A Portrait of James Dean: Joshua Tree, 1951

While Mishory's film moves slowly and has little to no plot, he creates a beautifully impressionistic film that gives what is likely the most accurate impression of James Dean ever rendered. Instead of going in a biographical direction - most of which Dean fans know anyway - Mishory creates the essence of Dean in the way Monet, for example, created the essence of water lilies, using bits and pieces, sometimes seemingly unconnected, to provide an overall more realistic impression. I think Mishory asked, How do I present a portrait of James Dean that reveals a more truthful or close-to-home vision of him than a strictly biographical film would? And I think he answered this question exceptionally well with "Joshua Tree, 1951" - by using, with film, the techniques used by the great painters of Impressionism.I've never been fascinated by Dean himself (though I think he was brilliant in the three films by which we know him), but more by the iconic aura that developed around him after his death. This aura remains today, in the same way it remains around Monroe or Garland. So I AM fascinated by the reasons behind this status given to the three of them and a very few others. Why these few? Untimely death, perhaps. But Monroe and Garland didn't die as young as Dean did. River Phoenix died young, but he still hasn't gained an equally iconic aura. The only conclusion I've come to at this point is that the reason we cast this aura on so few actors - which we do; we GIVE them the aura --- has to do with a combination of things. One is our knowledge of their personal lives, true or false; all the tabloid guesses and theories, the stresses and strains, the peccadilloes, the misfit quality of them. Another is the vision of them provided by the camera. We often hear that Monroe, especially, made love, in a way, to movie cameras, as though she had a direct and very strong understanding of cameras, almost a relationship with them, and always knew instinctively how to appear in front of them to put across her beauty, her talent, and large parts of her personality and persona: her innocence, her vulnerability. Watching all three of them in their films, we the audience feel that we KNOW them, very personally. We feel that they're talking to us, to each of us individually. We connect to them in a way we don't often connect to most actors. Gloria Swanson, I think, achieves this in "Sunset Boulevard" - and we'd likely cast a similar aura around her had she done this in a greater number of films. Garland was able to do this even in brief moments. Watch "Over the Rainbow" and "The Man That Got Away" again - really WATCH them - and ask yourself to whom she's singing. It's to you, isn't it? It IS! But guess what? It's to every other person sitting in that theater, too, and each of them would answer this question the same way: she's singing to me.So, again, how do you make a film about any of these icons that, instead of presenting a dry biography with no sense of the person behind the icon, instead presents the person behind the icon? You head in the direction of Impressionism.I came away from this film feeling that I'd met and had a beer or a glass of wine with Dean, and that I'd gotten to know HIM as opposed to the iconic image of him on the movie screen. And with that, I felt that I had at least a few hints as to why we later cast that iconic aura around him.This is not a film for everyone. Even staunch Dean fans may run to it with great excitement and come away disappointed. It is a slow-moving film because it lacks a direct, linear story, a beginning, a middle, and an end. But anyone who enjoys films with an impressionistic bent (I think of Tom Ford's "A Single Man" - though it has a stronger, more direct story) should enjoy "Joshua Tree" for the same reasons I did.

Joshua Tree, 1951 is beautifully photographed, set and costumed but remains more a curated effort than a living story about James Dean's early days. The script tries hard to be poetic but often comes off as stilted instead. And some of the acting feels memorized rather than felt and thought.That being said, there is still a lot going for it. The scenes in the desert are almost alarmingly beautiful, nearly overshadowing the little drama taking place between the characters. Some of the acting is quite good. I especially enjoyed watching Dalilah Rain, who brings a real sense of lived life to her role as an actress who never found her fame in Hollywood. Also good is James Preston who plays James Dean. By that I don't mean that he's a good actor, but like so many stars from the old days of Hollywood, he's someone you like to look at, is intriguing and charismatic and hints at depths he withholds just enough to make you want more of him. So, he's not James Dean, but then, who is?Even with it's faults, this is a haunting film that creates and maintains - for the most part - a mood of darkness and sorrow, too cool to be noir, but blessedly free of irony or condescension. This is a gay indie film with a small budget and not a lot of time to rehearse or shoot. Still it manages to achieve something - a feeling, a mood, a sense of life slipping away - that makes this a film I'd recommend to others.

It’s an interesting take on Dean’s life and the performances are good but it wasn’t at all what I expected and I’m not sure how historically accurate it might be.

I have read many books on James Dean and watched all his movies, and movies about him. This is the best I have ever seen. The director was right-on to reveal Dean as bisexual or homosexual, so it is an honest portrayal of his complexity. The actor who plays Dean is fantastic as are those who play his friends and lovers. The black and white scenes intermixed with occasional ones in color contribute to the effect. I was amazed, and pleased at the beauty of this movie, and recommend it to anyone who is interested in an honest understanding of a great actor whose life ended so tragically. But Dean had premonitions and dreams that his life would be short, so I believe he was prepared, and lived life to the fullest while he could.

The reviews on this film seem mixed but I tried it and I found it to be haunting and engaging. This is not a linear narrative but a collage of moments and thoughts that form a picture. You have to be willing to wait and listen and search for the meanings. The cinematography is superb. Dean is less an enigma but a person who made his own way, who constantly searched for an anchor. He was not a naïf crushed by fame, rather he knew what he wanted and how to get it. He seemed to be a seductive personality, one of those people who seduce everyone around him. It's a nice balance of dialogue and visual themes, sometimes brainy, sometimes visceral. I found myself hooked from the beginning, sort of lulled into it and once in I couldn't escape. I don't know that the film really explains Dean so much as explains why he was unexplainable. I think in the end he had few illusions about the way life worked. If you want a standard biopic this isn't it, but if you want to come away with the impression that you've been a room with him for a while, I think this film captures that.

Very often we see James Dean portrayed as the young rebel, a rebel yes but one that still does fit in our conventional conceptions. This movie clearly dares to tell the other story, know by many told by only a few. And James Preston does portrait him very nicely. One can practically feel the hunger and hurt for love.

Well lit b/w movie about the early years of James Dean. But the story doesn't seem to progress much. Boring.

No my style of documentary

Unusual this. A Film about James Dean who was, at best, sexually ignorant. He wanted it every which way. Whatever, he got it but sadly died young. A good DVD.

A beautifully shot film that tackles James Dean's sexuality head on.The soundtrack is wonderful and I wish I could find it!