Please read Roger Ebert's Great Movies essay on Rebel Without a Cause. In 2 paragraphs, please discuss the following quote:
"Like its hero, Rebel Without a Cause desperately wants to say something and doesn't know what it is. If it did know, it would lose its fascination. More perhaps than it realized, it is a subversive document of its time."
Also, early in his essay, Ebert claims that "the film has not aged well." Do you agree or disagree? Give me one paragraph that tells me why (with evidence from the film).
The film Rebel Without a Cause definitely is interesting in its portrayal of issues that the film brings up. The basis of the film revolves around the life of a boy named Jim who through him we encounter tons of problems and issues that the director Nicholas Ray wanted to show in the film. Jim is a restless adolescent who feels as if “he needs to do something” and puts himself in harmful and dangerous situations out of having nothing better to do, or being called a “chicken.” The film explores this problem of adolescent dominance, restlessness and several other issues such as bisexuality, the failure of parents in raising their children, and issues of violence and recklessness. But that’s the interesting thing about the film, it only explores the ideas not necessarily “knowing what to say about them” but rather bringing up these issues from the perspective of these young adults. This is one of the things that makes this film so special, exploring the lives of these young adults while not going deeper into the issues that they are facing and why these kids do the things that they do. Is it because of the failure of their parents, or their tendencies to be sporadic? Is it really out of a sense of not being a “chicken.” Why did Plato shoot those puppies? These are questions that are brought up but we don’t know for sure. We can think what we want with what they give us, but maybe all this is out of a lack of anything else to do, as when Buzz says “You got to do something?”
ReplyDeleteThe idea of parental figures not being there for their children is a strong one that is brought up again and again throughout the course of the film. The first instance of this is when we see Jim’s father become the under figure of his wife. Because of this Jim feels that his father has let him down, become less of a man. This idea of his father being less of a man is further exaggerated when we see Jim’s father wearing an apron and cleaning up spilled food on the floor. So we can see that Jim feels let down by his father and he does not feel close to his mother, and generally these parental figures are not placed close together with their children in the frame, so Jim is barely ever physically close to his parents in the frame, and this is also generally true with Judy and her parents. After her fight with her father, she feels as if she is no longer close with her father, and afterward no longer is close to her father in the frame. This separation of the two characters is able to convey that loss of relationship between the two, being let down by her father as well. Plato’s lack of parental figures is evident because he says right out that his father is either dead or gone off somewhere, better off being dead just the same. This is why he ends up clinging to his friends as his own parental figures, or maybe his really close friends, or maybe even something more, bringing up the other topic this film brings up. It can be picked up through Plato’s acting and the amount of time that Plato spends close to Jim in this film that Plato is possibly gay, always touching Jim or being affectionately close to Jim in the frame, and the way he acts towards Jim in general, inviting him over to his house when no one is home. Or maybe he is just close with Jim and Judy because he idolizes them as his parents that he doesn’t have in reality. Although his confused personality is still shown in his socks that he wears that are not matched, showing how not only he goes from calm to dangerous rather quickly, but also he may not be as “normal” as any of the other kids, maybe being gay, or being strange enough thgat he idolizes his friends as his parents. However these are the kind of issues that Rebel brings up, but doesn’t necessarily explain or explore enough to have an “overall message” about any of them, making it an interesting film as a whole.
I don’t agree with Ebert when he says that the film hasn’t aged well. True maybe the over exaggerated acting is proof of how film has changed over the course of a couple decades, however the ideas presented in the film are still present in today’s society. Kids today still can feel as if their parents have abandoned them, that they have let them down. Parents can see this film and think about this and how it is in their lives. Children still act up and do reckless things, however maybe today it isn’t switchblades and games of chicken, but wild parties and drug abuse? So I think that the film still is as compelling to an audience today as i could have been years ago and that the film has aged much better than Roger Ebert believes it has.
ReplyDeleteI generally agree with Ebert’s claim that the film has not aged well. I think is several different things that have contributed to the aging. The acting is very theatrical and not at all subtle, characteristic of the 1950s and not popular or well received today. Also, the main premise of the film, Jim’s inner distress is not accepted or felt in today’s youth culture and his sentiments have not been felt exactly in the same way by a generation since the 1950s or 1960s. Jim is upset because he is uncomfortable or unsettled with his middle class suburban life, the roles of his parents in his family life, and a general feeling of not understanding, but feeling no one else even recognizes there is something to understand. These exact desperate melancholy sentiments do not necessarily connect with modern audiences.
