I always loved the film East of Eden, was always a big James Dean fan. So i decided to read the book.
I can’t look at the film the same, at all. I’m disgusted that Lee’s character isn’t in the film at all. I’m annoyed that Cathy seemed to say “oh Cal” as if she could show any bit of love. I do still love love thé film really, and the redemption is including the german neighbor as a more prominent character rather than just a reflection from Steinbeck.
BUT WHAT and i genuinely mean this WHAT was Elia Kazan thinking?! Lee was the meat and bones of that book.
I do love that John Steinbeck reportedly quoted “Jesus christ he IS cal” upon meeting Dean because i just cannot see anyone ever being able to remake this film without James Dean.
I suppose while being floored with love for East of Eden i’m just, endlessly disappointed in the films exclusion of Lee. I’ll have to compartmentalize them in to separate things to continue my enjoyment of both.
by mellowcellophane
11 Comments
Haven’t seen the movie, but Lee is one of my two favorite characters in the book! The other being the despicable but fascinating Cathy.
You can’t film East of Eden properly, or arguably better than Kazan. Not enough space.
I wouldn’t judge him too hard.
Lee might be the meat and bones, but the film (which I also love) is missing its heart and soul as well, which is Samuel Hamilton
I think you would probably be more disappointed if the film did include Lee. Hollywood did not have a great track record with Asian characters in the 50s-60s. Case and point Mr. Yunioshi in Blake Edwards’ film adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffany’s filmed only 6 years later.
There’s also a 1981 TV miniseries version that follows the novel’s plot more closely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Eden_(miniseries)
The film was in 1955, when there was still segregation, the red scare happened pretty recently, the Korean War had just ended, and there was probably still a lot of anti-Japanese sentiment from WW2. I feel like it’s not that far-fetched that there’s no Lee.
I read the book first and was *crushed* by how inadequate the film was.
Finally I find people who see how badly the movie messes up the theme of the book! I was shocked when I saw the movie. Leaving Lee out undercuts the meaning of the book. Dean is good in his role, but the story isn’t EOE.
I think partly the movie was good is because they only focus on like, 1/4 of the book lol. No Charles and Adam, no Samuel Hamilton, no Lee.
When you dwindled a story to only a specific part and timeline, of course it’s easier to refine that part repeatedly. It’s like telling the story of Hound of Baskerville but you only talk about how Hugo Baskerville died but ignore everything else lol.
Yeah, I never watched the movie because it’s missing Lee.
This is quite timely as I’ve just finished reading EoE, after having read another ~15 of the all time classic novels from the likes of Twain, Lee, Eliot, Wilde, Orwell and others over the past few years – EoE is my favourite by some distance. A few thoughts from my side –
1- What primarily drives the brilliance of the book is the extensive character development of the likes of Sam Hamilton, Tom Hamilton, Lee etc. you want to walk up to them and shake their hands due to their intrigue and inspiration, and thus missing out such major characters from the movie creates an unforgivable disparity between the book and the movie, and doesn’t then do the book true justice.
2- The trouble here is James Dean. He is such a major Hollywood figure at this point that inevitably any movie featuring him would mean lots of Dean screen time, hence in this case the main focus on the Cal Trask ‘sub story’ of EoE. This therefore becomes more of an off-shoot of EoE, like ‘The life of Caleb Trask’. Kazan couldn’t have it that James Dean’s role would be diluted with the heavy presence of other more impactful characters like Sam, Lee and initially, Aron as well before he veers off on his man-of-the-cloth aspirations.
3- Now onto Lee, he smashed the preconceived stereotypes of the time of asian immigrant servants being simple minded boors with the wit and intellect of a week old sandwich – he was a scholar and respected and admired for his knowledge and wisdom, especially by those two renowned physicians at the time. Perhaps for social and political reasons this was unpalatable to showcase, and note the few movies at the time featuring asian and Chinese actors had them more or less depicted as simple-minded pidgin speakers, which fed the narrative. The actual reason can be what it may, however Lee is one of the most important and enduring individuals in EoE and his omission from the movie renders it somewhat futile and ineffectual in my opinion. Knowing Steinbeck’s immense pride and sense of accomplishment with EoE too I’d be highly surprised if he didn’t atleast voice these observations with Kazan as the movie was being made.
The book though, an absolute masterpiece.