One day, my attention turned to Elia Kazan’s East of Paradise, a very free and I would say partial adaptation of John Steinbeck’s 1955 novel. I read the book, but I wasn’t sure about the movie. As a result of watching it, I found out that I still didn’t look at it, but I can’t say that I was very happy with the film, I expected more. The story shown in the film, although significantly different from the book, of course, in fact very heartwarming, but the incarnation I was not very satisfied and not only because of the free treatment of the book. Two guys live together with his father, who seems to be a good person, but in business is not particularly successful, he is constantly unlucky. One of the guys Caleb - a kind of bad boy, he is played by the promising James Dean, who died in the year of the release of this film in a car accident at the age of 24, learns that his mother, whom he and his brother believed to be dead, is actually alive and well. He suffers from dislike of his father, who gives a clear preference to his brother Aron, who is considered in all respects positive. In the end, he seems to find a way to do something good for his father, but alas, his father rejects his gift. Then there are some events and actions, as a result of which the brother goes to the front, and the father is struck by a stroke. The end, while dramatic, offers little hope for a relatively good outcome in their relationship. What didn't suit me? Although the film is considered a good classic, but it already looks somewhat outdated in its techniques, you feel some playfulness and theatricality, which at that time was often met, but is not perceived by me as successful techniques. James Dean among them looks, by the way, the most organic in his role, he was posthumously nominated for an Oscar, this is kind of the only such case. And I didn’t like the musical accompaniment, it seemed to me quite heavy.
Perhaps if I hadn’t read 39, East of Eden, 39, and had seen the film in 1955, I would have felt a little better about it. However, as someone who has read this amazing book twice and respects John Steinbeck, I cannot help but express my outrage at the film adaptation. The film does not even try to reflect the depth of the book and does not raise almost any of the philosophical issues that have been actively discussed in the source.
To begin with, the first half of the book is grossly thrown out of the script, and thus the film does not feature the most important character - Samuel Hamilton, whose image was damn important to the plot. The character of Katie is presented dryly, too small and painfully inaccurate, completely devoid of background and does not represent any interest to the viewer, not giving him the opportunity not only to understand all the motives of her actions and the reasons for her hatred towards others, but also in principle to create in her head an approximate image of a mysterious, angry and unpredictable woman with a handful of skeletons in the closet.
Much can be said about the spineless Adam, about the absence of his father and brother in the plot and about the inability to assess the development of his relationship with them, which, of course, formed his contradictory nature, which subsequently affected his relationship with Katie (which is also not a word in the film).
Now the worst part. Caleb and Aaron. Adam's two sons. Characters, completely undisclosed, included in the film as if for the sake of a tick, because this is required by the very essence of the film adaptation of the work. And if Aaron’s character is somehow forgiven for certain flaws due to his shift of focus, then Caleb turned out completely strange. I can’t deny the fact (the one fact that I’ve given this film any credit at all) that James Dean was quite a charismatic actor, and it was really fascinating to watch the performance and facial expressions. But his mental torment in search of himself, attempts to understand the structure of his soul and the relationship between good and evil in himself could look much more spectacular if they were presented not as a scriptual given, but in inseparable interaction with other important aspects that led him to such reflections. Why is his metal from side to side? What are his seemingly inexplicable hysterical attacks?
Even if you break away from the book for a while (which is given with great difficulty), the film looks weak, caricatured, and, despite certain dynamics, does not create a holistic action and does not try to force the viewer to empathize with the characters. And the most terrible thing is that the ending here seriously distorts the strongest message that was laid through the whole novel and chillingly personified in the final scene. That is why, to my taste, this is not a film adaptation of a masterpiece, but only a painful and painful disappointment.
3 out of 10
I am one of those people who decided to see this film not because of the adaptation of the famous book of the same name by John Steinbeck, but solely for the interest associated with James Dean. It’s just that not every actor manages to become a legend so early, starring in only three films, two of which James is nominated for an Oscar. And James Dean is really good in this movie.
It is because I have not read the book and have nothing to compare it with that that I will have a positive assessment. Because, as I've noticed, it's those who compare a film to a book who brand the picture as negative or neutral.
