MovieChat Forums > Giant (1956) Discussion > 3+ hours of unremitting boredom, punctua...

3+ hours of unremitting boredom, punctuated by...

posted 11 years ago by stevezodiacxl5
47 replies | jump to latest

James Dean staggering around and mumbling. No wait, that was boring too.

I've never been able to sit through this thing, and vaguely wondered why. Tonight I finally watched it all and the verdict's in: it just sucks. Where did it get the reputation as a classic?

It's just a running narrative of the lives of a family of rich redneck barbarians, presented in almost real time. There's no story arc, and nothing really happens; the kids just grow up and do things the parents don't expect or agree with, like in every family. The plea for racial equality is sort of tacked on as an afterthought. I feel like I aged forty years along with Rock and Liz, but with better makeup. And HOW did George Stevens manage to make Liz Taylor actually look like crap? That took work.

Have you ever seen worse set design? The Victorian house was gorgeous at the beginning, but then they painted the interior white at some point and refurnished it from Goodwill.

My only guess at the rationale for making this would be that Stevens actually hated Texans and was laughing his ass off at getting paid to insult them in wide screen Technicolor.

[–] Tickerage 11 years ago

Well, Edna Ferber was not a bit fan of Texans or conservatives and she wrote it. But I disagree because IMO George Stevens made this into a modern epic...and the actors were brilliant.

At least there will be plenty implied.

[–] seahawk3133 11 years ago

I'm more in between on this movie.

It is a decent movie but not even close to being a classic or all-time great. Its a decent story that is a bit too long.

7/10

[–] elisedfr 10 years ago

Agree with you.
A very good movie until the kids grow up-they're all impossible and whiny. And the old make up is on of the worst I've ever seen.

" You ain't running this place, Bert, WILLIAMS is!" Sgt Harris

[–] shandy8 10 years ago

I agree with you about the third act. I really like the movie until then. It's not bad, but I don't like the sub plots with the grown kids, and James Dean is not very convincing in his poorly done 'old' make-up. Otherwise its a big fun movie with Liz Taylor and Rock Hudson in top form--a gorgeous couple. I wish Mercedes McCambridge were in it longer.

"What do you want me to do, draw a picture? Spell it out!"

[–] ciffou 9 years ago

I didn't mind the length... But just like the OP I am not quite sure what this movie was supposed to be about.

[–] suze-4 8 years ago

It's about the way Texas had segregation and treated Mexican Americans like second class citizens, and the rich, racist white Rock Hudson character realized he was racist and defended their right to eat in the white diner, and became a real man. Also about how the poor James Dean character was fortunate when Elizabeth Taylor stepped in some earth and oil came out and he became richer than Rock Hudson, and he also turned into a rich, racist pig. Look for a documentary, The Children of Giant, in which it is shown how hard George Stevens worked to make this masterpiece. Yes, as a kid I felt the grey wigs looked fake and a lot of the scenes were long. I didn't understand this movie had a message. Elizabeth Taylor plays a feminist way before it was OK for such things.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

I think it's funny you and your friend thought this was a science fiction movie when it came out.

Well, there's always Giant From the Unknown, The Giant Behemoth, The Giant Claw and, not least, The Giant Gila Monster...although, since that last is also set in Texas, it might bring back unpleasant memories, considering your attitude towards this film.

I happen to think Giant is a very good film, not without flaws of course (what film isn't?), but I have to say, I've never heard anyone so thoroughly and overwhelmingly negative about it. Personally, I couldn't disagree with your assessments more. Opinions are just that, of course, not "right" or "wrong", but I'm surprised at the depth of your dislike of this movie.

[–] shred-com 11 years ago

I think it's a fantastic film personally.

[–] carthagevisors 11 years ago

... and I agree. The film covers so many subjects, some of which are not only delicate, they are unprecedented since really! Casual racism, ego (male and female), aging, generations and how they differ... it's a wonderful film.

