"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."
Early in his essay, Ebert claims that "the film has not aged well." Do you agree or disagree? Give me a paragraph that tells me why.
“Rebel Without a Cause” is a 1955 drama directed by Nicholas Ray. The protagonist of the film, a 17 year old teenager named Jim Stark (played by James Dean), is described in the title of the film. He’s a rebel, but he has no cause, or rather there is nothing specific that he is rebelling against. Critic Roger Ebert said: "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." This is true, but I do not think that this is due to any flaw in the design of the film; it is the point of the film. As a character, Stark does not appear to have any truly strong reason to rebel. He lives a comfortable life in the suburbs, with an upper-middle class family, his parents love and take care of him, he has a car, and there is really nothing against him. However, he does not fit into the teenagers around them with their false sense of superiority, and so he is deemed an outsider, one who fits in with the social pariahs like Plato, and so he is deemed by society a “rebel”.
ReplyDeleteThe film is a document of its time, however, many films can be viewed as such and it does not detract from the profoundness and impact of the film. “Dr. Strangelove” is a film of the cold war era, “Apocalypse Now” of the Vietnam war, but neither of these films has lost any of their importance, and neither has “Rebel Without a Cause”. The film does not know what it is trying to say, and this exasperated attempt to say something is reflected in Jim Stark’s era, where there is a widespread inability to say anything. However, this can easily be translated to any number of circumstances from any era or any generation. Jim Stark is the restless youth, who just happens to be restless in the world of phoniness; however, restless youth is a theme that has never died with any particular generation and never will.
So to say that "the film has not aged well" is a completely oblivious statement. Maybe you can but a date on a performance, or a camera style, but you cannot label “Rebel Without a Cause” as not existing in the present time. That is like saying that “Do the Right Thing” is no longer relevant because racial tensions in Brooklyn are no longer that high. The past, whether it is literature, painting, or films, is just as important as the present and future when it comes to art. “Rebel Without a Cause” may be just a snapshot of its time, a brief glimpse into the life of an adolescent in the 1950s, but it can still be applied to today and to the future, so it has aged along with each generation; it still has relevance to all youth.
Nicholas Ray’s 1955 “Rebel Without a Cause” portrays, as its name would suggest, a rebel of sorts, who acts without having a concrete cause. Jim, as the embodiment of many american teenagers, is simply unhappy and unfulfilled despite having nothing particular wrong with his life. As a result, he lashes out at those around him in his attempt to express something he can not explain: his emotions. The film, likewise, is unable to fully express Jim’s problems, for they are related to the teenage psyche and can not be explicitly translated to film. It can thus be said that "like its hero, Rebel Without a Cause desperately wants to say something and doesn't know what it is.” However, as Ebert pointed out, this is the appeal.
ReplyDeleteThe film’s inability to say something, or express a concrete problem, parallels the unmediated discontent that teenagers often feel. We are angry and frustrated with our parents (just as Jim and Judy are with their fathers), society, and our peers but often have no concrete reason to be and no way to articulate it accurately, resulting in more frustration. This frustration then leads to rebellion, whether it be sneaking out, breaking into a mansion, or taking part in a knife fight. To adults, these rebellious acts may seem like they have no cause, but they do, stemming from the desire to understand ourselves and be understood by others. It is thus a tendency that has not died.
Due to the aforementioned similarities between the teenagers in Rebel and the teenagers of today, I disagree with Ebert’s statement, for although the acting and plot may be a bit dated, the underlying meaning and its statement on the teenage mind is still incredibly resonant. We have all felt the way Jim is shown feeling, screaming and storming out on our parents for no ‘good’ reason, or participating in a dangerous act for the sake of maintaining our pride. Ebert may not realize it, as his teenage days are well behind him, but if a film can capture a teenage mentality that is still applicable fifty years later, I would say that it aged just fine.
Despite Roger Ebert’s critique, I believe that Nicholas Ray’s 1955 drama “Rebel Without a Cause”, has a definite (if implicit) purpose. Superficially, it is true that Jim Stark has nearly nothing to rebel against. He appears to have had a nice middle class upbringing, his family lives comfortably enough, he has his own car and nice clothes. His parents are unrealistically flexible with him, they uproot their lives and move for him, and the Stark parents’ anger in the police station is directed more towards each other, rather than their son. I think that Jim is embarrassed by his own emotional sensitivities which he most likely blames on his emasculated father. When Jim sees his father awkwardly dressed in a frilly apron over his business suit, he is not only filled with contempt and disgust but also fear; he is afraid that he will grow up to be his father.
