James Dean made only three films before his untimely death in 1955. EAST OF EDEN is the only one I hadn't seen and the second of the three to be shown on Reel 13. I was particularly curious about EAST OF EDEN because it paired Dean with one of his Actors' Studio mentors director Elia Kazan. Kazan introduced the more naturalistic "method" acting style to Hollywood with films like A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE and ON THE WATERFRONT. The impact of the collaboration is most apparent in that Dean, for the only time in his brief career, seems to be surrounded by actors with a similar background and training. In the review of REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, I noted how it often seemed that Dean was acting in his own movie, but here, he is amongst peers in Julie Harris, Burl Ives, Lois Smith and Jo Van Fleet, who won an Oscar for her supporting performance (I am usually against giving Oscars to people for less than ten minutes of screen time, but I might have to make an exception here she was brilliant).
Oddly enough, with all the familiar and talented thespians around him, Dean's presence is less effective than it was in his other work. Don't get me wrong he displays several moments of greatness (great body language throughout, outstanding choices in the Ferris wheel scene), but as blasphemous as it might be to say, there were a few moments where I felt he went too far. He is constantly whining to such an extreme degree, that it diffuses the moments that really call for it. Now, this isn't overacting in the traditional sense. As a matter of fact, I feel similarly about this performance as I did about the recent performance by Daniel Day-Lewis in THERE WILL BE BLOOD. It's more scenery chewing than overacting. Both actors are believable when they hit those extreme emotions, but I wonder if the choice to go that far is always appropriate. While it's impressive that they can get there, they might be actually be harming the overall narrative. The more often they cry or scream, the less impact it will have as the film goes on. This is problematic because, more often than not, the end of a film requires the broader emotions more than the beginning. For example, there is a scene toward the end of EAST OF EDEN where Dean's character presents his father with a gift that he worked his ass off for, but the righteous father manages to find the negativity in it. Dean cries and convulses in full breakdown mode, almost as if he didn't have control of his motor skills. This had the potential to be very powerful if we hadn't seen it four times earlier. To be fair, this was Dean's first film and he clearly went on to refine his craft in his next efforts.
Elia Kazan also seemed a little off his game. This film, which was possibly his most ambitious in terms of scope and budget seems more like an experiment to him than anything else. I got the sense that he was almost playing with ideas and concepts. He employs these very interesting Dutch angles throughout, but very often, they don't seem to be motivated. There is an early Q&A scene between Dean and Raymond Massey. As the scene goes on, the angle becomes more off-axis, but the scene occurs too early to utilize a technique that extreme. (There is a scene later on the film when Dean is on a swing where Kazan justifies the awkward angle by using the forward movement of the swing to essentially "push" the camera off-axis. This works much better). Other experiments were more successful. First, this might have been the first time he shot in color and the results are astounding. The cinematography is beautiful and the colors are extraordinarily rich. Second, he is a master of staging and not in the theatrical sense. This is very much blocking for the camera frame. The best example is the scene that takes place immediately after the scene where Dean presents the gift. Dean pouts in the backyard under a huge tree. Its leaves hang so low that they obscure the entire top half of Dean. Julie Harris runs under the tree to console him so she is also hidden. (This idea of obscuring characters/moments from the camera occurs often in the Kazan oeuvre). From their legs and torso, you can tell they stand close, but is he crying on her shoulder? Are they making out? Then, Dean's brother comes out and orders Harris (his girlfriend) out from the tree. She runs out and into the foreground. The brother is in the middleground with his back to the camera and Dean is in the background, still obscured by the tree. The brother then begins to admonish Dean's character, but it's Harris' face we see as if the brother could be referring to either one of them. It's a beautiful, simple and truly cinematic framing idea that manages to convey a multitude of ideas with one swift stroke.
