I am willing to accept Dean portrayed warts and all. Like any other famous person, he is an imperfect hero at best. But this film is a very negative portrayal of Dean. Recounts the most negative stories about Dean with and creates a cliche antisocial character. It amounts to a hit piece on him. Mark Rydell claims to have known Dean when they were both young actors in NYC. If so, he must have had a grudge against him to make such a negative picture of him.
shareYou saw this as portraying him negatively?? I sure didn't. Care to elaborate on how exactly?
twitter.com/swlinphx
http://www.youtube.com/user/SWLinPHX
For whatever it is worth, I did elaborate on this why I felt this was a hit piece in my response to the OP with the subject title "It is hard to believe". Not only was the film filled with inaccuracies, it gave no hint of the breadth and depth of Dean's personality and talent. Just played up the trite rebel image and made up a false revelation supposedly explaining his father's attitude toward him.
"Not only was the film filled with inaccuracies...."
No sh!t, Bro. That movie could not have been more fictional. Typical Hollywood garbage.
In the entire history of acting, I know of no other who rose so fast, so young.
Hollywood is nothing, especially now.
Dean is something, and, viewed a certain way, still exists.
And that was his goal all along, as anyone familiar with Bill Bast's recent book already knows.