ReplyDeleteContinuing this theme, the other two central characters, Judy and Plato, have unpleasant or nonexistent relationships, respectively, with their fathers. Judy craves to be close with her father yet her father is extremely uncomfortable with what he perceives as her budding sexuality and treats her roughly as a result. In contrast, we learn from other characters that Plato’s father (and mother) have essentially abandoned him. As a result, both characters appears to suffer from varied emotional issues similar to Jim’s. Ray appears to emphasizing the importance of dependable, understanding family in raising children. Solidifying this point, Jim and his father reconcile when Mr. Stark promises to be a stronger, more dependable father to his son.
I believe that contrary to Roger Ebert’s claim, “Rebel Without a Cause” has aged as well as one might expect. Certainly, the dialogue and the activities of the teenagers in the film is laughably unrealistic in the present, however, the idea of a “rebel without a cause” is by no means archaic. Jim Stark’s sensitivities and occasionally inexplicable and naive actions contain classic teenage qualities of angst, pride and rebellion. Without a doubt, “Rebel Without a Cause” is a film that attempts to capture a particular period. However, this does not mean that it is not timeless in its own right.
The 1955 film about teenage rebellion was coincidently named Rebel without a Cause and directed by Nicholas Ray. This film leaves a lot to be desired from the mise-en-scene to the cinematography, but when referring to the meaning of the film one may fall short. The explicit meaning is very clear and interesting. It appeals to a certain age group, but the mature use of violence and action may raise its level of appeal to a higher age range. The eclectic variety of personalities and problems allows everyone teenager to find a sample of themselves in this film. For example Plato, he represent kids who feel abandoned by their parents or were abandoned by their parents along with those who are struggling with their sexuality.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing the implicit meaning this film is definitely lost, or the audience is at a loss for what it is. When Roger Ebert says that “Rebel Without a Cause” wants to say something, but doesn’t know what it is” I would agree with him. The film deeply wants to have agreater meaning than just the obvious, but it doesn’t go any deeper than what is provided on the screen. There is no love story or struggle lying beneath, because there were no deeper thoughts of the protagonists. If the heroine was Plato than the film may have had some implicit meaning, but Jim’s character does not offer that.
In respect to other films of its time and before its time Rebel Without a Cause has not aged well. It is a good movie, but it does not offer the feeling of being an everlasting classic. The topic today has also changed a great deal along with some of the other hidden issues found in the film, including sexuality and daughter father relationship, both of which are discussed a little more openly than it may have been in the 50’s. The film offers little interest for the youth and potential audience today.
Nicholas Ray's 1955 film, Rebel Without A Cause is a film about the rebellious nature of teenagers. It is stated in the quote that the film is a film that is desperately trying to say something but does not know what it is. In a way, this is true, but at the same time, I disagree. A teenager's rebellion may sometimes be confusing and may not have a reason, but usually, rebellion is cause by the pressures of the pursuit of freedom, and that is exactly what this film is attempting to say.
ReplyDeleteThis film is a film about rebellious teenagers because it is a film that rebelled against conventional film techniques with its use of camera (angles), mise-en-scene, and plot. This film is trying to say that films and film makers should have more freedom in their art. By explicitly giving the sense that there is no reason to rebel, it creates the sense that there is more reason to rebel... if that makes sense. The breakdown: On the outside (explicit) it may seem as if there is no reason to rebel, but on the inside (implicit) , Jim Stark had inner frustrations about family and being loved that caused him to the rebellious teen our class fell in love with. The same goes with the film itself. On the outside, it was just a film about America's rebellious teenagers, but on the inside, it was more about the way the film was created and presented.
Like most of my peers, I disagree with Ebert's statement that this film did not "age" well. In actuality, it aged better than many films from this era. This film inspired many other films, such as Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing that was produced in the 1990's. By saying that this film is no longer relevant to the times can be seen as false because rebellion, especially in teenagers, will always be relevant to the world, Especially the American culture.