The story centers on the Trask family. Adam is the head of the family, a farmer, the goal in life for him is to help people, overly religious, kind of ' walking catechism' once his wife left him and this is the greatest experience in his life. Adam has two sons, Cal and Aaron. Anyone who is even briefly familiar with the contents of the Bible will draw a parallel between Adam in the film and Adam in the Bible. And this parallel is not accidental. Cal is the exact opposite of his father and, as we are presented throughout the film, is 'bad'. Aaron - has the character of a father, ' son of a mother's friend', in the film is presented as 'good'.
Unfortunately, 'bad' and 'good' the characters of the sons are presented to the viewer only in words. It is impossible to understand this by any special actions of the characters until the end of the film. Yes, Cal is a little strange, happy with the war and gets into a fight, but all this does not make him something ' bad'. His strangeness is due to the fact that his father turned all his attention to Aaron and Cal developed a complex, began to envy his brother. The joy of the war is caused by the fact that now he can help his father to recover the losses after his failure in the path of the innovator to freeze vegetables. Well, acting in a fight doesn't make Cal a bad character, just as Aaron's passivity doesn't make him a positive character. Only by the end of the film is the real evil essence of Cal, but, I think, it is caused by the fact that faced once again with the father’s morality, feeling the impetus of his father’s indifference to Cal’s desire to help, the psychological balance of the guy was shaken and the problems, like a snowball, began to grow in the life of the Trask family.
Throughout the film, a serious family drama unfolds. At first, it seemed to me that this drama was blurred, I did not understand in which direction the director was pulling the blanket, what to pay attention to. Only in the middle of the film did the main message of the film become clear. Whether you are good or bad is up to you. This is your greatest treasure: freedom of choice. And how you manage your choice will depend on your whole life and the lives of people close to you.
American writer John Steinbeck’s book East of Paradise is so monolithic and replete with so many allegories and allusions to biblical subjects that making a film based on such material is not easy in itself. Apparently, guided by this factor, the director Elia Kazan flipped the book on the last pages and built a plot that has to do with the original source is very remote.
No, the names of the characters are the same, and their biographies seem to be similar to their book prototypes. But, the main meaning of the novel was lost somewhere halfway between Salinas Valley and a farm in Connecticut.
There are so many claims to the film that perhaps it is worth listing them sequentially:
1) The film completely cuts out the Hamilton family, especially for Sam Hamilton, Steinbeck’s most striking character. But he actually brought Adam Trask back to life, becoming his “guardian angel.”
2) The same fate befell the servant of Adam Trask, the Chinese Li. His brilliant philosophical arguments about the meaning of being and the purpose of man in this mortal world passed by the film.
(3) Biblical motives are completely excluded, so the struggle between Cal and Aron is only personal. In the book, their rivalry was explained much more deeply. It was based on human sins and ambition.
(4) Aron Trask here is more like a major student than a believer and doubtful person. And the scene with his departure to the army does not withstand any criticism.
(5) Adam Trask is not the central character in the film, but the good-natured father of his sons. Steinbeck’s creation shows how he first reaches the highest point of earthly bliss (life with a beloved woman), and then falls down (betrayal and tragedy), which is reflected in his character, giving the image inner tragedy and doom. Therefore, to portray Adam as a corn farmer who is only busy making more money (in the book he seeks salvation in business) is rather absurd and incorrect.
(6) Katie Ames is just a quiet horror. No, it's clear that by the time she's described in the film, she's in her 40s, but why make her look so disgusting? If this is an attempt to show her demonic nature, why so distort the source? In Steinbeck, even in adulthood, she retained her attractiveness and charm, with the help of which she turned people, doing her dirty deeds. That is, she absolutely did not combine the external with the internal.
But even these disadvantages could be understood (but not forgiven) if Steinbeck’s core message were preserved. You can do good or evil, and it depends on you. You can choose. In the film, this is not at all, because the director, apparently, was carried away by the personal fates of the characters of the picture.
Of the pluses, I note the game of James Dean, who magnificently played Cal Trask, and the reflection of the atmosphere and life of the United States during the First World War.
Great books should be treated with great care. And pulling individual pieces out of it, it is worth remembering that the overall picture from this can turn out to be inferior and orphaned.
As a result, we have a superficial exposition of the book “East of Paradise”, consisting of endless everyday conflicts, personal experiences and social contradictions, and completely missing philosophical views and existential quests of Man.
Because of the great James Dean I bet
In adolescence in the life of any person can come a critical moment when he cannot understand himself, when others constantly point their fingers at him, criticizing him for “inappropriate” behavior, which allegedly will ruin his whole life. In an attempt to prove to the world that this is not the case, a person tries to do only good deeds, but this does not help. Perhaps man simply always needed ordinary human love, which he was deliberately deprived of. This idea lies in the psychological drama of the cult director Elia Kazan “East of paradise”.
