Please read Roger Ebert's Great Movies essay on Rebel Without a Cause. In 2 paragraphs, please discuss the following quote:
"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."
Also, early in his essay, Ebert claims that "the film has not aged well." Do you agree or disagree? Give me one paragraph that tells me why (with evidence from the film).
I think the way Ebert describes Rebel Without a Cause shows that the nature of the movie creates such an impression as he describes. Like most teenagers, Jim and the rest of the characters are still growing up and developing their own views about the world. They don’t say what they mean explicitly because they’re still figuring things out themselves. You could say they don’t seem to have a “cause”, and this is reflected in the idea that the movie itself doesn’t quite seem to know what it’s trying to say.
ReplyDeleteThat’s the magic of movies. The meaning is embedded in every mise-en-scene, every angle of the lighting, every bright or subtle coloration in a costume for audiences to glean their own interpretations of the themes. A movie without a mystery, just like any person, loses its fascination. If a movie ever explicitly states what it’s about, it ceases to be anything insightful. Rebel Without a Cause takes this a step further with its ambling plot where nothing ever seems quite real to either the characters or the audience. The carefree attitude the movie takes toward developing a specific plot based around specific themes is what makes it a “subversive document” for movies of its time.
It depends on how you define “aging well”, but I do not agree with this statement. I think that Rebel Without a Cause is a fantastic film that has only gained more meaning and significance as it has aged. For one, it is one of the few earlier films that addresses homosexuality, albeit in a subtle way. The affection that Plato feels for Jim grow more obvious as the years pass, plus the muted lighting with pops of color create a nostalgic feel of when movies were less computerized and more raw human touch, more about the human condition. It’s a timeless story about teens dealing with growing up and facing hard realities, feeling that their existence, as the lecturer in the observatory implies, is of little consequence in the universe and struggling to find meaning anyway.
From what interpretation I gather from Ebert's claim, I almost agree with his statement. Rebel Without a Cause does seem a bit... confused. Not in that it doesn't know what it wants to say, but in that it doesn't know what it wants to focus on. The movie has several themes, such as the struggling power-relationship in a working-class family, masculinity, and emasculation; yet all of the themes are thrown together in one narrative without one ultimately reigning over the others.
ReplyDeleteThis is very much like the movie's protagonist, however, which is why I agree with the movie in this aspect. Jim finds himself conflicted and at odds with almost every circumstance he encounters; he doesn't agree with the overly brutish behavior of the "cool" kids, yet also feels the pull of his reputation at stake; etc. The movie brings us along on that ride, and just like the distraught teen protagonists presents a multitude of problems but ultimately not knowing the proper solution to any of it.
I disagree however in Ebert's assessment of the film's aging, and that it has gone poorly. I believe the film is very much still in place as an accurate presentation of teenage conflict in that, regardless of how the teenagers may feel, and how accurately they can paint the problem, they don't possess enough to create the solution on their own. The climactic example of this is that in their "family" they had created, which was going quite well, there were still problems. Plato still felt abandoned, and they still had to face the problems of the outside baring in. Sure, the over-acting is out of touch today and is a campy relic of its time, but given context that just helps to give it its aged charm.
I agree with Ebert that Rebel with a Cause has a lot of things to say but doesn’t focus in on any specifics. Through Jim’s dad’s relationship with his mom we see the effect of dysfunctional family on kids, through the other teenagers we see the effect of peer pressure, and through Jim’s Dad we see the effect of a dad on his son. It represented the changing culture of the time. The film was released in 1954 when gender roles were heavily shifting. Jim’s life is a microcosm of American fears, especially the problems involving his parents. The humiliating submission of Jim’s father echoed the cultural fear of male emasculation and the prophesied destruction of the typical American family. Although since that issue, along with Jim’s other life problems, was dealt with subtly they create a sense of authenticity that makes the film special.
ReplyDeleteHowever since the film dealt with rising fears at the time period it has not completely aged well. Jim’s most prominent issue of peer pressure is still valid today. However the destruction of the American family and death of the dominant male has already come to fruition so the scenes of Jim’s Dad in a dress fail to strike the same chord they did in 1954. Since these themes were handed so subtly though the film is still enjoyable. I Agree with Ebert that the film has not aged well although I don’t believe it has lost any value.
I agree with Roger Ebert when he says that "Rebel Without a Cause" has a lot to say, but "doesn't know how". A lot of the major focuses lie underneath all of the dialogue and action in the film. One example of this is the scene described in Ebert's essay when Buzz and Stark are about to chicken race and Buzz tells him "You know something, I like you" This shows the underlying idea of peer pressure. Because Stark is different Buzz is pressured to pick on him, and make him feel apart and not accepted. later he says "You gotta do something." which brings light to the very common idea of the male complex and how someone has to be in charge, be the one that everyone looks up to. We never really understand the conflict with Jim and Buzz and that is due to the focus not being placed on specifics. I do not agree with his comment that the film hasn't aged well because the underlying specifics are very prevalent in today's world such as Plato's struggle with homosexuality. The value and style of the film has only gotten better with time
ReplyDeleteCalah Turpin
I find myself agreeing with Roger Ebert when he says Rebel Without a Cause does not focus on any specific aspects yet has a lot to say. There are major themes of peer pressure during young adolescence, the importance of family chemistry, and the bond that is shared between a father and son. In fact, the film has a lot to say by exposing many aspects of the human condition but doing so without focusing on specific details. All of these themes are extremely significant and major and instead of simply focusing on one, Ebert kind of throws them altogether and doesn't delve too deeply in any of them. None of the themes appear to be more significant or important than the others. But rather, it appears as if these themes are a portrayal of society.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the fact that Ebert says the film has not aged well. In fact, I think the complete opposite. The film touches on such important themes that is quite hard to not relate to. Topics such as family chemistry such as their disfunctionality is still very relevant today. Many people grow up in dysfunctional families which affects them mentally. Everyone believes that their families are dysfunctional to some extent so I think everyone can relate to it. Along with that, the topic of homosexuality was raised in this film. Although it was more subtle, most likely due to the time period it was released in, it still portrays a reality for many people no matter what the time period was. It does not matter if it is 1954 or 2018 because there are still people to this day that might feel the same way and feel empathy. The film has simply become more valuable as it aged.
