Joshua Tree, 1951: A Portrait of James Dean (2012) User Reviews

Snapshot through a smudged lens

[Suradit · 5/10 · 10 July 2013]

Had this movie been about a fictional Hollywood actor, I think I would have had a better opinion of it. I have no special insight into or biographical knowledge of James Dean, but having seen his movies not long after they were made and watched some more recent shows about him on TV, I had a sense of who he was. He always seemed to me an attractive, erotic, if somewhat difficult to understand, icon of the 1950's. I grew up in the 50's and 60's, and his rebelliousness struck a chord in me. I always felt an ill-defined empathy for what was driving his behavior.

There were occasions when the actor in this movie managed to evoke a feel for Dean, but they were just momentary, static poses. There was really very little about either his appearance or behavior that helped me to connect to the James Dean I think I knew.

In general, when watching a good movie I expect to be drawn into it and to forget that I am watching actors acting. It's a sort of voyeurism. In this movie, I never forgot that I was watching actors act, reading lines written for them by someone else about someone they neither knew particularly well nor cared very very much about.

Basically I was disappointed. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I never really felt I was watching anything to do with James Dean and the heavy black & white moodiness of the presentation seemed more contrived and ponderous than evocative.

Like Dean himself ... promising but unfulfilled.

[twilliams76 · 6/10 · 8 September 2013]

For James Dean fans -- who only made three feature films in his lifetime (East of Eden, Rebel Without a Cause and Giant) -- this will lamentably NOT be the biopic many would be hoping for. The title actually gives this away by calling itself a "portrait" of Dean by highlighting a brief portion of his life in Joshua Tree, California in 1951. Dean didn't make "it big" in film until 1955 (the year of his death) and his two consecutive Oscar nominations were posthumous in 56 and 57. This small film highlights a small phase of Dean's life as he struggles with acting and his drive to become famous.

In the film, Dean is taking an acting class to learn the ropes and establish his footing in southern California while he lives with a nice classmate who apparently has some deeper feelings for him -- the film is based upon the writing of this roommate. Much has been said about Dean living a bisexual lifestyle and this film "goes there" -- some won't want to see how much skin is on display here (there isn't even that much but it might upset some is all) -- although the film never really goes into any of the particulars with any of Dean's relationships so the audience never knows if Dean felt anything for anybody else or if all of his moves were calculated and methodical ... hoping something would come from this fling or that encounter.

The film feels rather pretentious at times (it is about James Dean!) but its stylish elements save it from being loathsome and detestable while the acting feels amateurish yet adequate. The landscape and views of Joshua Tree are breathtakingly beautiful and these simple moments in the film are gorgeously shot. There are parts of this that are not great but just when a moment is becoming almost unbearable the film offers up something commendable that makes one take notice.

There is a lot of promise here (like its subject matter) and it is disappointing that the film couldn't be more (again ... like its subject matter). This is probably a hard film to find and track-down and it won't be for everybody; but those fans of Dean's work probably won't mind seeing this small tribute to the star trying to make it in 1951 while not catching any breaks. It isn't much and is rather lite.

Joshua Tree, 1951 is more "art" than anything else ... it is a what if (as most of it is merely alleged; but what isn't?). James himself is a what if ... if only. There was something there with Dean ... and there is something here too. It just comes up short and never lives up to its potential. Again ... truly fitting and the disappointment one feels as the credits role is the exact disappointment that should be felt for this life that was cut short.

If this were the filmmaker's intent, I'd say "genius"; but I'm not certain of that. As is, though, ... it is quite good.

Film Noir version of James Dean bio

[jsuddath · 7/10 · 13 August 2012]

I saw this film at the North Carolina Gay & Lesbian Film Festival, and I had mixed feelings about it. It was shot primarily in black & white, with only a few scenes in color. Those supposedly were old home movies, but they were shot with a Brownie box camera so that was only one of the confusing aspects of the movie. The gaps in continuity were distracting as the as action switched back and forth between Hollywood and the Joshua Tree National Park.

