The Young Lions (1958)

This is a pretty good movie, with two first rate actors (Brando and Clift), and if it hadn't been based on a first rate book by best-selling author Irwin Shaw, I'd have rated it a bit higher. I realize that a movie is not a book, but when a book has high merit and a distinctive character, and is then bowdlerized in typical Hollywood fashion, the resulting film cannot just be judged on its own merits.

Shaw's book is considered one of the great WW2 novels (though many "elite" critics have characteristically dissed him because his books were popular), but it's more accurate to think of it as a book about anti-Semitism set in the context of America's war with Germany, than as simply a war novel. At the same time, The Young Lions is a long book, indeed, an epic, rich in both incident and observed detail, with many well realized episodes of combat and wartime crime, barbarity, and horror. It's a story of three young men of disparate backgrounds (ironically dubbed "young lions"), two Americans and one German, drawn together by fate, much like the characters in War and Peace, which this book resembles in many ways, though it has more focused themes.

All three of these men are in their own way exceptional, and they rather epitomize than typify certain elements of the cultures they represent.

The German, Christian Diestl, is meant, both in the book and the movie, to represent the mythic "good German". Diestl is good looking, attractive to women, and athletic (an expert skier and part time ski instructor), and he is reasonably well-mannered, well-educated, and cultured in the Germanic mode, though he is no intellectual. Diestl is also, however, somewhat naively politically active, and is in fact (in the book but not the movie) an avowed Nazi, but only after several years as a communist, and given Hitler's persecution of the communists in the 1930's there's more than a suggestion that Diestl has switched allegiances to survive.

The American, Noah Ackerman (played by Montgomery Clift), is the typical, largely assimilated, second generation American Jew—not overtly religious, but introverted, intellectual, and subtly alien. In the book, he is called out to California to attend his dying father, a reprehensible man and a caricature of a refugee Eastern European Jew, for whom Noah feels only revulsion. After his father's death, he removes to NYC and obtains a low-level job there.

Finally, the Michael Whitacre character (played by Dean Martin) is a middling journeyman in the artsy NY theatrical business, loosely married to a more successful movie actress, and generally at loose ends in his life, and already tending toward dissolution in his early 30's. He too is attracted to communism, or at least to a die-hard communist whom he meets at a NYC theatrical party, in town to raise money from the feckless show biz set for the Republican cause in Spain for which he fights. Michael's problem is that he has talent but no character, and nothing that he believes in very much, including himself. As a result of his anomie, he is doing what he can to evade the war, and the inevitable duty that he feels as a man and citizen, yet he's not really a coward, any more than the next man of imagination.

If these thumbnails already seem a bit different from their opposite numbers in the movie—more complex and problematic—I am here to tell those who haven't read the book that their significant evolutions in the course Shaw's

Fmovies: "The Young Lions" was one those big Hollywood war movies I remember seeing with my family at the local cinema during the late 1950s.

I saw many of those films and actually read most of the slab-like novels they were based on: "Battle Cry", "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit", "From Here to Eternity" and Irwin Shaw's "The Young Lions" - there just weren't that many competing devices back then.

I usually read the books after seeing the films and then became acutely aware of how the movies suffered under the censorship of the day. The novels often filled in some serious gaps in my sex education, but the films never did.

The story is about three soldiers: a German, Christian Diestl (Marlon Brando), and two Americans: Noah Ackerman (Montgomery Clift) and Michael Whiteacre (Dean Martin). The film follows their fortunes through WW2 until they cross paths at the end.

The film has a number of authentic, well-executed sequences shot on location. However these are mixed with flat, over-lit scenes shot on the blandest of backlots and soundstages - the interiors are particularly artless. Documentary footage also added to the lack of a definitive style.

Fortunately the action scenes open the film out. The most arresting of them was the ambush of a British convoy in North Africa. It would have touched a nerve with many in that audience in 1958 as our guys had been part of the British Eighth army and the war had only been over for 13 years.

One of the surprises in the movie was the anti-Semitism Noah Ackerman encounters in the U.S. Army. Monty Clift faced a tough enlistment in "From Here to Eternity", but it was even tougher here. He looked worn (this was after his accident in 1956) and seemed a bit too old, but his performance is the most affecting in the film. No wonder Brando was wary of his talent.

