His TV roles were touching, his
theatre roles were overwhelming (of the ancient heros as well).
When he made his first cinema movie,
"East
Of Eden," it was sure he was different
and about to change much. Such an old film now, and why am I moved so when
I see it -me, who hasn't had any experience of the way you could have felt
then, in the twenties...
The second movie doesn't need explaining, I guess. "Rebel Without A Cause" was less spectacular for the wider public, but it sure changed even more than could have been expected after "East Of Eden." A whole new fashion sprung up -or at least the film helped it a lot to popularize. The place was ready for Elvis to come and take it all from the parents' and 'suit and tie' congressmen's hands... Police's violence and ways of dealing with youngsters were shown in very straightforwardly. Everybody was aware till then that that was the real thing, but not many wanted to admit it. The way Jim the hero treated his parents was not ever seen before, as far as I know, on the screen. They were always 'the untouchables,' the ones to respect and obey. Well only in theory, as juvenile rioting had revealed itself some time earlier, even in Europe (the West End teds in London ruled the streets back from 1954).
The last film he starred in, unfortunately, wasn't a good one, being Elia Kazan's work, though. But who could have known it was to be his goodbye to the fans? "The Giant" was in my opinion too boring, though it had some good scenes. The shots of Jim against the background of Texas fields were great. But neither Rock Hudson nor Elizabeth Taylor showed much of their acting skill. What was Jim supposed to do with a role so small?
You may see a great site dedicated to him at James Dean Gallery.