The dark scenes and mumbling dialog I guess were supposed to portray the moody and isolated personality of James Dean. The young actor who portrayed him was even more handsome than the character he played. The scenes with the tricks on the dock and the beach were very homo erotic and explicit , and that may offend some people. The premise that he was gay and used that to advance his career was played out in long scenes around Hollywood moguls' swimming pools and in great houses or famous supper clubs. He was one of the pretty boy playthings of the powerful king pins of that era, and it was shown in all its crassness. I guess you could say it showed life in that era warts and all.

The thing that troubled me the most was the contrived nature and the self-conscious effort of the film to be "artistic." The use of extreme close-ups and high contrast dark lighting may have been intended to evoke the mood of that era but just came across as phony. The "method acting" scenes probably were necessary to describe his career, but they played a little too long.

The awkward and touching scenes with his "roommate" probably were the most realistic and natural part of the show, and they revealed more of the real personality of the character of James Dean. The literary allusions to Le Petit Prince and quotes from the gay French poet Rabelais were a bit affected. I read the book in French class 50 years ago (it was published in 1943), and it was the rage in that era. Somehow the allusions to Rabelais only made me recall the role that pretty boy Leonardo Decaprio played as the super bitchy lover of that poet in an early film in his career. Apparently a lot of young actors played gay roles when they were the only ones they could get.

I think the film portrayed the personality of James Dean in the way that it was intended to do: episodic, confused, filled with repressed anger and doubt, and all of the other characteristics of Rebel Without A Cause. That, of course, was one of the most explicitly gay films of that era with Sal Mineo's adoration of James Dean. Sal Mineo was notoriously gay and played it to the hilt in that film.

I guess I liked it because it took head on the rumors about one of the gay icons of that era. I didn't like the concept that to be artistic you can't just tell a story; you have to distort it with a lot of gimmicks.

Should have been titled: A Portrait of James Preston

[jm10701 · 14 September 2013]

If you've never seen East of Eden or Rebel Without a Cause or Giant; and if you know and care nothing about James Dean; and if you'd rather look at Abercrombie & Fitch ads than watch a movie; and if you like to daydream that all beautiful men are gay; and if you like gazing at James Preston; and if a line like "It was as if I had seen in black and white my entire life and suddenly I saw in color" (in an excruciatingly solemn movie that switches between black and white and color) sends you into ecstasies of intellectual bliss, then this is the movie for you.

If you HAVE seen the real James Dean in ANY movie, then you cannot for one second accept this milky crap as anything but one very stupid man's wet dream. Matthew Mishory should be slapped silly for wasting fantastic cinematography on this silly, stupid, pretentious movie.

I admit that James Preston is fabulously beautiful, and if this movie hadn't even pretended to be about James Dean, then I could have gazed in drooling stupor at him in every frame. But his transcendent gorgeousness is one reason he makes an absolutely terrible James Dean. Dean looked and acted more like James Franco than like James Preston.

The other reason Preston makes an absolutely terrible James Dean is that he's a smug, self-satisfied, talentless wimp, gorgeous on the outside with nothing but marshmallows inside. Dean was raw, vulnerable, fascinating, unstable and dangerous as a lit firecracker, not at all the cool, smug, calculating opportunist Mishory makes him here because it's all Preston's acting ability allows.

The only wise move Mishory made was not letting Preston try to recreate even one second of any performance Dean ever gave. The only glimpse of Dean "acting" we see is him jumping over a table in acting class.

The James Dean of this movie is like the real James Dean in only one way: he's short.

What a mess this is!

[Johnboy1221 · 1/10 · 22 June 2013]

This movie is simply horrendous! From start to finish, I had trouble staying focused on what was going on. The dialog, and the story in general was boring and unbelievable. Add that to the fact that the actors were terrible, and you get a real mess. James Preston, while handsome, was no James Dean, by any stretch of the imagination. His hair is too long, he looks nothing like Dean in the face, and his mannerisms are deplorable. And it is not sexy, if that was the intent. The movie features long lustful looks at naked and half naked men and women, but hasn't one ounce of sensual appeal. A waste of 93 minutes. You've been warned. This movie is not recommended by me.