Roger Ebert's observation that "like its hero, Rebel Without a Cause desperately wants to say something and doesn't know what it is" is astute, and a crucial and intentional aspect of the film. Up until this point, teenagers and young adults were poorly represented in cinema, and this film is a step in the right direction. "Rebel"'s lack of focus seems to be an extended metaphor for the lack of overall life focus that is all too often present in teenagers, no matter what era.
ReplyDelete"Rebel Without a Cause"'s lack of narrative is also a vehicle for the fickle nature of the characters. Early appearances of Plato do not represent and hardly indicate how his character develops throughout the film. While it is made obvious that Plato is an outlier in school and is often bullied, his demeanor with Jim initially does little to foreshadow Plato's later violent outburst. While some might chalk this up to poor narrative structure, the true reason for this violent shift is that teens commonly attempt to suppress their troubling emotions, which results in drastic and often harmful actions. Plato's representation is meant to mimic the sad reality of the teenage psyche.
Ebert's claim that the film "has not aged well" is inaccurate in my opinion, but not unfounded. While the film holistically still represents aspects of the teenage experience, some things have changed significantly. For one, the lack of communication between child and parent is not as serious of an issue now as it was when the film was released. Also, society has become much better at addressing and de-stigmatizing mental health, which conflicts with how mental health is addressed in the film.
Roger Ebert observes in his review of "Rebel Without a Cause" the remarkable fact that despite this film's lack of focus, frequent mood shifts and confused, excessive and frequently meandering narrative, its discordant components somehow come together to create a truly classic and almost poignant experience. In a way, regardless of how intentional it was for the filmmakers, there is something genuine about the way it portrays its teenage leads because given who they are and what their most tangible problems are, it becomes clear than there is no legitimate reason for any of them to be rebelling in the first place. They're all white, able-bodied teens living in an upper class neighborhood in the 50s. Jim resents his father because he isn't the masculine ideal he wants to live up to, Judy's father refuses to give her the nurturing attention she had when she was a child, and even Buzz's aggressive ego is revealed to be a persona created out of general boredom and personal ennui. The only one with any validity to act out is Plato-a closeted orphan with major abandonment issues-and his reward is a mental breakdown and being killed by police brutality by the end of the film. People are killed and yet no time is given to grieve, motivations shift on a dime, and ultimately neither the film nor the characters seem to know what they really want. And yet, that's genuine. That's what its like to be a teenager; to be discontent and angry and suffering from existentialist without any way to truly understand why. And in a way, that's why the film works at all. It's characters are confused because it is confused because to be a teen it to be confused.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to his claim that the film has aged poorly, well...it's hard to deny. To paint this picture, consider Jim's relationship with his father, one of the film's primary driving narrative throughlines. As mentioned prior, his primary source of resentment with his father is his perceived emasculation under his wife, and in his need for a positive and reliable masculine force in his life his father is simply unable to provide. Certainly this appears almost reasonable-only that Jim's conception of a "proper father" is a machismo no-nonsense no-excuses domineering breadwinner and casual domestic abuser. And unlike many other aspects of the film, it never treats this particular conception as being wrong, just perhaps exaggerated at worst. Several scenes include Jim's father wearing a frilly apron and performing basic household chores, and they're framed as him being small, powerless and insignificant in his household, his person a source of embarrassment to how a "real man" should be. It's a product of its time, and yet at times genuinely uncomfortable.
I agree with much of Roger Ebert’s essay, particularly his comments concerning the lack of thematic focus in Rebel Without a Cause. The film touches on many different issues, from family troubles to peer relationships to the question of what it means to be a man. However, it mainly seems to raise questions about these topics rather than answer them. I think that this aspect of the film is representative of the teenage demographic that it features. The protagonist in Rebel Without a Cause, Jim, is confused because he is struggling with existentialism and questioning everything that occurs in his daily life. None of the characters have all the answers, so they resort to expressing their frustration through reckless and unconventional activities, such as knife fights and the “chickie run” that ultimately kills Buzz. I think that the volatile nature of the characters is reflected by the film’s tendency to jump from one theme to another without saying anything decisive.
ReplyDeleteI would not say that I entirely agree with Ebert’s claim that Rebel Without a Cause has not aged well. Many of the issues faced by the main characters are still relevant to young people today, especially the effects of family problems and peer pressure. Jim, Judy, and Plato are all unhappy with some aspect of their home life, which is shown to have a psychological impact on their behavior in the scene where the three of them act out a fantasy that they are a family. In addition, we see Judy’s attitude toward Jim vary greatly depending on who else is there, in an attempt to fit in with the rest of the kids. However, I think that the film’s treatment of gender roles is definitely outdated. Jim’s rage toward his parents is partially based on his father’s lack of traditionally masculine behaviors in the household. In one scene, his father is shown in an apron as he cleans up a mess, a sight that clearly disturbs Jim. He often seems disappointed by his father’s lack of dominance, eventually causing him to lash out and attack his parents before running off. Despite this, I do think that much of the teenage characters’ behavior can be linked to present-day issues.