And has James Dean in it! The originator of this thread is very precious indeed.

Speaking of JD doesn't anyone else think that the oil strike scene was amazing? I mean I could google how they did it I guess but wow. How do you just make that sort of eruption 'happen' in the 50s with no special effects???

[–] dannieboy20906 11 years ago

One method would be to put a tank of oil (probably used lubricating oil rather than crude as the crude would be too valuable) under ground, or even above ground out of the shot line. Pressurize it with compressed air. A hundred gallons of oil at a cost of several cents per gallon would be sufficient. Keep in mind that it is 1955 and there is no EPA or Texas equivalent. You are shooting out in the country. As long as you don't spray the oil on someone's personal property there won't be any complaints. You would only need about 100 psi for enough pressure to get the geyser.

A film company wouldn't do it that way today, of course. The clean up costs, if the federal, state, or local governments allowed it at all, would be enormous. I suspect that "There Will Be Blood" used water with some sort of water soluble dye.

The cast in Giant was quite young and did a terrific job collectively.

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

carthagevisors says > The film covers so many subjects, some of which are not only delicate, they are unprecedented since really! Casual racism, ego (male and female), aging, generations and how they differ... it's a wonderful film.

After watching the movie I felt very much as the OP describes. I saw the movie the other day and have been trying to make sense of it ever sense. I didn't get the point at all and couldn't understand why it was considered a classic.

I was hoping someone would say something on these boards that might help me better appreciate this movie. Your comments have, so far, come the closest to helping me 'get' it. I can't say I suddenly think it's a better movie but I can understand now why perhaps it is a classic.

I'm always saying people fail to put things in the proper context but I think that's exactly what I failed to do in regards to this movie. I have no idea why but somehow I overlooked the fact the movie came out in the mid-1950s.

A lot of the issues it dealt with would have been very controversial at the time: blatant racism, sexism, class struggles, the generation gap, tradition, new vs. old money, land vs. oil, etc. I kept wondering why they only touched on these topics but I suppose even that much was a lot for the time. Focusing too much time or taking too strong a stance would have offended a lot of viewers. That's not what filmmakers set out to do. They don't want to keep people away; give them reason to not see the movie. They want them to buy tickets and sit in the seats and hopefully, take something worthwhile away from having seen the movie.

I still take issue with the length of the movie, how awkwardly the story unfolds, and James Dean's acting but I can now give it credit for having been ahead of its time. Thanks for that carthagevisors! I don't feel as bad now about having spent those three plus hours watching the movie.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] misspaddylee 11 years ago

The plea for racial equality is sort of tacked on as an afterthought.

As the central theme of Ferber's novel, it could hardly be an afterthought.

"Walk? Not bloody likely. I'm going in a taxi."

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

misspaddylee says > As the central theme of Ferber's novel, it could hardly be an afterthought.

Central theme? The issue of racial equality came up in only a handful of scenes throughout the entire movie. I agree it was a theme but 'the central theme', there's no way!

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] tmaj48 11 years ago

While I generally don't care for sprawling epics, this one was very engaging.
This was the first Elizabeth Taylor film I ever watched--after hearing so much
negative criticism of Taylor's acting skills, I wanted to see if she was really
as mediocre as some critics claimed her to be. I was pleasantly surprised. Rock
Hudson was, well, okay, and the supporting characters were fine, too. I could
have done with a bit less of James Dean and his heavy-handed, look-at-me acting
style, though. The shot of Angel "coming home" from the war always
tears me up.

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

Hewwo.

[–] Gadare 8 years ago

This is a late answer to your post.But if you want to see Elizabeth Taylor's best performance, check out "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf". She lets out all stops.

I slept with you and you're in love with my husband. What the hell am I supposed to do with that?