James Dean’s character Jim is undoubtedly rebellious and undeniably without a cause hence the title of the 1955 film. However, Nicholas Ray’s work as a whole finds a sense of purpose in commenting on a series of causes. “Rebel Without a Cause” ultimately serves as a criticism of the time period in which it was released. Whether deliberate or unintended, the film covers a wide variety of issues that more or less sum up the changing times. Of course the failed father figures of Jim, Plato, and Judy come to represent the effects of the heightening status of women in America, while characters such as Jim were beginning to emerge as idols influencing the younger population and perhaps driving them into their own rebellion.
ReplyDeleteA more timeless and universal “cause” that the film touches upon is the overall purpose and significance of mankind. The planetarium serves as a perfect destination for sparking ideas in Plato’s mind regarding his own importance. Finding his place in the world there forward becomes Plato’s cause in a sense. In scenes later in the deserted mansion, the three major characters put on a playful charade acting as if they are a happy family, something Plato has never had. He longs for this sort of connection and love between people. This scene is the last within the film that is remotely peaceful and pleasant. The overarching message here is that teenagers’ actions are influenced by home life, and with household structures changing so dramatically over a short period of time, teen behavior is destined to change as well. In this case, rebellion is a sort of escape for Jim and the other young characters.
“Rebel Without a Cause” is a timeless film as a commentary on the nature of humans and our endless desire for kinship and connection. The false world of Jim’s parents is tearing him apart and Plato is ultimately destroyed by a lack of familial structure. Sure, specifics, such as the activities carried out by the rebellious teens, are laughable at this day and age and the dialogue slightly melodramatic, but as a whole the film can be understood, the characters empathized with, and the message carried across. The film has aged relatively well.
Nicholas Ray’s 1955 drama, “Rebel Without a Cause,” explores the themes of teen angst, the generation gap, and the pressing struggle of finding oneself. The film, as a whole, seems to lack meaning-- as Roger Ebert stated; “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.” Growing up in a stable middle class family, protagonist Jimmy Stark’s actions do not appear to be very founded. He does not have reason enough to be so rebellious, which brings up the question of what exactly is the film
ReplyDeletetrying to say?
The film is a “document of its time” in the ways it relates to the socio-cultural context of the 50’s. It proved to be a time of a generation that was deeply transcending socially, politically and culturally. It can be seen as a significant time of awakening- as teens began to become more quizzical and self aware. This directly parallels the film, as Stark and his friends often acted out without reason, simply because they were questioning authority and more prominently, the society they lived in.
I think the most significant aspect of “Rebel Without a Cause” is its timelessness. Its ability to relate to all generations of teens, no matter what time period, is what makes its such an incredible work of art. I understand where Ebert is coming from when he exclaims that “the film has not aged well,” because of how dated and oldschool the plot and cast of characters may seem nowadays. However, I would generally have to disagree with his sentiment because of the films universal themes. The ideas of teen angst and rebellion will never not be relevant and ever-present aspects of growing up or coming of age. With this, it can be said that Ray’s film will always be an important part of film history and a significant social commentary on society and youth as a whole.
Nicholas Ray's 1955 film, Rebel Without A Cause is a film that I feel was released not looking for complete understanding and popularity, but more to portray the rebellious nature of teenagers as well as take advantage of unexpected usage of different camera angles as well as mise-en-scene techniques. As stated “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." I personally enjoyed the way that this film was put together even though it may be confusing to figure out what the film was exactly trying to say, but I agree that if it did know then it would lose its fascination because then it would just be a regular film that the audience would expect. It also may be confusing as to who the audience of this film should be as it incorporates the lifestyle of teenagers, but then it also includes mature situations as well as violence that is better handled by mature audiences.
ReplyDeleteWhen the quote states that “Rebel Without a Cause desperately wants to say something and doesn't know what it is” I completely agree regarding to the fact that the film doesn’t really follow the structure of a an actual plot or a disaster or hero or anything. There is no underlying meaning within the film. It’s kind of a you get whatever you take from the film so every person that watches this film could have a completely different idea or feeling about what was trying to be portrayed.
In terms of the film not aging well, I agree. This film didn’t have enough depth to it to be a classic. Also times have changed so much that the situations dealt with in this film such as the relationship between Judy and her father wouldn’t be intriguing to viewers in the present cinematic world. There are some films that will never get old, but this is not that type of film and I feel that that wasn’t the goal. I think the film was made for the time that I was produced (1950’s) and I feel that Ray was content with that as he just wanted to “rebel” against the stereotypical film and create his own style.