Synopsis The young guy Cal is desperately trying to find his place in this life and win the love and respect of his father, who always gave preference to his older brother Aron. Trying to explain his failures, Cal decides to learn more about his birth mother, who abandoned him when he was a child. And soon he gets a chance to meet his mother in person.
Like every picture of Elia Kazan, East of Paradise is distinguished by an unforgettable and emotional performance of actors. First of all, I wanted to mention the mysterious and unique James Dean in the role of Cal, a young rebel, not used to obeying the generally accepted rules, but subjected to severe emotional torment due to the complete lack of parental love, which he so needed all his life. Joe Van Fleet should also be singled out as the mysterious Kate, Cal’s mother, who abandoned her family because she was never created for it, but always sought freedom and independence, especially from men.
Director Elia Kazan is one of those rare cases when the work of the director is difficult to describe, it can only be felt. Tram "Desire", "In the port", "East of paradise" - all these films have one thing in common - a deep emotional component. Heroes in the films of Kazan literally come to life on the screen, they are real people. So in this film, Cal is not just a rebel, but an ordinary person who, due to the lack of fatherly love, is forced to “behave badly” in order to somehow attract attention. The hero considers the culprit of his position his mother, who turns out to be a cruel and depraved woman who does not feel any warm feelings for either her ex-husband or her own son. All this Kazan manages to convey with amazing success, but to describe in a review does not mean to feel it while watching.
The script is an adaptation of the novel by John Steinbeck. The action takes place in California in 1917, before the US entry into the First World War. The film begins with Cal pursuing a woman in black, who turns out to be the owner of the brothel Kate, who is Cal's mother. The reason for wanting to talk to Kate is revealed later when we learn more about Cal's family relationship. We see that the main character has nothing in common with his father, whom he, despite everything, still tries to please in order to get at least a bit of his love in return. Oil is added to the fire by the novel of the older brother Cal Aron with Abra, which the main character likes. The plot of the film may seem confused and incomprehensible, but the purpose of the plot is to show the transformation of the protagonist, who becomes more cruel and callous to the world around him.
I rarely describe in my reviews the technical characteristics, but admired "East of paradise" I could not but share the impression of the operator's work. Ted D. McCord. He made a significant contribution to the construction of the emotional plot of the film, using a tilted camera technique that added more tension to such scenes. For example, I was impressed by the scene with reading the Bible, when the main character specifically annoyed his father.
"East of Paradise" - can be safely called one of the best works of Kazan, which again immerses the viewer in the problems of human relations, showing them through the prism of feelings and emotions experienced by the main characters. Of course, the film is worth seeing at least for the sake of acquaintance with the unique James Dean, who laid the foundation for the cult image.
10 out of 10
There is a double attitude to the movie. On the one hand, it is a spectator, quite a mass product of widespread consumption for its time. It is filled with both cliches and allusions of its time (albeit its action unfolds in 1917-1918) and is designed to perform completely ordinary tasks of dramatic cinema of the 50s. But on the other hand, it is not flat, it does not lose its relevance and unfolds on so many levels of perception that I have a reasonable question: in 2050, say, a middle hand, or rather, a completely consumer drama of our 90s or early 2000s will also be perceived by descendants? This question is probably hanging in the air for me now.
Multi-level cinema.
In the first place striking the theme worked out in American literature Steinbeck (the plots of the book which was filmed) and the lost generation of Americans.
What is important here is that wonderful, extremely qualitatively built, very subtle game with the viewer with the chronology and allusivity of the tape. The film was shot in 1955, when the main shock, historical American crises passed. The director sends us back to 1917. Nothing prevents him from making the tape closer to the viewer - changing the details of the burned-out business, changing the cars and clothes of the heroes. But no! And, I think, here the brilliant idea of the creators of the film – the generation to whom this film was first presented, had to remember all these crises (both two wars and the Great Depression) and analyze this essentially small tragedy through the prism of their giant historical experience of the period from 17 to 55.
Knowing, including from Steinbeck, what and how it was in America during this period, you assess the personal kink in the soul of the hero in a completely different way. And so the first level for me is the theme of an internally mutilated generation - when the father of the family is still a pillar, he is still a stronghold, he is still a rock, and his two sons, even two of them will not be recruited for one whole person (as Abra's girlfriend shouted in one of the final scenes "I want him to be whole." .).