[–] conace21 11 years ago

The film has survived the test of time mostly because it was James Dean's last film. Even a Dean biographer conceded "there was to much muchness." Is the film about a family with the children going off to live their own lives? Is it about civil rights? The conflict between old school cattle ranchers and new age oil barons? In short, yes. It is about Texas, and how Texas has changed, with regards to economic power centers and evolving views on race relations. But it is a lot to take in on one movie. Remember, it is also about a couple that loved each other, sort of... and a third wheel (Jett) who loved the woman silently... At least until the banquet scene.

[–] Leafawn 11 years ago

I'm with the person that started this thread. Unremitting boredom.
I'm watching it on streaming, and I've got another 25 minutes to endure... Dear God when will it ever finish. It's like Dallas on steroids.

The performances frankly aren't anything to write home about. I'm more excited to have found out Dennis Hopper is in it, than anything about the film itself.

There are a couple of minor interesting moments where Elizabeth Taylor tells the men they're neanderthals, and a few of the race-related pieces. But James Dean just grunts and hogs the camera with some mannered nonsense, and Rock Hudson isn't very interesting either.

I simply cannot fathom why it's so well regarded, unless it's just the star power, and the fact it was Dean's last film. Total mystery to me

Sorry if you love it, but just don't get it myself.

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

Giant was quite engaging till the narrative reached the Benedict's in their old age. Beforehand the narrative had strong focus, a dynamic drama between Bick and Leslie's relationship conflicts, Jett's challenges as an outsider and the theme of patriarchal systems upon Benedict's ranch. Once the narrative reached the stage where Benedicts' were dealing with their adult children it resulted in more plot-points and themes than could be properly handled with clarity.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] toldyousew 11 years ago

I'll agree that James Dean was doing a lot of grunting and mumbling
and barely opening his mouth. I wouldn't call that great acting. I would call that exaggerated acting and calling attention to yourself.

Also, it *seemed* the movie always needed to play some music anntime there
wasn't dialogue. That annoyed me very much. I want to hear silence quite
often throughout a movie.

Country + RAP = CRAP

Country + ROCK = CROCK

[–] jpdoherty 10 years ago

I agree with the heading. It's just a typical Edna Ferber generational crock!
It had no ending! Stevens didn't know how to end it! It was without any impact or crescendo at the finale and James Dean's performance, as in his two previous movies, is sooo irritating. And the movie just went on and on and on to nowhere.
Best thing about it is Tiomkin's music! Still it's just a Giant crock!

"So we both got what we wanted - after a fashion."

[–] luvthemflicks 10 years ago

I think the ending is similar to other movies of the time. This movie was made in a time when the focus of all movies was to have a big shocking ending, at least not for a drama like this.

I think part of the reason it ended like it did is to illustrate that through it all, Bick and Leslie were just people who raised a family, saw alot through their lives and were content to have their marriage, children and grandchildren while Jett was living out his sad existence. That's my opinion, and I wish I had read the book first before stating that, but it's what I got from the ending.

[–] catdaddyd 9 years ago

Those method actors seem to mumble, Brando, Dean, etc..The scene with Dean drinking and carrying on had to be dubbed by Nick Adams after Dean's death because it was so mumbled.

[–] FringeFanatic314 8 years ago

It's like the movie ended, or could have ended, halfway through when it seemed like the plot was resolved. However, like some of those bad dreams that just keep going and going, the ones you think you've woken up from only to find you haven't, this did not end timely enough.

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

conace21 says > The film has survived the test of time mostly because it was James Dean's last film.

It's sad but I think there's some element of truth to that. His early death probably also helped build his legacy. Had he lived I suspect moviegoers would have tired of seeing him act the exact same way in every movie he made.

Long before that happened, it's likely filmmakers would have refused to put up with his antics and other actors would have avoided working with him. Apparently Dean was in his own zone backstage; he refused to give anything back in scenes with his co-stars; was often late to set; and was reckless, disruptive, and rude to directors.

Is the film about a family with the children going off to live their own lives? Is it about civil rights? The conflict between old school cattle ranchers and new age oil barons? In short, yes. It is about Texas, and how Texas has changed, with regards to economic power centers and evolving views on race relations.

