This 1958 film "The Young Lions" is an adaptation of Erwin Shaw's great novel "The Young Lions", which examines World War II and conveys a strong anti-war sentiment through the stories of three characters - a terrific book to make into a film. There is also a terrific cast - Marlon Brando plays Christian Diestl, an idealistic Austrian ski instructor who joins the German army to serve the Fuher; Montgomery Clift plays Noah Ackerman, a Jewish kid from Brooklyn, who carries out his patriotic duty and answers the nation's calling to fight against tyranny and yet has to fight against tyranny of a different kind in his own barracks; Dean Martin plays Michael Whiteacre(and Oh what a wonderful role that could have been) , a playboy who finds himself somehow having a great desire to go to the front lines. The film also saw fit to cast Maximilian Schell with a supporting role in playing Captain Hardenberg, who is unhappy with his "police" duty in Paris and ends up sacrificing his men in North Africa. And there you also have Hope Lange who plays Hope Plowman who falls in love with Ackerman knowing her father dislikes anybody Jewish; and Dora Doll who plays the French girl Simone who hates Christian Diestl as the conqueror but loves him when he is helpless. All the right kind of ingredients are there for this to turn into an epic film, and yet it fell short of excellence. Good yes, but excellent, I am afraid NO.
The film did succeed in capturing the essence of the book in many scenes. Brando's portrayal of Diestl was brilliant right up to the end. His ideals, his heroism in France, his dissatisfaction of his duty, his affair with his Captain's wife, his disillusionment, his pitiful retreat, and his sense of humanity that is heavily clouded by his blind ideals were all vividly brought to the screen by Brando's skillful rendering. Scenes where Ackerman was mistreated and was forced to fight the three biggest guys in the barracks, where he met Hope's father, brought out the serious question of what people were in the war for, as did the book. And you merely have to look at Maximilian Schell to know that he was Captain Hardenberg.
Yet the film's biggest flop was its departure from the book. It sought to soften the much harsher reality presented by Erwin Shaw's writing, perhaps for fear that the audience would not like it. It gave the US military a much sweeter image in its upper brass than the book did. It over simplified Whiteacre's character and the audience were not given the in-depth examination, as is evident in the book, of this relatively well-to-do playwright's life, his desires and what eventually brought him into the war. The film, perhaps trying to cut its length, reduced Whiteacre into a savvy singer type, which was a terrible under-appreciation of Dean Martin's potential. (Incidentally, if you catch Dean Martin in "Airport"[1970], you'll find that he is capable of much more complex personalities.) The biggest disappointment, and its most unforgiving departure from the original novel, comes at the end when Christian Diestl smashes his machine pistol and gets shot by Whiteacre all too easily and Noah Ackerman returns home alive to reunite with Hope. Smashing the gun, although well done choreographically by Brando, only amounts to a poor attempt at a direct showing of anti-war sentiment. The book does it much more artfully with a detailed story that has Diestl fight to the last bullet killing Ackerman, and then has Whiteacre staring down and pulling the trigger at a wounded and smiling Christian Diestl. The film's having Ackerman stay alive in the end was just a bit too typical a happy-ending that was all too prevalent in those days of the 50's. Personally, I like the ending better if the hero dies, but that may just be me.
Overall, I would say this film did not use the right kind of ingredients to the fullest of their potential. It is a good film and yet it could have been much much better.
The film did succeed in capturing the essence of the book in many scenes. Brando's portrayal of Diestl was brilliant right up to the end. His ideals, his heroism in France, his dissatisfaction of his duty, his affair with his Captain's wife, his disillusionment, his pitiful retreat, and his sense of humanity that is heavily clouded by his blind ideals were all vividly brought to the screen by Brando's skillful rendering. Scenes where Ackerman was mistreated and was forced to fight the three biggest guys in the barracks, where he met Hope's father, brought out the serious question of what people were in the war for, as did the book. And you merely have to look at Maximilian Schell to know that he was Captain Hardenberg.
Yet the film's biggest flop was its departure from the book. It sought to soften the much harsher reality presented by Erwin Shaw's writing, perhaps for fear that the audience would not like it. It gave the US military a much sweeter image in its upper brass than the book did. It over simplified Whiteacre's character and the audience were not given the in-depth examination, as is evident in the book, of this relatively well-to-do playwright's life, his desires and what eventually brought him into the war. The film, perhaps trying to cut its length, reduced Whiteacre into a savvy singer type, which was a terrible under-appreciation of Dean Martin's potential. (Incidentally, if you catch Dean Martin in "Airport"[1970], you'll find that he is capable of much more complex personalities.) The biggest disappointment, and its most unforgiving departure from the original novel, comes at the end when Christian Diestl smashes his machine pistol and gets shot by Whiteacre all too easily and Noah Ackerman returns home alive to reunite with Hope. Smashing the gun, although well done choreographically by Brando, only amounts to a poor attempt at a direct showing of anti-war sentiment. The book does it much more artfully with a detailed story that has Diestl fight to the last bullet killing Ackerman, and then has Whiteacre staring down and pulling the trigger at a wounded and smiling Christian Diestl. The film's having Ackerman stay alive in the end was just a bit too typical a happy-ending that was all too prevalent in those days of the 50's. Personally, I like the ending better if the hero dies, but that may just be me.
Overall, I would say this film did not use the right kind of ingredients to the fullest of their potential. It is a good film and yet it could have been much much better.