And from here the logical bridge to another level is thrown. Here we take the hero deeply personally. We evaluate the film from the point of view of one person, one person. And we dive into the world, this warped guy, where we try to discover with him his motives and the essence of his I. I’m not going to say that Dean is a genius actor – much adds to the flair of his brilliant and short life, and of course, created in 2006. James Franco's image -- but the way an actor immerses us in a hero, the way he creates a palette of his world before he begins to paint a whole picture -- is very, very good. And the whole film can be viewed, evaluating only its inner drama, presenting the entire tape framed to the personal catharsis of Caleb.
On behalf of the hero, I will draw a thread to the third level . The level of religious perception. The father of the family in the movie is called Adam, the names of his two sons from afar and alliteratively consonant with the biblical Cain and Abel – Caleb (he is, if you evaluate the textbook, a typical bad guy) and Aron (the ideal son, “he’s bright” briefly describes his Caleb in conversation with his mother). The mother, although prosaically nicknamed Kate, but some time ago did something so terrible to her family that she does not even live with the family, despised by her ex-husband, and the children are carefully guarded by her father. Allusions to the story of Cain and Abel are full in the film: Caleb is engaged in agriculture, and Aron is forever lost in the field; both brothers bring their gifts to their father (yes, not a sacrifice, but a simple gift, but nevertheless, both gifts of enormous importance to the heroes), and he (father) accepts the gift of Aron (Abel) and rejects the Kalebs (Cains); and in one of the final scenes, Caleb directly answers his father with the words of Cain: “Am I the guardian of my brother.” And if you start to promote further the religious level of the film, you can come to very ambiguous conclusions and only marvel at the skillful elaboration of the biblical theme and the masterful reworking of the director of the classic canoe-abel paradox. And at this level, perhaps, you can stick for the longest.
The fourth level was easier for me. It's a classic psychological mess. American cinema 50x-60x is filled with square Freudianism. And this cannot be taken away either from time - then it was very fashionable and very popular in America, nor from the tape - it contains classic Freudian schemes, classical conflicts, a rather elegant artistic study of Caleb's neuroticism, his sufferings from his complex, finding its origins and the final resolution of his complex. It is quite classically filmed here, and I have seen this before, for example, at Hitchcock, when he flirted with Freudianism in some of his tapes. “One person, one complex,” I would call it. Praise to the filmmakers that they did not turn these games into the quintessence of the entire film, as was often the case in other films of the same period.
The fifth level remains largely undiscovered for me, but in many ways miraculous and fascinating. The issue is gender, and in particular the issue of women. They are reduced to some degree to absurd splendor. Firstly, the contrast of the characters of the two women in the film - Kate and Abra, and secondly, the existence of a house without a woman. This is where you can go and look. Why isn't Kate living with her family? Who is she and what is she? Why is there so much insight and understanding in plain Abre? What was her fate before the events in the tape? The way the theme of gender interaction is written in the film amazes me the most. And I will remind you here that the film is set in 17, and it came out in 55, it is not our seething gender equality two thousandth. For comparison, take the images of the young lady from “Tram Desire” or “Cats on a hot roof”, and everything will be quite ambiguous.
And here, in this piggy bank, the filmmakers throw us: literally in two lines the theme of War, its senselessness and enormous animating power. The subject of racism/Nazism is rather clumsy with the German, but very subtle with the Negro motif (literally two or three strokes, but very impressive).
And the theme the confrontation of personality, tradition and progress (by the way, much more expressive revealed for the same period of history in modern us Oil).
I can’t help but say that everything in it is ridiculously simple. Right. Got it. Up to the language of the heroes — here almost village idiots talk — simple words, simple dialogue, no zaumi. And at the same time, a huge study of the material on all levels that interested me.
This is actually a beautiful and worthy movie.
His mother has beautiful, graceful hands, which she was very much watching and rightly proud of. Not too important information about the one who was considered dead since childhood, but a young man named Cal Trask greedily grasps these words uttered by his father, because they make more sense than in the entire current life. The young man constantly calls himself bad, spoiled, but deprived of affection - never. He's just used to all the parental love going to the address of brother Aron, and he, Cal, usually gets stingy, irritated lines. And now he wants to meet his mother, to see her hands firsthand, and with them the eyes, in which, perhaps, there remains at least a grain of care and tenderness for the abandoned son. What he will do when he learns the truth about the parental breakup - the young man has not yet decided, but feels the exceptional significance of his discovery, which can win fatherly love. Or at least buy it.
