User Reviews

By today's standards, a film like "Young Torless" may seem too coy and archly philosophical (and thus pretentious) a take on the corruption of youth, and the sources from which the corruption stems. Its strength, however, lies in the telling: when a student at a preparatory academy robs a peer to pay off a debt, he finds himself enslaved, both psychologically and sexually, by a gang of rogues looking to push him to the breaking point. In the midst of this is Torless (Matthieu Carriere), a student coming to terms with his identity in the midst of this moral dilemma, and whose mental landscape renders him a frustrated, conflicted character who runs the gamut from cold detachment to vague sympathy. While certain aspects of the film (the homosexual subplot, for instance) seem deliberately repressed due to the era, the implication is enough to give the events an additional potency. The black-and-white cinematography is excellent, capturing a specific atmosphere of dread and meditative solitude--German director Volker Schlondorff is not looking to titillate with sensationalist content, but instead spin a story of a young adult's struggle with the evils of an imperfect world. And on that level, "Young Torless" is one of the best films of its kind.

1. It's been said here that the gay content of the story has been removed. Well, the novel was released in 1905. We can nowadays interpret elements of the story in a gay context, but back then these notions did not exist. If Schlöndorff hints at homosexuality as an element of perversion, that is in fact faithful to the novel, which takes a strictly observatory, non-participating stance.

2. 'Törless' is often interpreted as an indicator of upcoming intolerance and Nazidom. Again, the novel was released at a much too early time to allow for such an interpretation; the novel's author Robert Musil certainly envisioned the inevitable fall of an empire stuck to tradition and incapable of accommodating personal liberties. Schlöndorff pushes some of the juvenile delinquents into similarities with the Nazis - albeit being carefully ambiguous about it -, but it would be wrong to consider this interpretation as a part of the original narrative.

3. 'Törless' is a highly psychological tale and film - again, Schlöndorff proves faithful to the novel in this respect. But this comes with the weakness of constructing characters around a certain social concept. It would be misleading to consider Törless and his rebellious friends as typical representatives of their era, or real figures upon which the author based his characters. As may be more obvious in Musil's masterpiece, 'The Man without Qualities', his characters are crafted to evoke rather a situation than a person; that makes his books almost impossible to adapt correctly.

Schlöndorff's film is somewhat middlebrow; it does not intend to be a substitute for reading the novel, but at the same time it carefully avoids to give the impression that it is anything but a rendition of it. That's not quite true; the interpretation is in the framing, the omissions of the subtext, and that the ideas upon watching the film differ considerably from those you get when you read the novel. One may call it therefore a failure - but an interesting failure to watch.

The movie won an award at the Cannes Film Festival when it was first released and signaled the beginning of a German cinematic revival. The book was written in 1906 and is a tedious read, although thankfully a short book. Homosexuality plays a large role in the book but virtually does not exist in the movie. Torless, a horny teenager in an all boys school, eventually has a torrid sexual affair with one of the students. The movie chooses to ignore this, and maybe for good reason as it was released in I believe in 1966. Filmed in black and white, the lack of color contributes to the atmosphere of German austerity that director uses to his advantage. The final speech by Torless is a brilliant defense for the lack of opposition by the middle class to the rise of Hitler. Most of the teenagers in the movie were not aspiring actors but were chosen almost at random for their roles. But considering the time in which it was produced this is a land mark film, especially for German cinema. The movie is much more entertaining than the book and the director,Volker Schlondorff, did a fabulous job and deserves the awards it was given.