I would have liked to have seen that movie. Maybe that's what the book was about and what the movie was supposed to be but I think it was all over the place and never really achieved its goal.

it is a lot to take in on one movie.

That's for sure but the movie was certainly long enough for all the elements to be included in a cohesive story. I've seen it done before. Instead, at least for me, it felt like I was trying to watch several movies simultaneously on TV. Every once in a while the TV would automatically switch from one channel to another. As a result, I'd only see bits and pieces of each movie. I'd miss so much I wouldn't know what was going on and when it was all over I wouldn't be able to make sense of any of the movies.

I can't blame the actors; not even Dean. His role was severely lacking and, I have to presume, the director thought his performance was acceptable. The problems with this movie rest with the script writer and director for not catching and fixing the many obvious flaws.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] freemanpatrick7 10 years ago

Just now I tried to watch it on TV. I couldn't take any more.

The shot composition is pathetic. There's no close ups, there's no over the shoulder, you never get to see the look any actor's face because the damn camera is set on a master shot.

The scene when she's asking the doctor to go see the baby who has a temp of 105, the whole scene is is big shot of the back of the doctor's neck.
Then, after being so worried about the baby, she goes outside to kiss the horse. What was that? A Black Velvet reference or something?

James Dean's hat is too small and yet it hides his face the whole time.

I get the desire to shoot vast open landscapes. But, come on, shoot them and then move on.

The dialog is pathetic. Did people really like these kind of movies back then?

[–] amountpastdue 10 years ago

I just watched after remembering it from my earliest childhood as one amazing experience at the time. I fell in love with just about everyone, most of all Rock Hudson.

It is a big sprawling mess and it doesn't really hold up very well but I think you gotta just go with it and accept it for what it was

I mean the cast is just awesome down to a young sal mineo. The makeup is just horrible. It's heavy handed but it's still an epic movie for the time.

I don't know if I could do the 3 1/2 hours ever again but when I was a kid I had no idea what it was really about and now I think I do. And while I have never really understood the absolute James dean worship, maybe now I can see it a little better.

And Rock and Liz, well they'll always be just who they were in this movie, tho real life had nothing to do with this.

And James Dean being dead before it was even released, damn.....

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

freemanpatrick7 says > The shot composition is pathetic. There's no close ups, there's no over the shoulder, you never get to see the look any actor's face because the damn camera is set on a master shot.

Wow, this movie has flaws on many levels. I never even noticed any of the things you mentioned, until I just read your words and realized you're right. I had problems with the movie too but they were on a whole other level. Maybe the director was trying to do something new and different in the way the movie is filmed and the story presented. If so, it kind of fell flat. I didn't completely hate the movie but I felt dissatisfied. I'm glad some people enjoyed it.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] rickbrightwell 10 years ago

I agree with you, Steve. It was difficult to remain interested and after if was finally over, I had to ask myself, what was the point? Other that it's mildly rebellious (for the time) subplots of racism and sexism, it was pretty boring to me.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

This film has great directing. Stop viewing the piece in the mindset of a 2014 film watcher. It was absolutely loved back when it was released, and the Academy and the studios had major respect that George Stevens was able to do what be did. It losing Best Picture is actually considered an upset.

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

shred-com says > This film has great directing.

To each his own! All the problems I had with the movie, I feel, were due to issues with direction and script-writing.

Stop viewing the piece in the mindset of a 2014 film watcher. It was absolutely loved back when it was released, and the Academy and the studios had major respect that George Stevens was able to do what be did.

It's 2016 now but your point still applies. I only noticed it a few comments earlier but that’s what I had been doing; seeing the movie through present day eyes. Once I made the adjustment I could see how the movie would have been viewed in a positive light at the time it was made.

Still, I think there are flaws. The story could have been told more effectively; in a way that included all, or most, of the multiple themes and it could have made sense.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]