by Sam Juliano
Today’s review of “A Separate Peace”, based on the novel by John Knowles is the second in a planned series that will examine films from the 1970’s that were either forgotten, undervalued or misunderstood at the time of their release.
From the late 60’s to the late 90’s three novels dominated the literature component of high school English curriculums, and each of the three were written and published around the same time. Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird has probably maintained the most venerated position of the three, and captured the Pultizer Prize, but both William Golding’s Lord of the Flies and John Knowles’s A Separate Peace have held the literary stage both for their writing excellence and the intricate expression of their universal themes. It was inevitable that all three would be made into films, but A Separate Peace took the longest to materialize, finally appearing as a film in 1972. The Paramount release, with Larry Peerce serving as director and unknown actors in the leads, received divided notices, and has since been displaced as the film of choice on this novel by a 2003 television version directed by Peter Yates.
But the earlier version remains easily the better adaptation, in fact it’s one of the best American films ever made about youth and coming-of-age. During the summer of 1942, sixteen-year-old Gene Forrester attends Devon School, a private New England Academy. His roommate is Phineas, a free-spirited and cheerful nonconformist who is loved by everyone he meets. Gene, an introvert, tries to stifle his growing jealousy but is unable to control his envy of Finny’s athletic skill, natural popularity, and above all his innate goodness. Finally, unable to bear the knowledge that Finny is a better person, Gene apparently shakes the branch of a tree overhanging a river in the film (and novel)’s centerpiece sequence that causes the normally agile Finny to fall to the ground, breaking his leg and turning him into a cripple. After the accident, Gene meets with Finny and attempts to confess, but he then realizes that Finny desperately needs the illusion of friendship and he needs to boost his fallen friend’s self-confidence. When Finny returns for the winter semester after recovering (but his own athletic career is finished) he refuses to accept the wartime influences that permeate Devon and commences to train Gene for the Olympics. Finny is initially resistant to the fact that a war is raging around them, until another student, “Leper” Lepelier returns AWOL and corroborates the horrible stories that up until then have never been informed by first-person narrative. Another student, the judicious-minded Brinker Hadley instigates an inquiry into Finny’s accident and convenes a kangaroo court of fellow students on a small second-floor meeting room on campus, at which point Leper reveals the truth about what happened, as he was looking up from under the tree when Gene supposedly shook the branch. Finny begins to cry and in his effort to escape the tribunal, he falls down the stairs and breaks his leg again.
The second disaster has a curious healing effect on both boys, and when Gene visits Finny in the infirmary, the two are reconciled as Finny accepts the fact that Gene never meant to hurt him, and Gene reveals that Finny would have been emotionally unfit for war anyway. However, during a second operation on his leg, Finny dies after a sliver of bone marrow, undetected during the procedure gets into his bloodstream and travels to his heart. The surgeon tells a shell-shocked Gene “there are risks, always risks” and then the surviving boy realizes a part of him has died with the death of his best friend.
The director, Larry Peerce, whose career includes a large body of television work, directed Goodbye Columbus (1969), but A Separate Peace represents his finest work. Peerce wisely chose to bookend the film with Gene Forrester as an older man who returns during the bleak and lifeless winter to the ‘spectre’ of the tree, where the fateful event that has haunted him through his life still stands almost in defiance. The muted color cinematography by Frank Stanley and the haunting piano chords of Charles Fox combine hypnotically in these sequence as well as in the remainder of the film which captures the scenic, yet errie beauty of a prep school operating in seclusion, while the world engages in the final stages of a war that may have passed the boys by, but in fact informed the events at home. The period detail in the film is remarkable as Ron Tasky’s 1940’s clothing and Charles Rosen’s art direction are evocative and at the same time evoke an aching sense of nostalgia. The scene where the boys attend a carnival is beautifully replicated, and the later snow scene, when Gene assaults Leper is filmed in long shot and stands as a breathless example of Peerce’s excellent feel for season and climate. The screenwriter, Fred Segal is reasonably faithful to Knowles’s great novel, retaining throughout a verisimilitude of language and dialogue, including such expressions as “goofy”, “nutty,” “it’s a cinch” and “fat chance” lending the film a sense of schoolboy authenticity.