Dean Martin without Jerry Lewis was another surprise, but he was good as the soldier with better motives than he thought.

Brando's blonde, broad shouldered Diestl starts out as a fine example of the master race, but his journey through the rise and fall of the Third Reich makes him thoughtful. He is treated rather sympathetically in the movie, although he was more of a nasty Nazi in the novel. However they may have overdone Diestl's disgust at every turn.

I can see why Irwin Shaw was disappointed. However the film has its moments, and is still one I have no trouble watching every now and then.

The Young Lions sticks to its aim of showing us the human experience of war... Though it more often than not does this in a way which also filled the studio's quota of love scenes.

For a war picture, in fact, there are more love scenes than war scenes! In the first hour, you'd think you were in the wrong movie!

BRANDO FANS ALERT: This is one of his better performances, even one of his best i'd say.

Be warned: the picture is sort of episodic, and bounces between the germans and the americans every twenty minutes, developing parallel narratives. It can seem fairly uneven, for that reason.

How did Monty and Dean manage to be friends before the war and be drafted into the exact same platoon? Magic.

8/10.

The Young Lions fmovies. `The Young Lions' is the Second War II presented through the participation of three soldiers. Christian Diestl (Marlon Brando) is an idealistic German, son of a shoemaker. He joins the Army believing that life could improve in Germany under the administration of the Nazis. However, being a soldier, he cannot accept `acting like a police' in an occupied Paris and requests transference to the front, where he has another disappointment with the cruelty of the war. Noah Ackerman (Montgomery Clift) is a shy American Jew, a very simple man, just married with Hope Plowman (Hope Lange) and very discriminated in his platoon for being Jew. He goes to the war and leaves his family. Michael Whiteacre (Dean Martin) is a successful actor who became friend of Noah while in New York and is also obliged to join the army and go to London. There, he decides to leave the office activity and join his platoon in the front. This movie is excellent. It shows common people being used by government in a senseless war. All the main characters are peaceful common persons: Christian is a very simple person, wishing to climb socially in life in a Germany without opportunities and is misguided by the speech of Hitler and pretty soon he becomes aware how stupid war is. Noah is also a very simple person, a salesman from a department store, who indeed wishes to be with his family and join the Army just for obligation. And Michael is a selfish actor and bon vivant, without any sense of patriotism and who is not interest in anything but to have his life back. These characters are put together in a stupid war, having to kill persons to save their lives and to obey orders, which they do not agree. This movie is an excellent perspective of the stupidity of a war. My vote is eight.

I have seen this movie several times and catch something different every time I see it. Today is the first time I've seen it from the beginning. In the context of the time it was made, it was a bold statement about the human factor in any war. Brando shines and plays a sympathetic character who sees first hand the evil that men do in the name of patriotism.

Made at a time when the Americans that liberated the concentration camps were in their prime and there weren't any idiots running around claiming it was a lie, we see how ordinary citizens respond to the unthinkable. Brando's character stands in for the citizens of the Reich who claimed they were clueless about the genocide while the ashes from the smokestacks fell like snow on their towns. We see the horror and the denial.

It briefly explores a major taboo--interracial/interfaith marriages. It looks at racism in the context of anti-Semitcism (unfortunately still alive and well in America) and one man's courage in opposing it. Ironic this brand of racism, as the founder of the prevelant religion in America was a Jewish rabbi.

This movie is worth the 3 hours of time; it would make a great set piece with "Judgement at Nuremberg" which also showcases the talents of many of the actors from this film.

Good acting from all players in this film. It presages Robert Altman with the interweaving of the characters' lives from the first shot where Barbara Rush and Brando debate the merits of the Fatherland to the last scene in the forest where the end comes full circle.

A movie that truly puts character above all else, this film examines three men and the common threads - more often than anything, the women - that bring them together. Bold statements on individuals' approach and reasons for war are nestled into realistic and moving dialogue. While an anti-war film, it is a fair and even-handed approach to the subject matter that lets you see things through the characters' eyes and lives, and lets an audience make up their own mind on things. This is not to say it is a strictly intellectual film, but the action is not as visceral as recent war films. Because of the directors' involvement with the HUAC, this movie was ignored in 1958 and fell into relative obscurity, but deserves to be rediscovered. I read the book after the film, and found the two together to be an incredibly stimulating lesson in film, literature, and life. See this movie.