Volker Schlondorff has been acclaimed by critics for such films as 'The Tin Drum', 'The Lost Honour of Katherina Blum', and 'Coup de Grace'; all of them films based on fine novels by Gunter Grass, Heinrich Boll and Marguerite Yourcenar respectively, and yet forerunner though he was to the German New Wave Cinema has never been quite given the same acclaim as Wim Wenders, Werner Herzog and Rainer Werner Fassbinder, and I wonder if it is because he films (excellently) from literary sources. His films have a cold look and an enquiring one and 'Young Torless' based on Robert Musil's novel 'The Confusions of Master Young Torless' is one of his best adaptations. The book is as coldly written as the film, and Schlondorff does it justice by using an austere black and white photography, but has as soundtrack Hans Werner Henze's fine if equally emotionless score. Sadly in the current climate of cinema most of these names will seem unknown, lost in the mists of the latter part of the 20th Century. As so many reviewers have given away the plot I will not give in to too many spoilers other than to say it is set on the Austrian-Hungarian border land in an Academy for young male students. In 1906 when it was published there was no such conception of Nazism as we know it, nor was there much in print on sadistic, murderous homosexual torture. Even in 1966 it was brave to put this on film and so unsparingly, and his choice of cast was well chosen. Mathieu Carriere plays the lead role as the 'watcher' and sometimes participator of these perverse pleasures taken by two other students as well as him, and most of the time he looks piously on, studying evil more than opposing it and becomes the worst of all of them as he condones by reason what he sees before him. He is in a way a coward, and unlike the other two admirably played by Bernd Tisch and Fred Diets he hypocritically shows less sexual and sadistic pleasure. I regret that the homosexuality was only obliquely shown, but given the nature of the subject in 1966 it was 'normal' to withdraw the camera for what would have been unacceptable viewing, and only the brutality of the sadism is sickening and fully shown. I give it a 10 for its brilliant attempt to tackle the Musil book and there is a certain failure in the director's approach by him being too cautious, but all the same it succeeds on so many levels that I feel it deserves a 10. It was unique then, and should not be as forgotten as it is now, and was in its way also a forerunner of openly homosexual subject matter. Its political aspects are made too much of as in my opinion it shows the savagery of men hidden away behind polite surfaces; a subject matter as controversial as it is still, and I am thinking of the recent film 'Goat' dealing with hazing in modern Academic schools which has equally been given less distribution than it should have been.

Considered a classic film as it was the first film to put the then New German Film firmly on the (international) map. Also a classic because it was Schlöndorf's first feature and it is still thought highly of. To be sure, this is a beautiful film to watch with its superb black-and-white cinematography; Schlondörf's direction makes it into a well paced and staged, stylish film. But I never liked the film; recent re-viewing confirmed my feelings.

Schlöndorf wants to do more than simply bring the viewer the subject and with that the whole thing goes wrong. In trying to convey the deeper meaning of the story as clear as possible the script is written in such way that even the most simple minded can not miss it. The film is lecturing without any subtleties; Schlöndorf never provokes the viewer to think for himself: he has already done it for him. Nor is there any nuance in the psychology of the different characters.

And what about the cast? In 1966 (and still) praised for their effort as inexperienced actors. Well, I think that most of the acting is downright poor, or never goes further than reciting lines. In the meantime we have come to know Mathieu Carriere better during his career; Carriere is in this his first film as boring as he still is. Of course the actors were not helped much by the literary dialogue, another feature that was (and is) praised so much; most of it I find simply laughable. Classic miscast is Barbara Steele, who seems to have walked in from the set of a typical sexploitation film, including acting style.

Faithfully adapted from author Robert Musil, this study of sadism and masochism among students at an Austro-Hungarian boys prep school is a parable of fascism and its origins. Barbara Steele is radiant and splendid as Bozena the prostitute who awakens the nascent sexual nature of the adolescent students. Lovingly photographed in black and white, YOUNG TORLESS evokes the mood and claustrophobic horror of the dehumanizing military system. Matthew Carriere gives an unblemished and heartfelt performance as an innocent caught behind the barbed wire walls of his very soul and the duty to which he has been placed. A must-see for everyone and an advocacy for pacificism. This was Volker Schloendorff's first film, and by admission one of Barbara Steele's favorite roles.

I selected this DVD off a library shelf at random. I had never heard of Young Torless. My idle curiosity was well rewarded. The film belongs in the same league with Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Zero for Conduct, Lord of the Flies, or other similar works. Perhaps there is allegory here, a foreshadowing of the murderous future of the Germanic peoples. Or maybe a nearer, smaller-scale atrocity: several scenes are as chilling as eavesdropping on a Leopold and Loeb strategy session.

