MovieChat Forums > Rebel Without a Cause (1955) Discussion > Culturally significant

Culturally significant

posted 11 years ago by LukeLovesFilm28
8 replies | jump to latest

First of all, this is going to be as deep and profound as I can make it. It comes from actually looking at society from an objective point of view. I'm not taking sides. I'm not making excuses. I'm simply expressing my observations.

Rebel Without A Cause is basically set in 1955, right? It's the middle of the "evil, patriarchal" 1950s. Women are supposedly subjected to cruel social constraints by evil men, right??

Well, I see Jim's mom, being completely dominant of Jim's dad. Dad is very emasculated. For Christ's sake, he's wearing a lace apron at one point. Mom barks, bitches and moans to dad whenever she doesn't like something he does, and that's a lot of things.

Now, they wouldn't have wrote these characters to do this stuff if this wasn't based on fact. They have to be able to get into Jim's mind, they have to know how he thinks, why he thinks the way he thinks. So, by that, we can say that women in the 1950s had more power over men and their relationships than feminists would have us believe.

Now, feminists are trying to take over everything, leaving men in the gutters, desperate for work, desperate for a hand out.

Psychologists have made everyone believe that every dominating impulse in men are evil and sick. They're trying to make everyone believe that attachment between men and women is part of a sick, twisted patriarchal concept and that homosexuality is actually more healthy.

But, heterosexual impulses, including the aggression men have... are ALL natural and they should not be suppressed. You can't kill those feelings through fear... or else, you're no better than religious nuts.

You might called it, campy or hammy, but every feeling Jim had, all of the confusion, anger and frustration with his less-than-impressive role-model of a father was TOTALLY natural and understandable. He felt like he didn't belong. Natalie's character felt like she didn't belong, because she wasn't getting what she wanted out of her father. This could lead to violence in teens. Take Plato for example. He's confused, desperate, unable to fit in.

But, unlike Jim and Natalie, Plato felt like he couldn't speak to anyone about his problems. He didn't know how. He was suppressing them.

Now, language and speech should always be the number thing that unites society. We all should speak the same language, but we don't, especially today.

Plato repressed and suppressed his feelings so long, felt so alone, because no one understood him, he exploded. He did a few horrible things. He wasn't evil. He felt bad about what he did.

These school shootings could easily be seen in the same context. These kids feel like their parents won't listen or won't care that they're miserable, bullied, outed, subjected, etc in school. They keep it to themselves. They basically create an island unto themselves of fear, hate and aggression. Eventually, all they can see is that society hates them, society doesn't want to help and then, they turn into sociopaths.

We need kids to open up to us more. They can not be afraid of our reaction to these thoughts and feelings they may have... no matter what those thoughts and feelings are. Kids should be encouraged to say, "God, I want to just kill this kid that's bullying me in school."

That's not to say that the kid should be encourage to go out and commit that act. BUT, his or her fantasies should at least be indulged long enough for the adult to put him or her on another path. Re-direct their attention basically. That's the way to handle troubled kids.

You should not persecute and wag your judgmental fingers at them, make them feel more hate and disconnection. That's only gonna make things worse.

Or, do these people even care about solving the problem?? Do they want to cure the disease? They can't just keep looking at the dead bodies, the final results of the disease, if they want to actually fix the problem.

[–] vortexrider 9 years ago

I don't know where you got all the assumptions you base your commentary on. I don't see any themes on "patriarchal society" in Rebel Without A Cause.

[–] sarah-103 9 years ago

The movie totally supports 1950s gender roles. One of Jim's problem is that his father is not being a strong male role model. The movie shows what happens when the proper roles of the era are not observed. Also, there was a theory that absent fathers or domineering mothers would turn sons into homosexuals, which is what they were hinting at with Plato.

"Forget reality, give me a picture"-Remington Steele

[–] urgeking 9 years ago

Strange. The initial post seems to be written by two different people. One is actually trying to be analytical and understand things. The other person wrote stuff like this:

Rebel Without A Cause is basically set in 1955, right? It's the middle of the "evil, patriarchal" 1950s. Women are supposedly subjected to cruel social constraints by evil men, right??

