MovieChat Forums > Rebel Without a Cause (1955) Discussion > Flash forward 58 years

Flash forward 58 years

posted 11 years ago by KBiker
5 replies | jump to latest

Yikes, it's been that long since Rebel was released. I was a kid and idolized Brando and heard about this upstart, James Dean, who might have been the next Brando, had he not been killed in a car wreck, racing his beloved Porsche on an open road. I went to see Rebel, wanting to see what he'd been all about. I came away idolizing him. Why? Like I said, I was a kid and saw him playing a troubled, confused, angst-ridden, over sensitive teen (even though he was 23 when he made the movie) that I identified with at the time, though I was much younger. I also thought he was cool, and of course the fact that he died so young, full of so much promise, sealed the deal.

Flash forward to 2013. I watched Rebel on TCM today, the first time in many years I'd seen it. It was partly out of curiosity, and partly over the fact that I had recently visited Griffith Observatory for the first time (I'm not from LA) and remembered the observatory scene, especially the knife fight that took place alongside it. Long story short, I watched the movie, cringing at the awful dialogue, the wooden acting of most of the actors, the trite story line. Dean's acting was not that great either, though it was a cut above the others. What a difference a little time lapse like 58 years can make.

Dean was better in East of Eden and Giant, though he played similar parts -- the vulnerable, troubled outsider. And I still like him, but wonder, had he lived, if he would become the screen icon he became in death.

[–] reckless_life 11 years ago

I'm 29 and watched this for the first time ever last week. I agree, this is an overhyped movie. I kept thinking maybe it was something special in the 50s. The 'you're tearing me apart' line was delivered so poorly.
What kind of family wants to move literally a couple of days after just arriving in a place. There was little to no character development. We have no idea why Natalie Wood and her father don't get on. Sal Mineo's character was a total weirdo, wtf does he wish James Dean was his father, even though they are around the same age? The gang decides to knife James Dean just cos he was an outsider and made a joke in the observatory? A movie of it's time.

[–] novastar_6 11 years ago

Definitely a movie of its time because the creators spent about 10 years interviewing juvenile delinquents in lockup to ask about their lives and what they did and why they did what they did to get a basis for the characters. They were taking stories out of the headlines to use for the violence in the movie.

I first saw this movie when I was...I guess 16 years old...I don't even know how or why I came to rent it from the library, it was ironic because we watched it on Easter night and it opens up ON Easter. My mom and I laughed at James Dean imitating the police siren, and I loved it when they were running around the empty mansion, and the movie in general did not have a great impact on me the first couple go-rounds, but I always remembered Plato referring to Jim as Jamie, I thought it was oddly touching.

The years passed and I read some books about the movie and about James Dean and they all included parts about this movie, put it all together, and you watch it again and you realize just how strong it really is because you're not just looking at what's on the surface, you're seeing the bigger picture.

[–] TheCineSinge 11 years ago

The "you're tearing me apart line" ceases to have any degree of sincerity after you've seen The Room. Unfortunate, but hey you lose one gold moment and gain another!

[–] MyDarkStar 11 years ago

I remember watching this for the first time as a teen in the 80's. I was so anxious to see it because I had always heard and seen so much about James Dean. He was a legend who would be mentioned here and there. And whenever he was mentioned there seemed to be a cloud of awe surrounding him.

So I watched the movie when I was either 15 or 16 and I was so thoroughly disappointed for all the same reasons you mentioned. Horrible acting, bad dialog, and just a cheezy script in general. I don't think there can be any doubt that audiences were blinded by the fact that this promising young actor had just died the month before they went to see it in the theaters.

I agree he was better in Giant and East of Eden but no way would he have been so praised if he had lived. I think of other young and handsome actors to compare him to and the first one who comes to mind is Brad Pitt. In my opinion Pitt is a better actor who has played more memorable roles.

[–] Lone_Wolf88 11 years ago

no way would he have been so praised if he had lived

It depends personally having seen all three movies recently I think he was very good in Eden and especially Giant. I agree with above comments that Rebel is over hyped a lot and the script is bad. I reckon he could have developed even more and become truly great. These were his only 3 films, you would feel he would have got better.

I like your mention of Brad Pitt, I feel he is heavily underrated as an actor, people think of him more as this handsome a-lister but not many actually mention his talent.