East of Eden

I know this sounds absurd, but, I think the jury is still out on James Dean. This film, his first big role (and the only one released during his lifetime) is thus something of a referendum on his status as a movie icon. I liked the film, but it's a little weird that I walked away from it still not sure if Dean wasn't simply a product of his time, as opposed to an all-time great actor. Yes, he's good here, and he brings an interesting complexity to the role of Caleb, but one also can't help but notice how much Dean's good looks inform his performance. One wonders if he would have been quite so incandescent in the eyes of his contemporaries (and later observers) had he not been so good looking. Those looks surely went a long way towards making him iconic for that contemporaneous audience. (Notice the ahistorical, but very popular in the '50s, pompadours on Dean and costar Richard Davalos in what's supposed to be WWI era California. The producers were clearly fishing for relatability with the Eisenhower-era teens in the theaters.) All of that leaves the questions about Dean unanswered. Beyond that conundrum, this movie serves as a time capsule of early 1900s California (or at least a mid-century vision of the scene forty years before), which adds some appeal for the historically minded. And players Julie Harris and Raymond Massey provide strong work in their roles, if somewhat in the shadow of their scene-stealing co-star. All in all, this movie is a good one--I just don't know if it would be the cultural milestone it is if not for its perfect mesh of time, tale, and star.