Patriarchal, yes. In a lot of ways it was. But who ever called it "evil"? Feminists? Real ones? Let's see some documentation, please. This kind of claim is designed to replace reason with reactionary emotion: If people on the progressive side have fundamental criticisms of one of 'our' traditions or institutions, showing its negative consequences, we must discredit them and distract from their argument by crying out, "Look at that! They think the entire thing is EVIL and has to be destroyed! Wotta bunch of wackos!" It's a common right-wing tactic, and it's dishonest to the point of being tedious.

And yes, notwithstanding the existence of some domineering wives, American women of the '50s were, on the whole, subjected to a whole lot of social constraints that were not placed on men. If you don't believe that, you don't know much about the '50s. (By the way, just so you know, I'm a guy, and a straight guy at that.)

Now, feminists are trying to take over everything, leaving men in the gutters, desperate for work, desperate for a hand out.

There aren't enough jobs, so the solution is that women should stay home and let men do all the paid work? What year are you living in-- 1948?

Psychologists have made everyone believe that every dominating impulse in men are evil and sick. They're trying to make everyone believe that attachment between men and women is part of a sick, twisted patriarchal concept and that homosexuality is actually more healthy.

Uh, ri-i-i-i-ight, that sure sounds believable. Who said that? What "psychologists"? Come off it! That's like some of the goofy nonsense propaganda that gets spouted on 'born-again' radio. The remainder of your post shows you can be a lot more thoughtful than that.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 9 years ago

I knew I would get some ignorant responses.

Patriarchal, yes. In a lot of ways it was. But who ever called it "evil"? Feminists? Real ones? Let's see some documentation, please. This kind of claim is designed to replace reason with reactionary emotion: If people on the progressive side have fundamental criticisms of one of 'our' traditions or institutions, showing its negative consequences, we must discredit them and distract from their argument by crying out, "Look at that! They think the entire thing is EVIL and has to be destroyed! Wotta bunch of wackos!" It's a common right-wing tactic, and it's dishonest to the point of being tedious.

Since feminists are so desperate to change or destroy the patriarchy, that basically says that it's evil. It's no different than saying that we've got to end the reign of terror that is the Nazi party. Only smart people would look at the good points as well as all the bad points of a society like that and realize that it should be completely destroyed... especially the patriarchy - which has worked for so many cultures for so many years... just changed to better suit everyone.

There aren't enough jobs, so the solution is that women should stay home and let men do all the paid work? What year are you living in-- 1948?

How's this? Feminism is killing all motivation for men to work in these dead end jobs by killing our dignified role in the house, by convincing women that they don't need men - a mindset that actually helps create more attachment than the two roommates that fck relationship. When we feel like we're everything to this fragile, beautiful woman and our even more fragile children, we feel like we can and should do anything and everything for them. When we feel like a sperm donor or a rapist - like so many feminists want to make us out to be, it's not inspiring. It's degrading, it's offensive.

Of course, I'm talking about real men. Not those lazy mama's boys that don't want to take anymore responsibility than they need to. Who thinks its more rewarding to get drunk, get bad ass tattoos and sit on their asses playing video games than bringing a healthy, wonderful human being into this world or helping the mother of that child live a long, healthy life.

By the way, my dad is a psychologist and he's taught me a lot. Psychology has been almost completely hijacked by feminist dogma to believe masculinity and male authority are a sickness.

[–] urgeking 9 years ago

I knew I would get some ignorant responses.

Well, when you do get some, feel free to let us know.

Since feminists are so desperate to change or destroy the patriarchy, that basically says that it's evil. It's no different than saying that we've got to end the reign of terror that is the Nazi party.

Wow, you sure had to stretch things there to try and make the claim stick. So whenever anyone is "desperate to change" some situation or institution (remember, you said "change OR destroy"), that means they think it's actually evil? They aren't able to see something as being merely harmful, or even immoral-- they jump right to thinking it's as EVIL as the Nazis? They see nothing in between?

Sorry, but that's not an equation that most people normally make.

True, there are some reactionaries ('conservatives' is not the right word, because they're not) who go off the deep end about President Obama (or Michael Moore, etc., etc., insert name here) to the point of insisting that he "despises America" and is deliberately plotting to destroy it. They apparently think that their fervent desire to have something changed or scrapped is enough to make that thing evil by definition.

