[Spoilers]
I read the novel at least thirty years ago and I no longer have a copy. Weren't these things different in the novel?
1. In the novel, at the end, Diestl kills Ackerman, and then in turn is killed by Whiteacre. I assume this was changed for the film to make a more palatable ending.
2. Wasn't there a scene of the liberation of a concentration camp in the book?
Have I remembered these correctly?
I think you're right. It's been a while since I read the book too.
shareCorrect on both counts (though the movie does in fact include the concentration camp scene, somewhat altered). As others have remarked in the reviews and message boards here, the movie is very different from the novel in various ways, most notably in Brando's character Diestl; in the movie he's already only a half-hearted Nazi to begin with, and becomes progressively more disillusioned as the movie goes on, whereas in the novel he becomes gradually _more_ hardened and de-humanized to the point where he (inspired by a lecture by Hardenburg) believes that the main weakness of the Nazis was that they weren't brutal enough. For example, he delivers into the hands of the Gestapo some French civilians whom he knows to be innocent of resistance activities, and when he returns to Paris and learns that his friend Brandt intends to desert, he denounces him (along with the women who are protecting him) to the SS. (In the movie, it's implied that he simply leaves Brandt without denouncing him.)
Another significant change is the anti-Semitism experienced by Noah Ackerman: in the novel it's clear that the brutality he suffers in boot camp is primarily due to his fellow soldiers' and officers' hatred of Jews, whereas the movie somewhat tones it down and implies that it had more to do with him getting his platoon into trouble for failing inspection. Someone mentioned in the Trivia section here that the script had to be approved by the Pentagon; if that's true, it may account for the movie's reluctance to portray violent anti-Semitism in the US Army.
I think the book is among the very best of the dozens of novels that I've ever read about the war; I was sorry to see it so betrayed by the movie, but not too surprised given the time period in which the movie was made. It could probably receive a much better treatment today as a mini-series along the lines of 'Band of Brothers', 'The Pacific', etc. -- it's an enormous story (over 600 pages), but well constructed and very absorbing. Perhaps today's writers and producers, unhampered by the morality and censorship of the 1950s, could come up with a faithful, unflinching rendition of the more disturbing aspects of this great novel.
[Contains spoilers]
Yes, it might be a good candidate for a mini-series. I wonder who would be cast in it.
I can understand why filmmakers of that period would change the depiction of the American army (and also why they would add a happy ending for Ackerman). It does seem odd that they softened the portrayal of Diestl, which goes against the usual pattern of American movies about the war. In the novel, he may know that the war is lost at the end, but he's still in full combat mode when he fires at the two American soldiers.
There's another scene in the movie that I don't remember from the book. After Ackerman fights his army camp tormentors one at a time, they seem to gain respect for him and then they give him a new copy of the book they stole from him. How did the novel handle that sequence?
It's been many years since I read the book, so I could be wrong here. But I think the scene is similar in the book. The soldiers that abused him end up respecting and accepting him. Noah's sheer determination earns their respect. Although I think in the book, the Captain does not get punished for approving of and leading the abuse of Noah.
shareArmadillo and Alfriend I think you are pretty close to the mark.
I borrowed a DVD of TYL from my library, then read your comments and found my memory of the novel so poor that I borrowed the novel and re-read it after 40 years!
I found I must have seen the film at some time, because parts of it I remembered as the novel, and I was wrong.
Diestl started in the novel as a goodie and slowly became a baddie as you have described.
Ackerman was a goodie and remained one, but very hardened. For example, he did not intervene when 3 souvenir-hunting soldiers wandered past the front line and were killed by german machine-guns. This revealed the position of the MGs so they could be taken out by artillery, without Ackerman and his buddies having to endanger themselves. The 3 were just rear-echelon MFs anyway, as the Viet Nam generation would have said.
Ackerman was killed at his moment of triumph. He believed the best type of american leader would prevail in the post-war world. This made a very down-beat ending because it left his wife a widow and his child an orphan. This must have been the reality in many cases.
In the film, Diestl becomes disillusioned with Nazism especially in the concentration camp scene. He simply leaves. In the novel, the inmates rebel, and Diestl murders others to make his escape.
In the film, Diestl hears the americans coming. He decides to smash his gun, and gets up and walks down the hill towards them. He does not look threatening and makes no attempt to hide himself, and he is unarmed.
Dean Martin's character says "Hey a *beep* and SHOOTS HIM DEAD!
Remember this is not in the heat of battle. So the americans have now committed an actively evil deed, which basically changes the story.
I have read the book a few decades ago and don't remember all the details. I just watched the movie. I was surprised to see in the movie that both Diestl and Whiteacre had a thing with the same woman (Diestl had a little fling and Whiteacre was about to marry the woman). Was there such a connection between the two men in the book? Also, the movie portrayed Whiteacre as a self-professed coward. Again, I don't remember such a thing in the book. But perhaps I have just forgotten about it.
share