Apparently the film was not popular with audiences in its day, though now it is hailed as a classic. Perhaps it was a bit too European in tone and trying too much to make an anti-war statement for some Americans to enjoy. In a way, anti-war films fail because wars still rage on. The sad truth is that all five of the young boys cast in the main roles did go off to war a decade later. Two of them were killed in action.
When you watch the film with this knowledge, that Jimmy Butler and Donald Haines did not live beyond their 23rd birthdays because of war, I suppose the viewing experience becomes even more tragic and poignant. It causes you to appreciate what it means for these innocent spirits to be assembled on screen before us, and how they represent the preciousness of life itself.
From a filmic standpoint, there are some weak spots that could have been improved. First, I think some of the dialogue sounds too mature for young kids to speak, as if it was what an adult writer (Jo Swerling) thought kids should sound like, instead of remembering how it was when he was a kid and actually spoke like one. Another weakness in my opinion is the fact that our hero Nameczek (George Breakston) has to die from pneumonia during the final battle sequence.
It was like they were afraid to have a kid die from the battle itself, which would be a form of real gang violence and murder. So he has to become increasingly sick, from cold and cough to deep congestion, before he collapses from an acute bronchial infection. This undercuts the value of the last main scene where the mother carries him home from battle, which suggests he died because of the war not because he had a chronic and fatal case of the sniffles.
I do think the juvenile performers are very good. A particular favorite is teenaged Frankie Darro as the leader of the older rival gang. And I do get a kick out of Jackie Searl as the Benedict Arnold of the bunch whose father refuses to believe he was ever a traitor.
The story is filled with archetypes and somewhat predictable situations. It is meant to be an allegory but it does come across as preachy. It makes you think of war films with grown men in them behaving like little boy soldiers.
Because many of these youngsters are barely on the cusp of puberty, they do not seem interested in the opposite sex. There is no romantic angle in this film like we have in the more grown-up war flicks that Hollywood produces. There is no Burt Lancaster getting amorous with Deborah Kerr on a beach in Pearl Harbor. It is a lot of fighting over territory and a boy dying.
When you watch the film with this knowledge, that Jimmy Butler and Donald Haines did not live beyond their 23rd birthdays because of war, I suppose the viewing experience becomes even more tragic and poignant. It causes you to appreciate what it means for these innocent spirits to be assembled on screen before us, and how they represent the preciousness of life itself.
From a filmic standpoint, there are some weak spots that could have been improved. First, I think some of the dialogue sounds too mature for young kids to speak, as if it was what an adult writer (Jo Swerling) thought kids should sound like, instead of remembering how it was when he was a kid and actually spoke like one. Another weakness in my opinion is the fact that our hero Nameczek (George Breakston) has to die from pneumonia during the final battle sequence.
It was like they were afraid to have a kid die from the battle itself, which would be a form of real gang violence and murder. So he has to become increasingly sick, from cold and cough to deep congestion, before he collapses from an acute bronchial infection. This undercuts the value of the last main scene where the mother carries him home from battle, which suggests he died because of the war not because he had a chronic and fatal case of the sniffles.
I do think the juvenile performers are very good. A particular favorite is teenaged Frankie Darro as the leader of the older rival gang. And I do get a kick out of Jackie Searl as the Benedict Arnold of the bunch whose father refuses to believe he was ever a traitor.
The story is filled with archetypes and somewhat predictable situations. It is meant to be an allegory but it does come across as preachy. It makes you think of war films with grown men in them behaving like little boy soldiers.
Because many of these youngsters are barely on the cusp of puberty, they do not seem interested in the opposite sex. There is no romantic angle in this film like we have in the more grown-up war flicks that Hollywood produces. There is no Burt Lancaster getting amorous with Deborah Kerr on a beach in Pearl Harbor. It is a lot of fighting over territory and a boy dying.