As you may have interpreted, I have mixed feelings about EAST OF EDEN. While the artistic achievements of the film are exciting, the film ultimately fails to pack an emotional punch, possibly because the narrative is mired in the complexities and the allegories of the Steinbeck novel it's based on. Familial relations, foreign politics, xenophobia, profiteering, infidelity, class distinctions, the nature of evil and of course, the albatross hanging over the whole thing Biblical allegory are all covered within the 110 minutes of EAST OF EDEN. While I think it's great that Kazan tried to layer the film with all that meaning, I wonder if he didn't push it too far. With all those deep issues crammed into one package, it's hard to care about any of them.
Oddly enough, with all the familiar and talented thespians around him, Dean's presence is less effective than it was in his other work. Don't get me wrong he displays several moments of greatness (great body language throughout, outstanding choices in the Ferris wheel scene), but as blasphemous as it might be to say, there were a few moments where I felt he went too far. He is constantly whining to such an extreme degree, that it diffuses the moments that really call for it. Now, this isn't overacting in the traditional sense. As a matter of fact, I feel similarly about this performance as I did about the recent performance by Daniel Day-Lewis in THERE WILL BE BLOOD. It's more scenery chewing than overacting. Both actors are believable when they hit those extreme emotions, but I wonder if the choice to go that far is always appropriate. While it's impressive that they can get there, they might be actually be harming the overall narrative. The more often they cry or scream, the less impact it will have as the film goes on. This is problematic because, more often than not, the end of a film requires the broader emotions more than the beginning. For example, there is a scene toward the end of EAST OF EDEN where Dean's character presents his father with a gift that he worked his ass off for, but the righteous father manages to find the negativity in it. Dean cries and convulses in full breakdown mode, almost as if he didn't have control of his motor skills. This had the potential to be very powerful if we hadn't seen it four times earlier. To be fair, this was Dean's first film and he clearly went on to refine his craft in his next efforts.
Elia Kazan also seemed a little off his game. This film, which was possibly his most ambitious in terms of scope and budget seems more like an experiment to him than anything else. I got the sense that he was almost playing with ideas and concepts. He employs these very interesting Dutch angles throughout, but very often, they don't seem to be motivated. There is an early Q&A scene between Dean and Raymond Massey. As the scene goes on, the angle becomes more off-axis, but the scene occurs too early to utilize a technique that extreme. (There is a scene later on the film when Dean is on a swing where Kazan justifies the awkward angle by using the forward movement of the swing to essentially "push" the camera off-axis. This works much better). Other experiments were more successful. First, this might have been the first time he shot in color and the results are astounding. The cinematography is beautiful and the colors are extraordinarily rich. Second, he is a master of staging and not in the theatrical sense. This is very much blocking for the camera frame. The best example is the scene that takes place immediately after the scene where Dean presents the gift. Dean pouts in the backyard under a huge tree. Its leaves hang so low that they obscure the entire top half of Dean. Julie Harris runs under the tree to console him so she is also hidden. (This idea of obscuring characters/moments from the camera occurs often in the Kazan oeuvre). From their legs and torso, you can tell they stand close, but is he crying on her shoulder? Are they making out? Then, Dean's brother comes out and orders Harris (his girlfriend) out from the tree. She runs out and into the foreground. The brother is in the middleground with his back to the camera and Dean is in the background, still obscured by the tree. The brother then begins to admonish Dean's character, but it's Harris' face we see as if the brother could be referring to either one of them. It's a beautiful, simple and truly cinematic framing idea that manages to convey a multitude of ideas with one swift stroke.
As you may have interpreted, I have mixed feelings about EAST OF EDEN. While the artistic achievements of the film are exciting, the film ultimately fails to pack an emotional punch, possibly because the narrative is mired in the complexities and the allegories of the Steinbeck novel it's based on. Familial relations, foreign politics, xenophobia, profiteering, infidelity, class distinctions, the nature of evil and of course, the albatross hanging over the whole thing Biblical allegory are all covered within the 110 minutes of EAST OF EDEN. While I think it's great that Kazan tried to layer the film with all that meaning, I wonder if he didn't push it too far. With all those deep issues crammed into one package, it's hard to care about any of them.