Inevitably, literary scholars have made much as the veiled current of homosexuality running through the novel, which of course manifests itself in Gene’s later wearing his friend’s clothes (visualized in the film) in an effort to “become” his friend, a frightful declaration that of course recalls the famous I Am Heathcliffe spoken by Cathy in the classic Wuthering Heights. Certainly a cogent argument could be made about the early closeness of the relationship (and Peerce accents this by having Gene rub up against his friend during athletics) but book critics have argued for years that a strong homoerotic undercurrent runs through the novel in some of the unspoken, inrospective passages.
The film’s best performance is delivered by John Heyl, who gives Finny a fresh vitality and winning mischievious smile that even causes his ordinarily rigid headmasters to laugh when he commits infractions like wearing the school tie for a belt. Heyl infuses both the character and the film with wide appeal, and he’s the foil of the brooding Gene, who unfortunately is played with rampant amaterishness by Parker Stevenson. Certainly, Stevenson is physically right for the role, but he delivers some of lines haltingly and with a transparent stare. Still, Stevenson gets some of the film’s most important scenes right, and the supporting cast of non-professionals give authentic portrayals.
Much of the novel’s symbolism and themes remain unconsummated in the film, as Peerce realizes this is all best left to the viewers’s imagination, and the psychological context could not satisfactorily be transcribed to the screen in such a straight-forward adaptation. But it’s abundantly clear that the “loss of innocence” envisioned in the film does not only come off as a necessary evil but is as vital to spiritual growth as the loss of the umbilical cord is to physical growth. Hence, Finny is doomed because because of his refusal to shed his idealistic view of human nature. It’s a testament that Peerce’s film provides audiences (and students) with a haunting and enveloping film of one of literature’s most brilliantly-written and mesmerizing novels, and in tone, setting, atmosphere and suggestiveness this 1972 film is far more than a noteworthy achievement. It’s one of the best American films about youth ever made.
Sam,
You review has whet my appetite for this film. A fantastic review. I remember it being out but never got around to seeing it.
Hopefully I will get the chance.
Another excellent installment in this series. I’m sorry to say I have not seen this film, but I saw the Yates re-make which was pretty good. The novel was one of my favorites in high school, but “Lord of the Flies” was the one I loved most. What you say about the ‘psychological’ aspect being difficult to present on screen is quite true. But according to what you say here, the physical details are impeccable, and the acting effective.
You are really on a roll my friend.
I appreciate this coverage as too many worthy films for whatever reason have fallen through the cracks. I know this particular film has not been released on DVD (the later one has)and there are amazon copies selling on VHS for about $100. Another reason this film may have gotten short shrift is that it was released in 1972, which was quite a great year for American cinema, as I recall. It was the year of The Godfather, Cabaret, Deliverance, etc. I also believe that the long wait for the novel to be filmed may have contibuted to a harsh and demanding assessment.
I am very happy that you have turned your attention on this film. I first saw this in my first year in college, and I remember the profound impression it made on me. I didn’t read the book until after I saw the film – which is unfortunate – but in another sense the book expounded on some of the deeper machinations that could never be visualized. I agree that Frank Stanley’s cinematography was ravishing for a chamber piece, and the film’s final scene at the tree really leaves you shaken.
This is a great idea for a series, and so far your first two reviews have been outstanding. I’d love to know what else you have planned.
Sam, that’s two films in this series that I am not so fond of. But you have really composed a special review yet again. Fans of the film will definitely appreciate this.
It’s really sad that Paramount never thought enough of this to release a DVD. But I do believe that the 2003 version killed the earlier film permanently. It’s nothing more than a statistic. As you are pointing out, the 70’s contained a number of films, based on novels that were under intense scrutiny from the fans of the works, and perhaps the original reviews were way too harsh.
Thanks so much for that John! This one has long since disappeared from the radar screen, but back in 1972 it divided the critics severely. I remember both Rex Reed and Judith Crist were huge fans, and Reed went as far as to say he had seen in numerous times and thought it was one of the greatest of youth films. (a point I voiced agreement with here). I would to know what you would say about it, when you do get to it.