Oscar-worthy!

[bomalley7373 · 10/10 · 31 May 2012]

Good movies entertain. Great movies linger in the viewer's mind long after the end credits roll. Joshua Tree, 1951: A Portrait of James Dean does exactly that. It's been days since I viewed this amazing film at the Seattle International Film Festival and I can't get it out of my mind.

To appreciate this film one must cast aside all preconceived notions of who the so-called hyper-cool stud James Dean was - or wasn't. One must surrender to the film's almost dream-like, nonlinear storyline. One also must also not be homophobic to enjoy this unique gem of a film.

Joshua Tree, 1951 is simply beautiful, from the surprising opening scene to the end. James Preston, playing James Dean, gives a raw portrayal of the price Dean paid to become a star. Preston skillfully plays Dean as he was before the world knew him: fresh off the farm, seething with ambition, hungry for knowledge. Dan Glenn masterfully plays The Roommate (rumored to be real-life former Dean roommate Bill Bast), painting a remarkably beautiful portrait of love that could never be in the early 1950s. The audience sympathizes The Roommate as the one who paid the life-long price for loving Dean. Ed Singletery, playing Roger, is a wonderful metaphor for the Hollywood "machine," and Dalilah Rain, playing Violet, is a delight to watch.

The cinematography is sure to attract the attention of award ceremonies and will be studied in film schools for years to come.

Go see this film!

Misplaced

[B24 · 4/10 · 13 November 2014]

From my point of view this rather dreamy film-noir mood piece adds little to our understanding of James Dean as an actor. I followed his career at the time in such magazines as Photoplay and Modern Screen, saw all his movies as soon as they came out, and read the clippings avidly. No ordinary fan at the time believed even the slightest hint that he was gay. Indeed, that whole concept as it is now so glibly thrown about had yet to be taken up by Middle America. He was then defined in part by playing opposite Natalie Wood, Julie Harris, and Elizabeth Taylor. Ditto his penchant for fast cars. If there are in fact scenes in his three films that can be interpreted today as demonstrative of overtly erotic interaction with the likes of Sal Mineo or Rock Hudson, they prove very little about the actor himself.

On the other hand, this film is a compelling cinematic portrait constructed around a half-dozen major biographical studies that provide independent evidence of Dean's early career apart from those films. That limited portrait is what the film is about, not all the other loose ends of his professional career. It is a picture made up of second and third-hand stuff as seen through the virtual lens of a Kodak Brownie camera (I had one of those myself at the time). But just because the portrait is presented in a heavily shaded black- and- white panorama of the Mojave Desert purportedly in 1951 is no reason to regard it as historically superior to the more linear and Technicolor alternative that has yet to be filmed.

James Dean deserves a film version of his life that explores more fully his childhood, his teens, his years in New York, his sexuality (admit it, folks, he was gay), his pixie-like sense of humor, his first breakthrough into major films, and the effect he had on both co- workers and contemporary fans. This present film is like a slowly constructed line drawing, moving snail-like across the page.

Beautiful Dream

[randallross822 · 8/10 · 17 July 2012]

I saw the film last night at the Outfest Film Festival in Los Angeles. This is a visually beautiful new film about James Dean, the iconic actor who is still very revered and loved and whose film legacy still continues strong 57 years after his death. This is not the typical biopic though, it gets into details about his life that were not well known until recently. James Preston is excellent playing James Dean expressing his ambition and vulnerability, willing to play the game in Hollywood to get a chance and still keeping the powers that be from ruling or controlling him. He was a rebel in the sense that he wanted to be true to himself and his talent above all else and lived and experienced a great deal and achieved his dream by the age of 24 when he died. The film takes place in the few years before his acting led to the three films he would do eventually that would propel his star and fame and became his legacy. He's in the process here of becoming a real actor and starting to understand who he wants to be as a man. In 1951 Dean was only 20 and he was trying to figure himself out and those around him and to understand what's important to him. Much of the film seems like almost dream like sequences or partial scene memories filmed in beautiful black and white striking images, the cinematography is top notch! I've read biographies on Dean's life and the movie is accurate from the accounts I've read. The director/writer Matthew Mishory, did a very good job making a film about his subject in a way that's unique and hasn't been done in the same way before. The supporting cast is very good as well. I recommend seeing it and I'm looking forward to seeing it again!

