East of Eden: Book vs. Movie

French Movie Poster

I am a longtime fan of John Steinbeck novels, and have read just about all of them now, a few two or three times.  East of Eden has always been one of my favorites of Steinbeck's books, but until earlier this month I had not gotten around to watching the 1955 film version directed by Elia Kazan.  That movie soon became so overshadowed by the premature death of James Dean, one of its young stars, that it is never mentioned today without Dean's death being brought up at the beginning of the conversation - and probably again at the end.  James Dean is that big a Hollywood legend. But that left me curious as to whether or not the movie was capable of standing on its own.

My answer is yes, but it was not easy for reasons I never expected.  This 1955 theatrical trailer will give you a feel for what the film is like (I was particularly impressed with Kazan's direction):

East of Eden, as its title makes obvious, is a retelling of the Cain and Abel bible story, but to Steinbeck's credit his version is a good deal more complicated and nuanced than the original.  James Dean plays the bad brother, by far the meatier role, and he eats it up.  Richard Davalos portrays Dean's brother, Raymond Massey plays their father, Jo Van Fleet is their mother, and Julie Harris the girl who splits the brothers for good.  Too, Burl Ives does a particularly nice job in the role of town sheriff.  

This is definitely still a story of good vs. evil, but a large part of that battle is internalized by James Dean in the role of Cal, a young man whose destructive impulses clash mightily with his deep desire for his father's approval.  Most of the relationships in the film are complicated ones that evolve over time, sometimes for the better, but most of the time for the worse.  What happens to this family and those closest to them is not pretty, and Elia Kazan's actors perform with such an intensity that the film takes on a myth-like tone.

And that leads to the problem with the film I didn't expect to have.  Some of the acting is just too over the top to feel right for today's viewers, especially the way that James Dean portrayed the self-destructive anguish inside Cal.  As I remember one critic saying, most of the time that Dean was on the screen it appears that he is "on the verge of a nervous breakdown."  At best, that is distracting; at worst it is downright annoying.  Julie Harris is the other actor whose body movements do not appear always to be coordinated with what is coming out of her mouth, and she reminded me of a puppet on a string in certain scenes.  

Julie Harris and James Dean

The way that Kazan framed some of his scenes is eye-catching and memorable. I was particularly struck by the scene in which Cal is swinging on a child's swing while talking to his father who is standing on the porch in front of him.  The scene is shot from behind the father, and it is mesmerizing to watch the two hold an entire conversation while Cal swings toward and away from his father in the same way that their conversation ebbs and flows.  But then Kazan also has the habit of having two of his characters talk while he swings the camera directly behind one of them while the conversation continues.  Every time he did that, I was distracted by the visual handicap of not being able to see the speaker's face to help me better judge the mood of what was being said.  It just didn't work for me.

So there you have it.  I don't pretend to be a serious movie critic, and I'm only pointing out my personal impressions of the movie here, but for me this one would rate somewhere between three and four stars out of five.  I'd love to hear what you think of it.

(And, hey, while we're at it what's with all those fancy sweaters this small town farm boy wears throughout the movie - and that Pee Wee Herman kind of walk he does around town?  Sorry...I'll stop now.)