Joshua Tree, 1951: A Portrait of James Dean

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.