Frank: I think I can remedy the situation. I may be able to make copies of this. Thanks again for your unflagging support and corroborating insights.
David: Thanks very much. Well I don’t see why I can’t divulge some info here. I plan on doing:
I Never Sang For My Father
Fiddler on the Roof
Brother Sun Sister Moon
The Emigrants/The New Land
Don Giovanni
Love
and my #1 and #2 films of the 70’s (outside the ‘forsaken’ series):
The Last Picture Show
Mon Oncle Antoine
Joe: You make excellent points there, and again, I hope to make copies of this film. Thanks.
Peter: It was a smaller film at th etime it was released and never generated much box office, despite the novel’s high esteem in literary circles and schools. It is too intimate a work to make it’s mark on th ebig screen and the timing was off. Thank You.
Frederick: Thanks for the kind words. We’ll find one you like. I guarantee it!
Notice the top two are youth films both released in 1971, when Sam was – could it be he was just about EXACTLY the same age. Transparency is a wonderful thing. But yes he will be writing more now school’s finished, he’ll be thinking of more things to write to avoid actually watching anything.
Allan, you are a character, that’s for sure.
However, THIS comment:
“But yes he will be writing more now school’s finished, he’ll be thinking of more things to write to avoid actually watching anything.”
is untrue. I will be spending more time than I rightfully should over the upcoming weeks watching stuff AND writing. I am working summer school though from 8:15 A.M. till 12:45 P.M. every day until August 6th, along with some other teacher/friends.
That’s writing and occasionally watching stuff, having them written the other way is like saying you want a Cucumber and Tuna sarnie, or Mushy Peas, Chips & Fish…
Look.
I did not not list these in any particular order. My performance over the summer in watching DVDs should rightfully had my wife filing for divorce.
Here are three interesting views:
1 Malcolm R. Mckay
“The 1972 film version of John Knowles’ modern masterpiece is a class act for the reason that Paramount Pictures went to Phillips Exeter Academy and filmed it on location with all student actors from Exeter with the exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School. Though the acting is a little amaturish at times, so what, it should be, for it is the drama society of Exeter and alumni putting on a Paramount film!
John Heyl, a former Exeter Student, was eighteen and son of the school doctor. John Heyl does a great job as Finny at the age sixteen, seventeen that Finny would have been in the novel.This was also Parker Stevenson, at eighteen, his first film and in my view his best role as Gene.
It is a good adaptation of the book but I would strongly suggest that you read the novel first for the tentions of love, hate, jealously, denial, sexual undertones and regret are pale compared to John Knowles’ writing. It is a love story and the viewer decides if it is emotional and / or physical. What else could motivate ones “Best Pal” and roommate to do such a violent act as to attempt to maim him hense excorise him (Finny) from Genes life i.e. emotions that Gene could not deal with at sixteen.
I have recently viewed Showtime’s 2004 version which was filmed at a college in Canada and has actors that are in there late twenties playing the parts of teenagers. No sorry – veto! John Heyl will always be Finny and Parker Stevenson will always be Gene. The 1972 Film version of A Separate Peace shot at Exeter is a true “PREPPY” classic.”
2 Michael Lane:
“My rating of this film is very interesting, being that I was in
the film. I was nineteen years old and making my film debut.
For the information of everyone this film was made on a low budget of one million dollars. Paramount was making The Godfather
at that time and was pressed for money. Parker Stevenson and John Heil were students at Phillips Exeter Acedemy where the film was made. Most of the actors students on the campus of the school. Very few professional actors were used.A lot of times we drove the director crazy, because of our lack of experience.For all the pitfalls and problems I think the movie gave an accurate portrayal of life in the 40’s.”
