James Dean made only three films before his tragic and untimely death on September 30, 1955. EAST OF EDEN is the only one I hadn’t seen and the second of the three to be shown on Reel 13 (Somehow, I doubt they will show GIANT to make it a clean sweep – it’s over three hours long). 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 (of which Dean was a disciple) 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 blog for REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, I noted how it often seemed that Dean was acting in his own (better) 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, crying or pouting to such an extreme degree, that it diffuses the moments that really call for it. Now, this isn’t overacting in the traditional sense of the word. 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 (Raymond Massey) 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 full control of his motor skills. This had the potential to be very powerful – if we hadn’t seen it three or four times earlier. To be fair, however, this was Dean’s first film (many people assume that Rebel was his first film, but Eden was released six months earlier) and he clearly went on to refine his craft in his next efforts.
Elia Kazan also seemed a little off his game. He made this film in between two of his career masterpieces: ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) and the highly underrated BABY DOLL (1956) (rent it now!), but this film, which was probably 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, concepts, angles and staging. He employs these very interesting Dutch angles (cockeyed angles) throughout the film, but very often, they don’t seem to be motivated by anything going on in the scene. There is an early Q&A scene between Dean and Massey. As the scene goes on, the angle becomes more and more off-axis, but the scene occurs way 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 (I am pretty sure it is, but I can’t prove it for sure) and the results are astounding. The cinematography is beautiful and the colors are extraordinarily rich. Several scenes are worthy of a painting. Second, he is a master of staging and not in the theatrical sense. This is very much blocking for the camera frame. The best and most obvious example is the scene that takes place immediately after the previously mentioned scene where Dean presents the gift. Dean pouts in the backyard, but does so 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 very 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 from under the tree and into the foreground. The brother is in the middle ground with his back to the camera and Dean is in the background, still mostly obscured by the tree. The brother then begins to cruelly admonish Dean’s character, but it’s Harris’ face we see – so its almost 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, some of which I have outlined, 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 its based on. Kazan had adapted Steinbeck before (VIVA ZAPATA!) and in many ways, they are interested in very similar things as artists (you can draw a strong, straight line between Tom Joad and Terry Malloy), but I wonder if there isn’t just too much going on in EAST OF EDEN for one film to swallow. Familial relations, foreign politics, xenophobia, profiteering, infidelity, class distinctions, pragmatism vs. idealism, the heredity/nature of evil and of course, the albatross hanging over the whole thing – Biblical allegory (in case you can’t figure it out, Burl Ives comes by to explain it to you at the end…) – are all covered within the 110 minutes of EAST OF EDEN. While I think its great that Kazan and screenwriter Paul Osborn tried to layer the film with all that meaning, I wonder if they didn’t push it too far. With all those deep issues crammed into one package, it’s hard to care about any of them.