Wish him happy birthday.

Stranger In A Small (American) Town: Take Two

As promised, a few reposts will pop up as I prepare for examinations; this is an entry I did a few months back assessing two oldies in my top 100. I cleaned it up, and voila – the renewed essay, it's actually a bit different.

                       

When Rebel without a Cause premiered in 1955 it became a film symbolic of the troubled youths of its era. The film articulated the generation gap between the idealistic youths and their pragmatic parents focusing on James Dean’s Jimmy, an ill contented teenager, who moves with his parents, to a suburb in Los Angeles changing the town and the people there. In this way, Rebel without a Causebears striking similarities to another 1955 piece Picnic. Adapted from William Inge’s Pulitzer Prize winning drama of the same name, Picnic is less concerned with the zeitgeist emotions of Rebel without a Cause, instead focusing on how the protagonist, Hal’s, arrival in a small unnamed town precipitates actions of drama and melodrama. Yet, in its way of examining an outsider changing the society he meets Rebel without a Causeand Picnic exist as films existing similarly. Both mix realism with tinges of melodrama and both gauge the effects of the reluctant “hero” on those around him.

In many ways Rebel without a Cause is a perfect example of a film existing almost exclusively for the time in which it was made and yet managing to achieve mainstream popularity over the years. There was an unsubtle allegory to be found in James Dean’s appearance in Rebel without a Cause. Dean’s Jim was a potent deity for the youths of the fifties to revere. He was the sort of dubious hero that they were willing to idolise and emulate. Jim, after all, was the literal representation of what they felt like in society – strangers. Picnic, like Rebel without a Cause exists – completely – in its era too, but it never managed to become a hit after the fifties. Many would probably praise its ability to evoke the feeling of small-town sensibilities in the fifties, but modern audiences would probably be lost as to the relevance of it. Even though Rebel without a Cause is not necessarily a “futuristic” effort, Jim’s struggle to fit in is as relevant to contemporary teenagers as it would have been to those in the fifties. However, William Holden’s intrepid drifter’s dissonance as to whether or not he wants to exist in the peaceable small town – which is an almost stolid representative of the Eisenhower era – is not particularly modern.

It is very possible than in its attempt to examine more than just a singular plotline Picnic seems to be less personal than Rebel without a Cause. Even though Hal could be considered the protagonist, he is more of a de facto lead than a genuine one. In this way Picnic is less a story about a man and more a story about a tongue. Certainly, like Rebel without a Cause key characters are changed, oftentimes for the better, by their relations with the stranger. However, the characters in Picnic exist as creations of their own cinematic value and not just supporters to Holden’s Hal. Rosalind Russell’s Rosemary and Kim Novak’s Madge depend significantly on their reactions to Hal, but through the shades the women add to their roles we believe that they exist as independent characters in their own form. It seems different with Sal Mineo’s Plato and Natalie Wood’s Judy in Rebel without a Cause. The two cannot be accused of poor performances; they both earned deserved Oscar nominations for their performances. However Plato and Judy seem to exist primarily for the shades they add to Dean’s Jim. Thus, any character development that occurs does so only for its importance to our protagonist. It is possible that Picnic’s literary roots present the actors with more background on their characters, than the original screenplay of Rebel without a Cause.

Despite all the dramatic turmoil that ensues during the runtime, both films ends on a high note that could often be seen as far-fetched. Rebel without a Cause has thus far focused on the appalling generation gap existing between Jim and his parents and the film’s end is all together too coincidental. Despite, the “scare” his parents may have experience a connection derived from tragedy can hardly be more than tenuous. It is an unbelievable resolution that is altogether too glib to be regarded as realistic. It is the same in Picnic. It is almost ridiculous to think that after less than twenty-four hours of indolent flirting that Madge and Hal could enter into any significant romantic relationship. Picnic exacerbates the lack of realism by having another preposterous affiliation – the wedding of Rosemary and Howard. It is uncertain if William Inge’s original play was trying to be some revelatory analysis of the absurdity of American life in era. Whatever the play’s intent may have been the smoothness with which Joshua Logan treats the marriage and the romantic way in which he shapes the union of Madge and Hal only accentuates what could hardly be more than an ephemeral union.

When examining classics critics often ask whether a particular film has aged well. I do not think the problem with Picnic is that it has not aged well; it is just obviously a play and one that exists resolutely in its era. Perhaps, Picnic is one of those films that depend on the audience’s mindset. It is not necessarily one of formidable cinematic proficiency. Yet, it exists as a valiant effort. It is decidedly sentimental, but its sentimentality is not cringe worthy. Rebel without a Causeis often remembered as the important classic from its era, and its ability to speak to the modern audience despite its age is significant. Nonetheless, in examining the notion of a stranger in a small town both films exist as noteworthy efforts from 1955.