This is expertly crafted film making. Everything – casting, shot composition, editing, plot structure – works. Barbara Steele landed one of the great roles of her career. The music is especially effective. Hans Werner Henze's use of modern tonalities played on ancient instruments functions perfectly, achieving the film score ideal that complements the picture and other sounds, a Greek chorus without words. Aided by Henze's score, some of the scenes in Young Torless brought back with painful clarity many a sad, bleak, cloudy-morning memory of sophomore year in high school.

The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements in judging films--acting, production sets, plot, character, dialogue, artistry, and continuity--on a scale of a high of 10 to a low of 1. Concerning acting, one finds it steady and slightly above average. The seem to be no substantial dramatic high points, although there is opportunity for some. Then again, there are no troubling low points either. Probably "even" would best describe, resulting in a rating of 7. The production sets rate an 8, mostly due to the nature of the school building and the isolated town on the Austria-Hungarian border. The indoor sets, with the exception of the gym, appear mundane and just sort of there. Costumes are not really a factor since school uniforms are the order of the day. The plot is a typical coming of age one, with the positive added ingredient of morality, thereby resulting in a 6 rating. Character suffers (a rating of 5) seeming because the personalities of the principles are fixed when they arrive at the school, with the minor exception of Torless who challenges recognition, but retreats. The dialogue seems uninspiring, although appropriate and controlled. It rates a 5, but that may be too high. The artistry is good (an 8). Great camera angles, the elements of the New German Cinema, and the implied preface to Hitlerism, all in black and white, have merit. The continuity is also good (another 8). The film maintains a tone of terror, in which, as writer-director Schlondorff claims, evil becomes natural. There is a minor problem with films of this type in that it is not difficult to predict the rise of National Socialism after it has already come. The film time is 1910, the movie was made in 1966, and Hitler's time is sandwiched in between. Fortunatly, this is not a history movie, it is a philosophical one which implies that the roots of National Socialism were in place in Germany decades before the rise of Hitler, who, ironically, was Austrian. The film is in some ways prophetic in that cultural terror seems always an undercurrent. The film is well worth seeing, even if the Left Elbow Index rank is 6.71, overall.

It would be extremely difficult indeed impossible for the great master of New German Cinema Volker Schlondorff if he were to make Der Junge Toerless in current times as many would surely accuse him of spreading the message of anti Semitism.The truth is in reality this film does not harbor any such ideas.However that was not the case in 1950s when he directed this film based on a book by Robert Musil.Of course,it is not a layman's fun stuff film in the conventional sense of the word but one cannot remain indifferent to whatever that has been portrayed in the film. Many have praised the stand taken by Toerless in which he feels empathy for the victim but decides to ignore the events claiming to himself that as they are not affecting him why should he bother too much about them ? The real danger is that some of the viewers might perceive it as a thinking of the past and a very negative politically incorrect ideology. It is in the context of these thoughts that this torture drama behind the closed walls of a boarding school must be viewed.This is certainly not for the weak of the heart.

Toerless was among the recommendations I got in my MovieLens account. When I finally decided to give it a go, I read the back of the DVD box and thought, "this looks dry and pedantic." My initial estimate was supported. Toerless is about dreary people who make dreary choices. Three students make it their job to judge a fourth whom they find to be a thief. The intellectualizing and discussions among the three are just rationalization for bullying. And the movie is really not much more ponderous or enlightening than this. None of the characters is one I'd have any respect for, Toerless included; they are all creatures of the author and director who wish to teach us something. Even a professor who at first is interested in Toerless' fascination with imaginary numbers is made to be whimpy and unsympathetic. Toerless is a humorless film that forces us to view this world through a lens of a single issue. I'd say it was tedious rather than edifying.

Young Toerless is some kind of whizz kid,ahead of his time.Played by the phenomenal Matthieu Carrière -who was only 16 at the time;I 'm looking for another actor ,able to play such an intellectual part,at such an early age!-He worries about imaginary(complex) numbers.For him,a square is positive,so the existence of such numbers (the square root of -1 can be i or -i)eludes him.He admits they are useful in geometry(rotations,similitaries)or trigonometry or even to build bridges,but he 's got to admit it without understanding the mathematical concept(You'll find out when you know ten times more in maths,the teacher says)During the movie,he will discover that a lot of things in life have to be admitted without a proof.

