"East of Eden" from 1955 is based on the John Steinbeck novel of the same name, beautifully realized on the screen by Elia Kazan, with James Dean as the perfect Cal.It is the modern story of Cain and Abel, with the brothers Cal and Aron in California around the time of World War I. The film covers the last third of the book, and it ends a little differently.The story in both book and film centers around choice; in the book, the subject comes up with a discussion of the correct translation of the Hebrew word "timshel" which means "may." God blesses Cain with free will, leaving the choice to him ("Thou mayest rule over him")This is not only a heart-wrenching story and script, but the acting is across the board superb.Kazan was struck by how much Dean was like Cal and actually observed his uneasy relationship with his father, so he gave him free rein with the role.He is magnificent as a young man jealous of his brother (Richard Davalos) and wanting his father's (Raymond Massey) love desperately, seeking to be understood. The only one who does is his brother's girlfriend, Abra (Julie Harris). Harris, one of the great Broadway actresses of her time, is lovely as the empathic young woman, who finds herself torn as she realizes she is in love with Cal and not Aaron. Richard Davalos, the handsome "good" boy Aron, does a marvelous job, and he has great chemistry with Dean. Their interactions are intense.Elia Kazan was always sorry he hired Raymond Massey, feeling he did not have the range the director wanted, but as the stern, principled, religious father, he is excellent. He absolutely hated James Dean, who deliberately provoked him -- Dean was big into the Method -- and complained that one had to "stand around and wait for him to act." Kazan used the dislike to the character's advantage too.This was Jo Van Fleet's film debut, though she had done television and had won a Tony award for "A Trip to Bountiful." For her role as a bordello madam in East of Eden, she won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Kazan used her again in Wild River, another brilliant performance. And the cast is great right down to the smaller roles, played by Lois Smith, Burl Ives, and Albert Dekker. Of the cast, only Smith and Davalos are still alive as of this writing. Someone reviewing it on this board said your feelings about the film change with age, as one loses one's parents, etc. I have to agree. It grows richer.East of Eden the book was a seminal for me, and I feel as deeply about the film. A true masterpiece.

From an entertainment basis, this move was successful, with captivating performances by all of the actors. But after reading John Steinbeck's novel, this movie hits miles below the mark he had intended. The first major flaw with the movie is the starting point, which takes place more than halfway through the book. This leaves audience members who have yet to read the book clueless to the Trask family history. Also, there is no mention of Lee in the movie. This serves to take away from the novel, since Lee was the first character to bring about the main theme of Timshell surrounding the novel. Without Lee, there is no Timshell, and without TImshell, there is no East of Eden. There are other flaws in the movie, such as the scene where Cal asks Kate for the loan, or when they only harassed the German man instead of burning down his shop. These and several other minor flaws, along with the major flaws previously mentioned, serve only to take away from the author's intended purpose of the novel. Overall, I believe that this movie did not meet the standards that John Steinbeck would have accepted in his writing of East of Eden.

While the movie East of Eden had the benefit of an outstanding cast, the overall movie was crippled by drastic deviation from the book along with poor writing. The cast in East of Eden is first class. The actors take the script (as poor as it was) and brought it to life. Scenes of emotion were quite well conveyed, actors wailing and celebrating as the script required of them. For the most part the characters are portrayed authentically and true to the book. The Actors themselves did everything that was humanly possible to make this film a success. However, while the actors were striving to create something watchable It would seem the director was not. While it did seem that he went to the book for the movies overall design, he did not to the book for details. He left out some of the most important characters and themes. He completely omitted the entirety of the message of the book, Timshel the thought that man has a choice, in favor of something along the lines of a basic allusion to Cain and Abel. The movie did not feature Lee, who in my opinion was one of the best and most telling characters in the book. Also not featured among those portrayed was Samuel Hamilton, a key player in Steinbeck's original message. Aside from lacking characters the movie was completely void of the primary message Steinbeck relayed to his audience, Timshel. Lastly, the movie was crippled by an absolutely terrible script. The dialogue was consistently strange if not totally incoherent, not to mention one instance where the character seemed to spout pure and unfettered gibberish. Not word was uttered about Timshel or even the conflict of good and evil. The script for this movie was cluttered with irrelevant statements that left the audience either laughing or wondering why it was included in the first place. All in all the movie East Of Eden was crippled by its lack of correlation to the book and its poorly written script, despite having an outstanding cast.

East of Eden Movie ReviewEast of Eden, written by John Steinbeck and directed by Elia Kazan, provided a good general idea, but left out two of the most important factors of the book in the form of Lee and the Hebrew word, Timshel.East of Eden was written to show the ultimate conflict between good and evil. The movie did a wonderful job of keeping good and evil equal and opposite throughout the movie. Cal and Aron were the best examples of this. Early in the movie, Cal was portrayed as evil while Aron represented all that was good. Late in the movie, the role was switched as Aron became the bad child when he left his father, however Cal took on the role of good and was there for his father.A major gap in the movie was the absence of Lee, Adam's servant. Lee had gotten Adam over his depression, as well as always tried to convince Cal that there was good in everyone. Lee was seen as the median in the book between Adam and his son, Cal. The tension between the two was evident, but without Lee, the resolution of Cal to be with his father was much less significant.As previously stated, this entire novel was based around the idea of good opposing evil. The main point in the novel was that each person had the ability to make their own decisions and choose right from wrong. Lee was the first to reveal this idea to the Trask family. The fact that the most important philosophy in the novel was left out completely defeats the entire purpose for making a movie without it. This was the ultimate factor as to why this movie was a big disappointment and completely destroyed the novel's only purpose.Although this movie was relatively interesting, it turned away from the book too much to be enjoyable to anyone who has read the novel. Although you could follow the movie along pretty smoothly, without Lee and the main idea of Timshel, the movie lacked the clarity the book had and that was the ultimate downfall of the movie.