So perhaps to their mindset your claim is sensible: "Yeah, if we're opposed to something then it must be evil-- and we assume everyone thinks like this, so if feminists see major problems with patriarchy, they must think IT's totally evil, too, right?" Wrong.

(Apparently the word "basically" is there to provide an out-- 'Y'know, it's basically true-- that is, kinda, sorta.')

especially the patriarchy - which has worked for so many cultures for so many years... just changed to better suit everyone.

Depends on what you mean by "worked". Without patriarchy we probably wouldn't have had, among many other problems, the major wars of the last few centuries, wars that killed scores of millions of people. But then you say it's been "changed to better suit everyone"-- so the feminists must have done some good!

By the way, what "feminists" are you speaking of? Millennials? Their forty-something parents? Or Gloria Steinem's generation? Or just some straw women (and men) that you're imagining?

How's this? Feminism is killing all motivation for men to work in these dead end jobs by killing our dignified role in the house, by convincing women that they don't need men -

How is it? It's weird, man. What "dignified role in the house" would that be? The role of the dominant one who makes all the decisions? Or do you mean the role of sole breadwinner? The almighty 'free market' is what really put the nails in that coffin, thanks to its decades-long push to reduce wages and hours so that both spouses MUST work for a living just to make ends meet.

When we feel like we're everything to this fragile, beautiful woman and our even more fragile children, we feel like we can and should do anything and everything for them. When we feel like a sperm donor or a rapist - like so many feminists want to make us out to be, it's not inspiring. It's degrading, it's offensive.

So you either have them totally dependent on you, or else you're just a sperm donor? Dude, the whole point is, there's a whole lot of options in between those two extremes, and there have to be, and for decades men and women have been figuring out how to make them work.

If you're saying you need to be the sole breadwinner to feel like you're needed, then go argue with global corporate capitalism-- as we all SHOULD, starting now, and not stopping!-- because GlobCorpCap has managed to kill the single-earner family far more effectively than any real or imagined brand of feminism ever could.

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

Actually I found the film to be quite dated.

[–] jdb922 8 years ago

You claimed at the beginning of your post that you were going to be objective... well, you failed... especially with the "religious nuts" quip. Being religious doesn't mean that you're crazy. In fact, your entire thesis collapses under the weight of this mentality.

The Godless have a habit of clinging onto this false sense of hope that, "If we can only do THIS or THAT and THAT and THIS, then people won't be sad, we won't have any problems and everything will be wonderful!" They will inadvertently develop something of a God complex, and ignore the fact that they themselves are imperfect and corruptible, as are their personal diagnosis's and remedies.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't strive to improve. It's just that pouring all of your faith into humanity is a very flawed and even foolish policy. People will always let you down.

[–] urgeking 8 years ago

The Godless have a habit of clinging onto this false sense of hope that, "If we can only do THIS or THAT and THAT and THIS, then people won't be sad, we won't have any problems and everything will be wonderful!"

No, we do NOT have that habit. Nobody thinks that by using secular approaches to society "we won't have any problems and everything will be wonderful". NOBODY actually thinks that! Show me where someone actually said it. We know very well that people and their institutions can be incompetent, ineffective, and/or corrupt-- kinda hard to miss it!

But yes, if we do THIS or THAT and THAT and THIS, we can have fewer problems and some things will be better... IF we can determine the proper 'thisses' and 'thats' and figure out how to implement them intelligently.

But I DO hear that mindset you mentioned, that 'habit', all the time on 'Christian' radio-- If you're saved, then when Jesus comes you won't have any problems and everything will be wonderful. Those of us who are consciously and intentionally "Godless" do not think in such simplistic terms-- which is part of why we don't believe there IS such a god.

People will always let you down.

No, not ALWAYS. There's that simplistic mindset again. Some people won't, and the trick is to figure out who. But it's tricky. So (part of) humanity decides to invent a god who is always 100 percent dependable (did someone say "false sense of hope?")-- and to try and avoid any ambivalence about it, they tell themselves "By contrast, humans can NEVER be trusted!" That's a phony all-or-nothing construct, an attempt to create an artificially easy answer to the complexities of human society. It could look really attractive to someone who's been screwed and abused and betrayed by a lot of people, and that's understandable, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.