Johnny Tremain is a well-enough made film and can be enjoyed on its own terms. I'm kind of torn about Disney versions of great books because, on the one hand, I enjoyed them immensely as a kid. They have a certain style all their own (in the art direction, music, costumes, production values) that I still find pleasing. On the other hand, the "Disnifying" of books like Johnny Tremain often takes the real heart and soul out of the work, substituting a kind of formulaic style that still manages to be heart-tugging and soul-stirring, but in a much more simplistic way.
You see it over and over, in all kinds of adaptations. I would describe it as cartoon-like. Every complex situation or emotion can be reduced to this Disney formula. If a book has a child protagonist and Disney gets a hold of the book, you can expect this same treatment of the material. Or at least you could, back in the 50s and 60s.
Robert Stevenson, a good director who had once worked for RKO (Jane Eyre, Walk Softly Stranger, The Las Vegas Story) was at the helm of a lot of these films. I sometimes wonder how he could justify to himself directing so many bowdlerizations of great books. But then, the movies were box office hits, so maybe it wasn't so hard.
Anyhow, looking at the film, it's not bad, but it's also a little weak. The adults in the audience might cringe when the patriots start singing "We are the sons of liberty" as if it were a Nelson Eddy musical..
The acting is fine, with some talented character actors on hand (Sebastian Cabot, Virginia Christine, Walter Sande, Rusty Lane, Gavin Gordon, Whit Bissell, Will Wright). I never cared too much for Richard (Dick) Beymer, who plays Rab, but he's good in this. Hal Stalmaster plays Johnny well. But he's not given as much to work with as he might have been, had they stuck closer to the book (where Johhny is a cocksure kid at the beginning who burns his hand and ruins his chances of being a silversmith, then becomes more humble). The character grows, in the film, but in a less interesting way.
Turning Johnny Tremain into a lighter adventure of the early days of the Revolution, rather than a dramatic piece of historical fiction, doesn't really ruin it. Somehow it still has a thrilling feeling of history in the making. Film itself is an exciting medium, and through the use of color, design, camera placement and movement, a sense of the dramatic can be achieved, and it is, here. That it gives us a happy ending without emotional depth, and a kind of pageant of history rather actual history, or any true human drama, is not unusual from this studio.
You see it over and over, in all kinds of adaptations. I would describe it as cartoon-like. Every complex situation or emotion can be reduced to this Disney formula. If a book has a child protagonist and Disney gets a hold of the book, you can expect this same treatment of the material. Or at least you could, back in the 50s and 60s.
Robert Stevenson, a good director who had once worked for RKO (Jane Eyre, Walk Softly Stranger, The Las Vegas Story) was at the helm of a lot of these films. I sometimes wonder how he could justify to himself directing so many bowdlerizations of great books. But then, the movies were box office hits, so maybe it wasn't so hard.
Anyhow, looking at the film, it's not bad, but it's also a little weak. The adults in the audience might cringe when the patriots start singing "We are the sons of liberty" as if it were a Nelson Eddy musical..
The acting is fine, with some talented character actors on hand (Sebastian Cabot, Virginia Christine, Walter Sande, Rusty Lane, Gavin Gordon, Whit Bissell, Will Wright). I never cared too much for Richard (Dick) Beymer, who plays Rab, but he's good in this. Hal Stalmaster plays Johnny well. But he's not given as much to work with as he might have been, had they stuck closer to the book (where Johhny is a cocksure kid at the beginning who burns his hand and ruins his chances of being a silversmith, then becomes more humble). The character grows, in the film, but in a less interesting way.
Turning Johnny Tremain into a lighter adventure of the early days of the Revolution, rather than a dramatic piece of historical fiction, doesn't really ruin it. Somehow it still has a thrilling feeling of history in the making. Film itself is an exciting medium, and through the use of color, design, camera placement and movement, a sense of the dramatic can be achieved, and it is, here. That it gives us a happy ending without emotional depth, and a kind of pageant of history rather actual history, or any true human drama, is not unusual from this studio.