wouldn’t have headlined the film nor given it inclusion in the ‘Forsaken Cinema’ series. I watched it again a few weeks ago in preparation for this review, and I found it still projected that sense of urgency and compassion that impressively conveys what Swarthout set out to express in his novel. It remains a favorite of English teachers throughout the USA to this day, and with good reason.
Well Sam, I watched this last night. Stanley Kramer was always a problematic filmmaker; his heart was always in the right place however, he sometimes would hit you over the head with a blunt instrument to get his message across. This I think applies to this late entry in his career. As I watched the film I very soon began to find it predictable (I thought the film was really in trouble when I heard The Carpenters singing the title song), yet I continued to watch and despite this predictability the film kept me engrossed. The flashbacks I thought were clumsy and if handled better would have enhanced the film. The shooting of the bison, which I believe you eluded to be real, was one of the strongest moments in the film as was the ending, predictable or not. While no masterpiece, the film does not deserve to be “lost.” Animal rights, and the rights of humans to be what they are (so called misfits or otherwise ) are more important today than ever. As you say at the end of your review, “tolerance and compassion.”
John: I am truly amazed that you saw this so speedily! What a guy! Well, I agree that Kramer’s career does showcase in large measure a lack of subtlety, even though I have always considered the subject and novel he examined here as worthy of a forceful conscription, as you yourself indicate near the end of this wonderful comment. The flashbacks were effective enough, but you are right that they could have ben better. And the ending, as you also note, is deeply affecting.
“I thought the film was really in trouble when I heard The Carpenters singing the title song”
LOL!!!!!!!!
Hi Sam,
Just wanted to punch in and say how much I enjoyed your review. I too, read the book and saw the movie when I was in (I think) middle school (somewhere around 6th grade), and in my 43 years, I can look back on this movie and clearly see some overacting in some places, but the absolute charm and message of this movie speaks louder than any “nitpicky” reason to dislike it. This movie was definitely a “moment” in my childhood. Now, if we could just convince Columbia to release it on DVD/Blue Ray/whatever!
Thanks so much Charles! I fully agree with your assessment, and as someone who is now in his mid 50’s I can say it always brings back personal memories.
Charles, my e mail address is: TheFountain26@aol.com………please reach me there, as I have a surprise for you regarding the film.
I remember seeing this moving as a young adult?, older teen?, and being so very touched by it.
I have looked for years for it and see in VHS on Amazon, but I’d prefer a DVD as the VCR around consumes taped media.
Interesting to read the mixed, and sometimes, very harsh comments here.
I like movies to be entertaining, thought-provoking, and sometimes just hysterically funny…I don’t need them to be picked to pieces or so very intellectual htat my brain wants to explode.
I’ll keep up with my quest and hope someday, someone recognizes that there may be enough of us out here to warrant a few DVD copies…
What a wonderful film and essay about it. Brings me back to my childhood when my parents let me stay up late to watch this film when it came on TV. Those were the days. Thanks for your writing.
Thanks John. Great to hear it made it’s mark on you.
i read the book and it was somewhat good.
but did the experience that teft had with stealing the cars change him in the book and movie?
Thanks for stopping by Mimi. The experience hardened him, but he moved on from it to develop a sense of mission and responsibility. Glendon Swarthout’s novel has gained in reputation and continues to be taught in Jr. High and high school to this very day.
Certainly not a perfect film but it deserves credit for focusing not just on animal rights but also damaged kids and the parents that neglect them. I saw the movie on television in 1976 and found it extremely moving and sad. And the score was, I think, mesmerizing & beautiful. I found the parallel between troubled children and captive animals facing slaughter effectively and accurately drawn. This was the first movie I’d ever seen that focused on the harrowing experiences of bullied teens. The movies emphasis on tolerance, compassion and freedom was inspirational. I’m not surprised it was reviled in the 70’s or in modern times. Those values are anathema to the the soullessly cynical masses.
Thanks Pat, for the excellent response here. I’ve defended this film for decades, and much for the exact reasons you eloquently attest to here. It’s true this is one of the earlier examples of the ‘bullied teens’ genre, and makes quite a case for tolerance and compassion. As you also note, the score is beautiful and deeply affecting. This is Stanley Kramer’s most underrated film for sure.
Just finding this review tonight, I would like to add a few thoughts. Like most of the respondees, I read this book in junior high and saw the film as a tie in to reading it. As a very insecure adolescent, this film touched a chord in me that no other film had ever done and few have done since. Although it may have been Swarthout’s and Kramer’s intent to write/direct an animal rights story, I saw it solely as a journey for six troubled boys finding purpose and meaning in their lives. They needed to make this journey to prove to themselves that they matter; if to nobody else but themselves.
I wish it would be released again for old and new viewers to see. I went on to YouTube and found the entire film there to be watch (in segments). I was Gerald Goodenow (sans bedwetting) and watching the scene in the buffalo paddock where he stands up and shouts to the “world” still got to me and I was crying for him and that insecure, in-the-closet 12 year old that was back in the 70s.
I will be the first to say that this isn’t Kramer’s film (by far) nor is it a piece of cinematic greatness but it does say something to most who watch(ed) it. It will ALWAYS be on the top (or near the top) of my list of my favorite movies.