                          

Any thoughts on Picnic or Rebel Without A Cause? I prefer the latter, it does appear at #49 on my list of favourites and the latter appears at #57. Sure, they’re faulty but I have a soft spot for them – obviously. Which do you prefer?

Stranger In A Small Town

There was a subtle allegory to be found in James Dean’s appearance in Rebel without A Cause. From its appearance in 1955 Dean’s Jim was something of a symbol for all the tortured youths of the era. It was the sort of dubious hero that they were willing to idolise and emulate. Jim was, after all, was the literal representation of what they felt like in society – strangers. The old theme of a young irrepressible disrupting a small town is not a new one. Even though it didn’t go on to cult standards Inge’s Picnic in 955 too had some similarities. It occurred in a day, but was the story of how a small-town was rocked by one man. The thing is, whereas Dean is an obvious paragon of youth and vitality William Holden at 37 isn’t such an obvious choice. The thing is, I’ve never been overly fond of Holden. He’s an actor that appears in countless good films, but I never really feel that they work because of him – his appearance often seems incidental and not crucial.

        

In Picnic Hal – a man who’s been on the wrong side of the lay passes through a small town on the day of their picnic. Naturally, the women are drawn to this mysterious lothario of sorts – just look at the DVD cover to see where they were going with it. I’m a big fan of ensemble films; I’m also a fan of films that occur in a day. It makes for good drama and seeing a bevy of talented actors working against each other is always fulfilling, Picnic fits the bill perfectly. If I ever decided to do a feature on forgotten films it’d be somewhere high on the list. It was a critical and commercial success back in its day and went on to earn a Best Picture nomination (the source play won a Pulitzer Prize) but I doubt many remember it or have even seen it. It’s a film that exists completely in its era, but that doesn’t make it any less good. People always ask “has a film aged well”. I don’t think the problem with Picnic is that it hasn’t aged well; it’s just obviously a play. Still, the attempts to make it cinematic are formidable – to me anyway.

There’s something to be said about films in this era, I don’t know if filmmakers were less savvy or audiences just loved the pat endings, but I always chuckle at how easily the endings of the two films come. It’s ironic that even though the entire of Rebel has stressed the generation gap between Jim and his parents it all seems to end so…effortlessly. It’s a bit like Picnic actually. In a way Picnic reminds me of those old Victorian novels that ended with every cast member getting married off to another. How good a marriage are Rosemary and Howard going to have? For that matter how strong are the relationships of Jim and Judy in Rebel and Hal and Madge in Picnic going to be. Natalie Wood doesn’t give her best performance in Rebel, but I’m hard pressed to call any of Wood’s performance bad. There is a graceful charm about her that always rouses me and though she always manages to have strong chemistry with her men (notably Beatty, Beymer and McQueen) the match with James Dean is just perfect. The poster couple of the era? Novak and Holden don’t have it as simple. He is 15 years her senior, and I don’t always believe the physacility of their relationship – which should be a given really. Still, the romance works much more than it fails, even if it seems to exists only in the narrative.

                 

It’s strange, then, I like Picnic so much. It’s a bit like a “you had to be there” experience. As the casts act against each other as Rosalind Russell hams it up brilliantly but never loses touch of her character I still marvel that this cast went completely ignored by the Oscars but for O'Connell - who is fine, but never outstanding. Inge is a brilliant playwright and I always prefer the sentimentality and fun of Picnic to the sensibleness of Come Back, Little Sheba (even if Booth is excellent in it) and Rebel Without a Cause is sort of a sentimental favourite. I can’t hate a flick with Wood and Dean, and it’s place in history seems all but assured. Still, it’s no push over either. It comes in at #57 on my list of favourites with Picnic a bit higher at #49.

Jack, James and Lana

It's the 8th of February and I realise I'm a bad Jack Lemmon fan. I've never seen him in a bad performance, but I've not seen enough of his work - hopefully I can ammend that this year since I need to see his Oscar winning turn in Mister Roberts. Still, today is the birthday of this solidified star and if I have time after my exams I'll celebrate by watching one of the greatest cinematic performances of the 60s. 

If you could only watch one of his films today...which would it be? Or will you be seeing Peyton Place and Rebel Without A Cause celebrating Lana Turner and James Dean?