ReplyDeleteI think the statements Ebert makes about the message of the film are accurate. The sense of desperately trying to say something and not knowing what it is certainly mirrored in the film’s overall feel and the sentiment of Jim. Jim seems to wander, throughout the movie, with purpose, but not a purpose that can be described. The fact that it is a document of time and the fact that its fascination is tied in with its confusion of message are connected. It is fascinating to us now because we cannot understand the exact context and feelings of each unique perspective represented- the father, the mother, the angsty teenage boy, the angsty teenage girl, the gay and abandoned teenage boy, and “the group”, the generation of teens. While these roles still exist, these exact perspectives are elusive, and this movie allows a keeping of time, a document of this moment in history, as represented by these actors and these movie makers.
If Jim knew what he thought was wrong in particular, if he knew what he wanted, if anyone in this generation did, Ebert is correct, the film would lose its appeal. We see he does not in his reckless behavior, his fighting for no reason. He wavers between grasping at having strong unshakable values, like not being called chicken, and having absolutely no inner compass guiding him. This is a universal adolescent feeling I believe, trying to make strong decisions, while at the same time needing time to find oneself. In this way, the film is at once both universal, and very foreign to a modern audience.
Rebel without a cause is literally that, the quote says that it would lose its fascination with the message it’s trying to convey if it knew what the message was. James Dean’s character Jim Stark is the same way in that his rebellion against his parents is something that if HE knew what he was mad about, he would soon get over it. But as all teenagers do, Jim needs to rebel against his parents and, unable to find something suitable to rebel against he settles on his father’s social emasculation. Jim, nearing the end of the movie, feels like he’s making up for his dad’s lack of manliness by becoming a father figure for Plato and pretending to be in a family with him and Judy. Yet Jim’s dad’s femininity comes out in Jim when he, Judy, and Plato are in the empty mansion and Jim always sits with his head in Judy’s lap. This is cute and a bonding moment between Judy and Jim, but Judy is the one in the caretaker’s position, by cradling Jim’s head. So ultimately Jim hated his dad’s emasculation, but when he truly understood his dad’s positioning he came to terms with it, or lost his fascination with it and moved on.
ReplyDeleteTo add onto the failed father aspect of the movie, Ebert brings in both Judy’s and Plato’s fathers and how they’ve also failed their children. Judy’s dad is scared of his sexual feelings towards her which is perverse and ugly in nature. Plato’s dad abandoned him and his mom in turn resulting in her abandoning of Plato, leaving him in the care of a housekeeper. Yet outside of this “failed father” motif, all the kids rebel against their families, which in their inability to say WHY they’re rebelling in and of itself says that no matter the governing of a child, they’re going to rebel against their parents in some way for no reason and that that’s a part of becoming an adult yourself.
I think that this film is indeed timeless. At it’s core, it is a movie revolving around themes of teen angst, lack of understanding from an older generation, and feelings of isolation. All three of our protagonists, Jim, Plato, and Judy all share these feelings in their own ways. Judy had to come to grips with a father who neglected her emotionally and treated her poorly. Jim had two parents who were more concerned with him being happy than being good parents, leaving him uncentered and without a moral compass to follow. Plato’s father abandoned him, and his mother was almost nonexistent, leaving him to look for parental figures in those around him, a dangerous tendency in a young man with few friends to begin with, and is both extremely impressionable and immature. Between these three children, any young viewer watching the film will be able to have something to relate to and understand. However, I’d say that “Rebel” could only be called timeless because of the lack of direction in the film. The narrative doesn’t have a real structure, the characters fall into strict archetypes, and there isn’t much creativity. This creates a dynamic where anyone watching can empathize with what is happening and who they see, but only because it is so open ended. It isn’t “timeless” in the sense that it is so good or radical that it can stand alone, but timeless in the sense that it can fit around any time period.
ReplyDeleteI would also agree with the idea that the film “desperately wants to say something and doesn’t know what it is.” The film is enjoyable and relatable, but there doesn’t seem to be a strict message here. There is no main central theme, no main lesson, or any real resolution. At the end of the film, the protagonists are still having their problems, and nothing has really changed. While the movie was entertaining and has aged well, it isn’t a movie that really says anything, or even really tries to.
Rebel Without A Cause is a film that takes the reality of being a teenager and puts it on the big screen. All of the main characters, Jim, Judy and Plato face problems that are easily relatable to the audience. For example, Jim longing for the girl, Judy, who already has a "bad boy" boyfriend, but will try his hardest to win her over. Then, there is Plato who is unsure of his sexual preferences, yet too scared to come out about it. Many teenagers all over the world face these same problems today. And what makes the film even more relatable, is that the characters do not overcome their problems. There is not really a happy ending. The beginning of the film and throughout addresses what the problems are, but they are never fully resolved. Which is what often happens with problems not only in high school, but throughout life.
ReplyDeleteI would not agree with Roger Ebert's statement that "the film has not aged well." I think that Rebel Without A Cause is timeless, and its main themes are just as relevant in today's society as they were in the 1950s. All of the problems addressed in the film still happen in 2014. As they most likely will throughout time. People, teenagers especially, will still have unsure feelings and emotions that cause them to question themselves as well as the actions of others.