3 Jim Harley:
“Poor John Heyl. Whatever happened to him…? He played Phineas in this film and did so rather well, I thought. Parker Stevenson is a very unfortunate, one-dimensional, barely-able-to-convince-us-he’s-a-real-character Gene; this is troublesome since the entire story behind “A Separate Peace” is really’s Gene’s own. The supporting cast did a fine job…the actor who played Leper was credible, and Brinker’s role was filled very adeptly as well. What pleased me most was the firm adherence of the film to Knowles’ novel, which is one of my favorite works of American literature. I’d like to see the 2003 made-for-TV version of the book but cannot locate it on VHS; the 1972 rendition is still, in my opinion, a tremendously commendable adaptation.”
Dear Sam,
I’m pleased you liked my view on the 1972 film version of “A Separate Peace”.
Yours,
Malcolm
Malcolm:
I LOVED your view and was thrilled to post it, even though I probably should have found a way to get permission from you. But it so vigourously supports my own feelings and it’s an excellent capsule with some fine insights into the actors. I am honored you have left this comment.
Dear Sam,
No problem about getting permission you did ” ” the whole essay! I bought the script of A Separate Peace 1972 off of E-Bay a year ago. It read easily. The only thing I wish about the film is that they had a voice over on the beach scene. If you had not read the novel you would not really know what is going on.
This novel and this film were my boyhood favourites. I read the novel fifteen years after prep school as Gene does return to Devon. I had no idea at eighteen that it really was a love story that adults would only understand!
Yours,
Malcolm
You make an excellent point there Malcolm concerning the voiceover, but there are numerous instances in the film where the book’s psychological side wasn’t even attempted. But as we both seem to agree, the positives in this film far outweigh the negatives. That’s really great that you acquired the full script on e bay, that’s got to be a real collector’s item. I have the film on a very good bootleg DVD, which I also managed on e bay, but I am dismayed that Paramount has resisted bringing it out on a legit DVD, which they at least did with the other cult film from that period, BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON. Thansk again Malcolm for keeping this thread going!
Dear Sam,
Just think if the movie budget was two million instead of one! I do wish that the film had been longer hence two hours instead of 90 minutes. I bet many screens ended up on an edit room’s floor. I can hear the mood music now. That was great. Also in the script the boys where smoking cigarettes often which was not shown in the film.
The screen which was most true to boys boarding school is the group of boys after lights out are discussing the facts of life; when Finny is telling the story of the “Fat old men in there clubs are getting fatter these days. That the war is a fake!” Brinker and Gene challenge Finny why he is the only one that gets the joke with the “Fat old Men” which Finny cries out “BECAUSE I’VE SUFFERED GOD DAMIT!” Well done.
Yours,
Malcolm
Malcolm: That ‘fat old men’/the war is a fake scene is indeed unforgettable! When Finny screams “Because I’m suffered Goddamit!” it goes right through you. I also thought the sequence where they visited the resort was perfectly bittersweet as it underscored the fact that tragedy was unfolding in the outside world. There were a few scenes showing Gene smoking, but yes that was downplayed with the film as opposed to the novel. Its always best to have authenticity and the film wasn’t always aggressive in that sense.
And yes the running length could have been two hours, but your disclaimer having to do with budget is dead on. The film also could have delineated the relationship between Gene and Finny more comprehensively to illustrate the psychological underpinnings of the tragedy.
Thanks again for continuing discussion on this still fascinating work.
Dear Sam,
The first seen of Finny exploding though the double doors from the dormitory with his wooden lacrosse stick with Tommy Dorsey’s “Opus One” blaring out takes the viewer immediately to the 1940’s was perfect.
I agree that the seaside resort could not have been shot any better accept going back to my view that there needed to be more voice overs explaining Gene’s thinking. Finny’s song as it was referred to in the script was “Delorous” which he whistles and sings though out the film worked very well I thought.
Writing comments on this film certainly makes me realise how much I still love this film. I am forty in the first week of August!
Yours,
Malcolm
Well, on an entirely different note, apparently Michael Jackson and Farah Fawcett just died.
Sorry, I see this is double-posted…didn’t realize it went through the other time.
Movie Man, I just heard this horrible news and am numb!
Back to A Separate Peace (since this thread seems to have gone in different directions):
I finally got a chance to read this review, and it’s an excellent overview of a movie I’d like to see. I read the book in jr. high and found it fascinating. I did not really pick up on the homosexual undercurrents at the time, nor could I quite pinpoint the sources of the book’s eerie, melancholy tone, but I felt its effects. I was not aware at the time that it was a classic – it was just another book on the bookshelf at school which caught my attention.