The film takes place in an old secondary school,in Austria,at the beginning of the 20th century,while Francis Joseph-whose photographs are pinned everywhere- was still the regnant emperor .This is the end of an era ,1914 is not far away. An iron discipline,students in uniform,the necessary and sufficient condition for the emergence of oppressors and their punching bag.

Two students choose one of their mates as a victim (to make up for their frustrated sexuality,because of a latent homosexuality?Ascene in which they're looking at erotic photographs is telling)And not the first to come!Someone different.Only difference can lead to inferiority. The poor lad stole some stuff,and now his mates can threaten him to reveal the whole thing to the teachers if...

So begin more and more sadistic scenes,culminating with the one at the gymnasium(A symbol : a punch bag is generally a sport outcast) where almost everyone inflicts moral and physical tortures on him.The former is the most humiliating:one of the cowards reads a letter from the unfortunate boy's mother,a widow sometimes unable to make ends meet-all the others are very rich kids-,making a fool of her.

And Toerless?He's primarily a spectator.Not exactly a peeping tom,but someone who uses the whole school,and its particularities,as an experiment behind closed doors.Evil exists as imaginary numbers do,we have to cope with it,even if we cannot understand its source.He will not intervene to help his neighbor,worse,he will shun the sound and the fury,which may infuriate many people who watch this movie.Actually,for Toerless, and for the teachers-who do not seem to be that much angry when they discover the horrible things that happen behind their walls,they are worthy forerunners of Nazis who thought the feeble ,the sick and the "different" one had to be eliminated-,the punch bag story is almost an abstract fact,which they intellectualize to a fault.

Matthieu Carrière has never made the career he deserved."Die jungeToerless" is not exactly an entertaining movie,but if you are looking for something different,this might be your cup of tea.

It is in German with English subtitles (good subtitles, easy to follow). It is an allegory of the cruelty of the Nazis, produced in 1966, but set in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire of the early 20th century. It does move a little slowly at times, but builds up to an excellent closing monologue by Torless at the end.

What's interesting about this film is the way it unapologetically removes the true and original gay content from the story. Torless has a passionate gay affair in the original. In the film gayness is alluded too as perhaps a contributing factor to the corruption of innocents via the pursuit & discovery of knowledge & experience. As a gay person with a broad understanding of the systematic exclusion and removal of gay people from history, the main theme of the film, re: the brutality , sadism and masochism & manifestation of fascism is somehow deeply compromised by the idea that it is excusable, if not absolutely impossible to reveal Torless's gay self as a positive and actual fact of his boyhood because it would offend European bourgeoisie taste of the 60s. So the sensationalism of fascism is portrayed and the recent anti-Semitic WW11 history of Austria 'allowed' as an allusion to it's part in Nazi history, but homosexuality is still being demonised and censored in a film which purports to be about anti-fascism. I don't buy that - and we've all been robbed of the true story - where Torless , far from being a dried up , cold 'acceptably' moral and suggestively straight prude, in the real story embraces the presence of gay feelings rampant in the original story and which contribute to the whole process of his crisis about morality which the film hijacks to portray a censored and acceptable message of it's own.

people should not be distracted about the specifics of the plot,or the tangential,secondary themes of cruelty/sexuality..schlondorf has made his metaphor clear and passionate..people in positions of power(due to talent,wealth,titles of authority,physical stregnth,etc)are not entitled to abuse others,no matter what their alleged justification;and people who witness such abuses and do nothing are worse than enablers, they are accomplices..the obvious association is with the Nazis,but this is a universal problem that could be likened to the Spanish inquisition,the salem witch trials,the torture of prisoners during the iraq war,the red scare hearings and countless others..my own feel is that torless is held up as someone who contributes mightily to this particular evil,but fools himself into thinking he's not involved..his final speech was a lame attempt to justify his conduct..the film may not have been entertaining,but it was thought-provoking