Life

Greetings again from the darkness. The film's title has multiple meanings: "Life" Magazine as the source for the famous photographs we have seen so many times; the crossroads in "Life" of both rising star James Dean and photographer Dennis Stock; and a philosophical look at "Life" - how quickly things can change, and how we should appreciate the moments.

Director Anton Corbijn (A Most Wanted Man, The American) and screenwriter Luke Davies offer up a snapshot of 1955 as the not-quite-yet-famous James Dean (Dane DeHaan) traveled cross-country with photographer Dennis Stock (Robert Pattinson) from Los Angeles to New York to Indiana. Each man was searching for their true self as Stock's professional ambition and personal stress are palpable, while 24 year old Dean's ambivalence about his pending superstardom borders on self-destructive.

DeHaan and Pattinson both underplay their roles, and it's certainly more than a little confusing to see Pattinson in a movie about James Dean where he is not the actor playing the icon. DeHaan captures the low key, soft-spoken side of Dean but only teases at the "rebel" studio head Jack Warner (Sir Ben Kingsley) wanted so badly to control. We get a feel for Dean's vision of challenging roles in quality productions … a commitment to the art of acting he no doubt sharpened in his time with acting guru Lee Strasberg. The story leans more heavily to the tale of photographer Stock, which is unfortunate, because he is significantly more awkward than interesting. Pattinson plays him as a social misfit who broods nearly as much as the "moody" young actor he is stalking through the streets.

The period look is well appointed, and we are privy to some of the moments of Dean's life just prior to the release of East of Eden and his being cast in Rebel Without a Cause. His relationship with Pier Angelli (Alessandra Mastronardi), friendship with Eartha Kitt (Kelly McCreary), and his bond to the family and farm of his childhood in Indiana are all captured. In fact, it's the clumsy relationship with Stock that comes across as the least realistic portion … though it may very well have happened this way. Even the manner in which the famous photographs were taken is underplayed … although it makes for a terrific tie-in with the closing credits where the real Stock/Life Magazine photographs are displayed.

It's now been 60 years that James Dean has exemplified Hollywood "cool", a label that can never be removed due to his tragic death in 1955 after making only three films. Capturing the essence of what made Dean cool is unnecessary because it's present in every scene of those three films, as well as the photographs taken by Dennis Stock. That's all the legacy either man needs.

"Life (2015)" is the fourth film directed by notorious Dutch photographer and director Anton Corbijn, in which we get a look into the life of James Dean. Corbijn proves to be an accomplished director since the release of his debut and gritty masterpiece "Control (2007)". A film that set the bar so high it became hard to satisfy his newly found fan-base. After his escapades with the thriller genre he returns to the genre he became known for, a biopic. And this time our favorite "Rebel" gets the "Corbijn- treatment", or so we hope.

As the title suggests the story revolves around Dennis Stock, a photographer for the magazine "Life", who gets the assignment to shoot rising and rebellious Hollywood actor James Dean, before the release of his first headlining film "East of Eden (1955)". A friendship develops between both gentleman and the pair travel to L.A., New York and Indiana to get those precious shots Stock is longing for.

DeHaan rather gives us his own interpretation of James Dean. The resemblance between portraying and portrayed actor is marginal. Stock on the other hand is portrayed by Pattison who gives a dull performance although the concept of his role feels dull on its own, something we can't blame Pattinson for directly. Stock's assignment and private life should feel like a struggle though this is poorly translated into the script.

Throughout the movie there are sparks of chemistry between both but in the end it's sad to see that this chemistry is absent for most of the film. It's because of these aspects this period drama sometimes feels like it's sleepwalking throughout its own story, which is a shame considering the fact that "Life" can be considered as almost a personal film for Corbijn. You might expect that a photographer making a film about photography would create something more lively than the overall boring "Life".

Maybe Corbijn made us spoiled little brats, we expect too much from the director that gave us "Control", while you can't blame an audience for expecting something more daring than "Life". James Dean was not only a fascinating character, he also possessed a complexity towards his sexual identity, something the film largely ignores. In conclusion there are some pleasing touches, such as the beautiful cinematography or a refreshing cameo by Ben Kingsley, but in the end this film becomes a frustrating experience for Corbijn fans.

Not that this necessarily pertains to the period of interaction between Dean and a photographer, but Dean was a race car driver. He was heavily involved in that during that year. So he wasn't just a restless spirit laying around. He had a daredevil spirit and lots of races. He was portrayed here as a bored farm boy. What I did like was showing how people get to know each other over time, and how life is actually fairly boring even for a burgeoning star during the inactive hours of a week. Even James Dean has to eat, sleep, visit family, and sign paperwork.

But there was not much reason shown for anyone to find Dean interesting. Even the photographer, who was initially captivated by some indescribable quality, scolded him for being a whiny self-interested nobody.

Having said that, and having read comments from Dean fans, I am willing to believe that the real Dean had charisma and a face that expressed pain and depth.

I liked the farm sequence. It showed you that Dean wasn't really a rebel, because he loved his family, his home town, and America. Everyone comes from somewhere. He's from a sleepy small town in the Midwest and his mother died when he was young. That should explain his sleepy demeanor tinged with sadness.

The nudity was great, because that girl was beautiful. But it was totally gratuitous. There is absolutely no reason to show boobs when two people are talking in bed.

You do get a sense that the country is on the brink of a new vibe, with the balance of old and new in the culture., and our characters' comfort in hanging out with black folks.

Look, there's not much to this story, but it is mildly interesting to see the life of a struggling early Hollywood photographer, and a fresh star. Plus I always enjoy depictions of male bonding, with all their ups and downs.

Unless those things interest you, avoid it. Because like life itself, this thing is dull.

A movie about James Dean stands or falls by the portrayal of the man. Everything else is secondary to capturing that unique mesmerizing person.

I am a straight male, yet I remember the first time I googled that name and started browsing his photos. There was something there completely out of the ordinary. Strength with fragility, sadness with mischievousness, rebellion resting in the moment. Its like watching young Marlon Brando or Ryan Gosling in a movie like Drive, there is something extraordinary there your brain cant define but can understand.

Dane DeHaan, who I don't know outside of this movie, could probably portray Justin Bieber just fine, but playing James Dean requires a different beast of an actor all together.

Potentially this could have been the most interesting work from Anton Corbijn, as he is himself a well-known portrait photographer. The story is about Magnum photographer Dennis Stock (Pattison) convincing a reluctant upcoming James Dean (DeHaan) to follow him to make a series of portraits. As you might know, Magnum set new standards in photography and Stock in his famous series contributed to a completely different view on portrait photography of stars: natural setting, confrontational, honest and direct.

During the movie, a bond grows between the two, as Dean turns out to be an atypical Hollywood star ignoring the rules set out by his superiors resulting in several confrontations. Stock largely ignores his duties to his former wife and their child and becomes obsessed by Dean's idiosyncrasy. The second part is the most interesting as it almost deconstructs Dean's life and character: Dean comes from a farmland family of Quakers, likes local poets and is fond of his background and actually despises stardom. Stock is first able to shoot pictures in New York (you probably know the famous photograph) and in Indiana.

So what are the downsides: the pacing is too slow, the editing certainly not perfect and the most important trap: Corbijn as photographer is too much in love with the story, finding details relevant that are actually not that relevant. The question keeps popping up: Why does this matter? Life fails in a way as a mood piece, but is still a relatively good and stable character drama as the deconstruction works well.

Maybe both Pattison and DeHaan are too light to pull this off more convincing, but one role is certainly amazing: Ben Kingsley as Jack Warner is so spot-on you will be remembering the character despite the limited screen time.