It's a good point because Sal Mineo was what, 15, 16? Could you see somebody like that in Jim's part? I can't, and don't forget Jim is 18, not Judy's age or Plato's. To be convincing, you have to play the part well, and I think James Dean had enough hang ups from his life from the adults who he felt did him wrong, his mother dying on him, his father abandoning him, etc., that he had enough experience as that tortured teenager to do it true justice.
reply
share
toldyousew
11 years ago
tion of whether someone like Sal Mineo at his age would be playing Jim's part.
What you posted wasn't even a realistic choice, so I don't even know why you went there.
What could have worked is if James Dean at age 17 or 18
had played the role.
He looks older than his actual 24-years-old at the time as it is.
It is not enough that he did the personality well of a troubled youth.
Country + RAP = CRAP
Country + ROCK = CROCK
reply
share
novastar_6
11 years ago
Except it DID work with him as a 24 year old playing an 18 year old, a timeless tradition in the history of Hollywood that has continued for generations to come. If it DIDN'T work, do you think the movie would've been the hit it was?
reply
share
toldyousew
11 years ago
novastar_6 stated:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Except it DID work with him as a 24 year old playing an
18 year old, a timeless tradition in the history of Hollywood
that has continued for generations to come. If it DIDN'T work,
do you think the movie would've been the hit it was?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the largest reason of the movie being a success by far
was due the star power of James Dean. But he wasn't supposed to
be playing an 18-year-old. He was supposed to be playing a
17-year-old*, which makes it even more unbelievable, combined
with Dean's more mature looks. James Dean at the time could
easily pass for someone who was at least in his early thirties.
Fans and fanatics were willing to overlook big age discrepancies
because of their obsessions. The film did as well as it did, in spite
of James Dean not looking age-appropriate. That is, the movie was
the hit it was, *despite* "it" (the age believability thing)
not working.
And the phrase of yours "a timeless tradition in the history of Hollywood
that has continued for generations to come" adds no support to the
statement(s) that just preceded it. It's just a blanket generalization.
It is irrelevant.
What matters is *his* particular role in *this* film.
* "Seventeen-year-old Jim Stark (James Dean) enrolls at
Dawson High School."
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Without_a_Cause
reply
share
novastar_6
11 years ago
If you actually bother to watch the movie, you'd know he's 18. Since when is Wikipedia going to know more than the actual movie?
reply
share
activista
11 years ago
@toldyou
You totally forget that in real life there ARE teens who look older than their actual age, so there really wasn't anything wrong with the way Dean looked. plus he played the part well, plain and simple. And, he frankly made the role more interesting/more complicated than just your typical stereotypical bland '50's teen role, which is part of what makes the film reasonate today. Believe me, not every teen looks their actual age, or can even look alder than they really are.
reply
share