Exploitative

[MovieMan7122 · 1/10 · 9 November 2013]

Well, 2 minutes into this film and you become aware that this is stylized gay porn. Not meaning to be demeaning, because such knowledge should help some to go straight to net-flicks for 93 minutes, and others might look for something else, particularly for a straight-date flick. Whereas there have been a few testimonials that Dean was Bi; much of the evidence suggests Dean was more of a career opportunist than lustful, as regards gay activity. This film illustrates a level of gay activity that could only have been extracted from an autobiography that doesn't exist. Way too much emphasis is placed on Dean's dubious gay connections for career success. We're supposed to take Mishory's word for it. If you really appreciate the level of Dean's work, then avoid this stylized junk.

Beautiful but disappointing

[bruc58 · 2/10 · 22 June 2012]

This film appears to have been an initial high concept that lost it's way.

Very pretty cinematography and dreamy settings are compelling the first 20 minutes but cannot hold attention for the next 70 minutes. Described by the director as a non-narrative film composed of dreams and memories, it would have been a very successful short. Poor sound often renders dialog incomprehensible, some very hazy character relationships, and poor acting by some of the cast further distracts this work from audience engagement.

One of the most enjoyable scenes in the film is nightclub singer Jeff Harnar's number.

Just Brilliant

[patmoore93105 · 10/10 · 30 May 2012]

JOSHUA TREE 1951 is brilliant. It touched my heart so deeply, there were tears running down my cheeks as it concluded. Because of the film, I FELT James Dean. I FELT the greatness of his talent and I felt the pain of his choices. Not many films can do this. Director Matthew Mishory captures the terrible conflict between what an artist must do for his art and what he gives up - the risks he must take, the life he gives up in order to progress, to honor, to grow his art - and the artist's personal life - love, relationships, family, stability. With the specter of Fate hanging heavily over the film like the thick clouds of the Joshua Tree desert hanging over the characters, Mishory explores the concept of "destiny". Are the artist's choices inevitable?

Original and Breathtaking

[hollingsworth_devin · 10/10 · 26 September 2012]

I would recommend this film for the cinematography alone but the unique way this story is told, combined with some very good acting, makes Joshua Tree 1951: A Portrait of James Dean a true winner. It made me want to know even more about who James Dean really was. After viewing this film I went straight home and ordered the book this film is loosely based on. The Director said The Roommate wrote a real-life account of his life with James Dean and I ordered that book as well. I am looking forward to seeing these actors in more films to come.

There is a scene with the James Dean character and The Roommate that brought tears to my eyes. I can't wait to view this film again just for that scene. Amazing film. Amazing acting.

Dreamy, Mushy and yes...beautiful!

[mstahl29 · 9/10 · 16 November 2014]

I was born in April of 1956. The real James Dean hadn't been dead for a year yet and so I hadn't seen his movies or his images until my teen years. The real James Dean was OK looking, but James Preston's James Dean is the stuff of dreams and fantasies that stay in your head longer. The softer character portrayal and erotic sensual man on man scenes are nothing shameful to watch and you see the beauty of both the inside of Dean's (and Preston's) spirit and what made Jimmy as himself. The flow of this movie stayed in it's artistic, sensuous style and to me, that was the beauty of it. It was like getting an intimate glimpse into someone's life you didn't know much of before, but now you feel privileged for the knowledge of it if that makes sense. All the actors did a good job, but it was the relationship between Dean and his roommate that I wanted to see and wasn't disappointed. I can watch this film over and over because of it's sensitive, alluring presentation presented so nicely by James Preston.