He has a beautiful cheeky face, which caused the rapid heartbeat of many girl's hearts, and a business acumen that needed a worthy application. Claimed by the biblical Cain, James Dean played himself. Freedom-loving, windy, naughty, such a crappy boy with mocking ease became the center of attraction. As if joking, he climbed the ladder of life, but like his own hero, he did not find pleasure in eternal movement. Cal in the film adaptation of Kazan is noticeably different from Cal Steinbeck’s novel, and the increased importance of his figure among the unfolding events is due not so much to the adaptation of the plot as to the texture of Dean himself. The director of the famous “Tram “Desire” turned out to be easier to develop the characteristic qualities of a born rebel, but that is the uniqueness of the actor’s performance that Cal Trask is not the second Stanley Kowalski, but a gusty Cain without guilt and remorse, which gave rise to everyday injustice. His father had two sons, but one of them knew all his life only the harsh character of a parent who, ironically, was considered the most human Californian.
His father had vast possessions, and Cal needed one piece of field to cultivate respect and love. But parental feelings are more complex than agricultural culture, and the excessive diligence that accompanied Cal in his bitter enterprise was initially a bad companion. Elia Kazan did not care too much about the source, but the pastoral landscapes that became silent witnesses to the family drama are the legacy of Steinbeck himself, without which no major work of his is inconceivable. The American writer paid much attention to the land, emphasized the importance of agricultural labor, which both tempered character and contributed to the establishment of ties between people. Cal's attempt to appear before a stale parent in an unusual capacity seems too simple and determines the coming disappointment. The excited conversation in the clubs of light fog between the blinded grievances of the young man and his mother gives only part of the answer to the possibility of changing their lives. This idealization of light and dark principles in two brothers is deceptive. What is peculiar to one, may well create another, for which the coquetry of the bride Aron is enough. Abra glows with exciting concern for all three men of the Trask family, but her recklessness is no less painful than unspoken words about love.
He formed a firm judgment about the categorical character of both parents, but it did not bring Cal closer to finding warmth. The myth that the pope is very kind and the mother is the most evil is debunked by Kazan in stages, but each stroke to the portrait weakens the dependence of this drama on biblical prototypes. The Californian air is saturated with red, the noisy background of the war in Europe gives an impetus to the escalation of events, but the true evolution of the characters does not occur. Elia Kazan deftly manages with bright types, but does not act as a judge or defender, emphasizing the need for a person to fill cones and look back to the past in order to clearly look into the future. The colorful visual design of the film perfectly suited the rebellious spirit of James Dean, who in a simple translation of the plot of Cain and Abel risked to remain unclaimed. Having such a personality in his hands, Kazan was able to fill the picture with bright improvisation. The apparent rejection of the Christian canon allowed the director to push back from the starting point and give the opportunity to his characters to be at a symbolic height from which the life lived is clearly visible, and it is not clear just which direction to steer. Cal and Abra's confused dialogue on the Ferris Wheel speaks to the nature of years-long drama far better than the reluctant explanations of a disgruntled father and an oppressive mother. No matter how the jealous young man lived his years, and he still has to go down, it is never too late to become happy. A small point of paradise looms somewhere in the distance, and it is necessary to reach the heart of a loved one here and now, for life is changeable and there will be no second chance.
Quite boring and boring adaptation of Steinbeck. Elia Kazan slowly and intensely shows us all the degrees of alienation that the protagonist experiences - a young man who can not reconcile with the fact that his father notices less than his older brother. Subtly and elegantly, we are shown many episodes from which an atmosphere of lack of spiritual intimacy with external well-being and prosperity is formed. Perhaps it is in the callousness of the spiritual and perhaps in the rejection of their own child – about such things previously said little. But James Dean's character will have to go through many trials. For example, a father will refuse to accept financial support from his son and will do it so rudely. However, being at the deathbed, he will have a chance to reconsider his actions.
All right. This uneventful and overly nervous film did not strike me as particularly interesting or balanced. Actors were not always on top here, often excessively expressing their own emotions. Well, Dean, of course, was good and charismatic, offering a restless and reflective image completely corresponding to him.