I had also forgotten that it took place at Phillips Exeter (and am pretty sure I didn’t know this while reading it). That school is quite close to where I grew up (actually, come to think of it, I applied and was rejected!) and several of my classmates and friends went there for high school. What’s more, I was born in Exeter Hospital in 1983! With that in mind, particularly the fact that the film was shot on location, the movie should be even more fascinating to me.
Sam, do you have a copy of this film?
Movie Man: I do have a copy, and I will definitely make a copy of it.
That’s rather amazing what you say there about being born in Exeter Hospital and of actually applying to that exclusive institution! You make a good point of mentioning the inexplicable ‘eerie, melancholy’ tone of the book, which of course has much to do with it’s catastrophic denouement, but perhaps more to do with the war abroad, the weighty issues and themes, the relative lack of humor, and admission by Gene that Finny’s death was in fact his own.
The classic status of the book did not take root immediately, but by the mid-70’s it was virtually on all book lists, and taught by high-school English teachers just about as often as the Golding and Harper Lee.
I loved this book when I read it as a seventeen year old high school student. In fact, most everyone in the class seemed to be impressed with it.
The movie came out the year after my graduation. A group of four of us went to see it. Sadly, I was disappointed by it. The film seemed to miss so many important points the book was making.
I always thought it would be a very difficult movie to make. It would be almost impossible to capture the real meaning behind many of the events in the book without a voice over through the whole film.
I’ve read the book three times since and still believe it’s one the best coming of age novels ever written. I wasn’t sure I’d still enjoy it or relate to it at an older age but I did.
AS far as homosexuality in the book I remember myself and several other class members picking up on it. I always wondered if I was reading more into it than was actually there.
John Knowles was asked once if Gene and Phineas were homosexual. He said they loved each other but weren’t homosexual. I wonder if he wrote more into it than he realized.
Seems odd that virtually everyone who reads it wonders about the possibility of a homosexual relatioship on some level.
Thanks very much Kevin for this comprehensive personal anecdote. This is a thread that never seems to die, and comments and site hits ahave been constant since I posted it. It’s clear that this book, which I’ve used in my literature classes a number of times over the years reason hits a chrord with so many. No wonder. It’s one of the best-written and thematically rich novels written in the past century in the US. I know this film has split audiences and critics (a few others here as you’ll note was impressed by it) but I guess much of this is personal taste and a question of what a viewer is looking for. The homosexuality angle you speak of is real, and has been examined in a number of scholarly essays. It’s true that Knowles would not admit anything, but Gene’s behavior points towards more than just a close friendship. There is psychologival validity to this position.
As I stated in my orginal review and in follow up responses, I thought this film captured the period atmosphere, the minute details and the unspoken silences far better that the recent Yates version. The sombered, wintry mood of the book was negotiated brilliant on screen, but I respect your position that you feel there was something missing here.
I am honored you took the time to respond, Kevin. Thanks much.
Do you have more information about the real life of actor John Heyl? Date of birth, education, etc?
Kevin:
Finding information on Heyl is just about impossible, and he never acted again after this film. Reportedly he had no interest, and wanted to lead a private, quiet life. He was 19 when the film released in 1972, so figure he’s now 56. He is a high school English teacher in Flagstaff, Arizona, and supposedly he is well-liked by the students there. He is said to be reluctant to speak about why he never took acting further, but he still reveres his experience on A SEPARATE PEACE.
Thanks for the interest and response.
FWIW the statement “John Knowles was asked once if Gene and Phineas were homosexual. He said they loved each other but weren’t homosexual.” is incorrect. In a 1972 magazine interview with John Knowles & John Heyl the latter John said Gene & Finny “were emotionally but not physically in love.” Knowles himself made no reported reply. The confusion began with the carelessly written “A Separate Peace: The War Within” (published in 1990) where the author mixed up the two Johns. Almost twenty years later the uncorrected error is still in print.