Probably, you need to tune in to this film in a special way, study Steinbeck in detail and slightly overestimate the work of James Dean. I didn't do that. I saw the usual American melodrama, which in comparison with the similar “Noise and fury” looks simpler.
5 out of 10
If you want to give me something, give me your honest life. But behind the abrasive phrases often hides only external varnishing and solidity. And maybe it's a lot more decent for someone to understand, you don't love me because I look like her. You could never forgive yourself for loving her.
Despite the fact that this is such a peculiar interpretation of the history of Cain and Abel, the signs of time, especially war, play a huge role. Even if there are no direct combat actions on the screen, the war breaks into the family life noticeably and horribly. Parades in star-striped and Statue of Liberty costumes cannot hide this. This is an incredibly beautiful film.
There’s a lot to think about for parents who divide their children into “bad” and “good,” not based on their behavior, but solely on their greater affection for one child than the other. But in the end, the child who is bullied, and really begins to do depressing things. It is not accepted to recognize, but in life it happens all the time. Adults often don’t even notice it, but it is. They don’t tell a child they love him... they don’t want him to tell them. Then they will be annoyed if the child says: I don't need anyone's love anymore. It doesn't pay off.
The Oedipus complex is also in all its glory - the heroine has problems with her parents, and because of this and in her personal life, she hesitates, which of the two boys she choose as her favorite. So, this film is for every generation, and about extremely relevant family themes.
Cannes branch, Oscar for Best Supporting Actress Joe Van Fleet... James Dean, who tragically died young but managed to turn into a legend, received Oscar nominations posthumously, in particular one for this film. And whose improvisations and discoveries during the filming turned this tape into something more amazing than what was originally present in the plot!
“East of Paradise” was created to be loved by the audience. The unfading relevance of this family drama, which sweeps through the centuries, was understood and accepted by both viewers of that time and viewers of modernity, and the fleur of James Dean’s popularized personality-mystery attracts an extra audience to his films, raising them to the level of classics, albeit quite rightly.
The hero of James Dean is Cal Trask, so beloved by everyone type, because good and evil are combined in it in equal proportions, and the struggle of two opposites will carry the main theme in the development of his hero the whole film, shrouded in various external events and prerequisites for further actions. He's used to being unloved. He nurtured his own uselessness in the world, because his own father did not need him most. Moreover, he has no obvious reason to reproach his father, because the father personifies a real virtue, a model, a picture. Cal is irreconcilably charming; his delicate nature, which he characterizes with a stamp of “bad” with a bit of desperate grin on his lips, is actually a reflection of those futile attempts to become at least equal in importance to his father with his brother. To some extent, he is childishly clumsy, shy, and his manners, especially at the beginning of the film, are angular and clumsy, but at the same time in some moments he is amazingly confident, if not brazen. In fact, his personality is not a one-sided innate evil, even if there were many prerequisites for this, but a consequence, an acquired character under the influence of bright factors, of course, a sense of alienation from his father, in the first place.
His growth goes on throughout the film, reaches a climax, but at the end of the film collapses as usual: he quietly turns into the same as everyone else. It's not a phenomenon, it's not something amazing that it seemed before, but that's where even the hidden power of this film comes in: realism, the subtle psychology of human behavior.
This film is ambiguous. My assessment of him is ambiguous. The highest level of acting is not only James Dean, but also Julie Harris and Raymond Massey, as well as Burle Ives, Richard Davalos and Joe Van Fleet, who well, if not always brilliantly fit into the overall picture of the film, rarely, but still stand out for the moments-pearls of acting. Shooting and their way is usual, conservative, inherent in America of that time.
But still it is an unambiguous classic of color cinema. For those who want good and high-quality, strong and felt, but not heartbreaking and difficult to watch for the unprepared, like something from black and white or a little movie, for example.
8 out of 10
East of Paradise is a film directed by Elia Kazan. The film is based on the novel by John Steinbeck. A young man named Cal tries to find a meaning in life and win the love of his father, who prefers his brother Aron. The plot resembles a version of the story of Cain and Abel.
Elia Kazan is one of the most talented directors in the history of cinema. He opened the world to such an actor as Marlon Brando. His works always show unfortunate people the world does not understand. Take the same Blanche Dubois from Tram Desire. There are such people to this day, they are simply different, not evil or good, just different. This movie is about a man like that -- his name is Cal Trask. He doesn't get along with people, he doesn't have friends, even a father prefers another son. We've all been jealous at some point. Cal Trask is obsessed with jealousy. He wants to be loved. The only one who understands him is a girl named Abra. She sees that Cal is very kind and vulnerable, Abra understands that Cal needs love and affection. She tries to support him in all his endeavors. Cal's brother thinks he's a loser and always laughs at him. They're completely different people. Cal tries to find his mother, who left the family when he was young. But even then he is disappointed, his mother turns out to be a very greedy and angry woman who does not care about him and his family. Cal realizes that all the hatred and jealousy went to him on the maternal side.
The roles in the film were played by James Dean, Julie Harris and Raymond Massey. James Dean is one of my favorite actors. In his films, it is felt that the characters are drawn from his own experience. Dean masterfully shows all the hatred, anger and jealousy of a person. Almost no one understands his hero. He's on his own. In East of Paradise, Dean played a major role in his career. The image of Cal is one of the most powerful images in the history of cinema. James Dean will be remembered and admired for his skill. Julie Harris is also a great actress. Her character is one of the kindest and sensual, she helps and supports Cal in everything. I really liked her.
"East of Paradise" is a classic of cinema and the main film of one of the best actors in the history of cinema - James Dean. I advise everyone to watch this movie, they don’t make it anymore.
9 out of 10
“Cain rebelled against his brother Abel and killed him. And Cain left, settled in the East of Paradise. Why don't you go somewhere? ?
This is the second film with the participation of Mr. Dean, which I manage to witness after Rebel without ideal. And despite the fact that I always find things in the old American cinema that I don’t like (and I’ve watched a little, frankly), James Dean always touches. He's kind of mystical. And not only in his mysterious love of death that led him to a tragic ending at such a young age, he plays phenomenally. With such a break, a tear! In his excessive seriousness, people found kitsch, I only see immense loneliness. To some extent, James Dean is very similar to his heroes - rebels and badboys, whose actions hide the family drama, lack of love and support. That's what I think.
"You have forgiven us, but you have never loved us."
As for the film itself, I know that for many Americans it is a classic, as is Steinbeck’s original novel. It’s far from me and my emotional potential. I mean, there's something stopping me from really enjoying movies of this rank. That’s why I’m looking at Gone with the Wind. I'm distracted by the damn loud and pathetic music, I don't like some actors (actually many). Among them, James Dean looks brilliant. I'm not really happy with the director. And it seems like everything is good, and the script seems to really carry a semantic load, but I can not exclaim that I am delighted. But I can say for sure that the film is stronger and deeper than Rebel. It is more accurate in the problem of fathers and children shown, the psychology of which is striking. And in general, the climax scene, where Dean's hero leaves the house screaming in pain, is simply brilliantly staged and played.
I have been jealous all my life. He was jealous and could do nothing about it. I even tried to buy your love last night, but now I don’t want it anymore. I don't need it anymore... I don't want any more love. It doesn't pay off.
Speaking of James Dean, I watched two films with his participation, which, perhaps, are the most famous in his repertoire – “Giant”, “Rebel without a cause” and now, finally, I came to the adaptation of “East of Paradise”. I immediately want to say that the image of an incomprehensible and deprived guy, to none other than Dean, is better not suited. He is a true dramatic hero, a character that will seem to everyone close and familiar in his own way. And here, the situation practically does not change.
Before us appears Cal - the son of Adam Trask, a businessman who lived all his life on his precious ranch, struggling to raise it. He has his own truth and his own ideas about how to live this life. But, unfortunately, Cal himself, these views and motivation of his father do not allow him to see in his son all the most sincere and kind that is hidden in the depths of his big and rushing soul. And on top of that, Cal has a brother Aaron, the exact opposite of him, a model son, a loving guy. And no matter how hard Cal tries, whatever attempts to get even a drop of fatherly love and respect, which he so lacks, all in vain, because to break ahead of Aaron does not work.
This is a story about a guy who digs into himself, trying to understand what he is doing wrong, what he lacks in order to get the sympathy of his father. The story of how inside a person fight his contradictions, envy, jealousy. This is a film about the wanderings of the soul, the search for truth, truth.
In general, the picture is great. there is a plan, a storyline, and, of course, morality. Dean's play is unique. Every time I am amazed at how vividly and naturally his roles are performed, and most importantly - without a hint of falsehood. Undoubtedly, he deserves to be called a talented man, and I thank him endlessly for that.