FILM INTENT: Coppola's Forgotten Milestone that is The Outsiders

 

When I first started looking at movies from a "filmmaker's eye", I immediately started back with some of my all time favorite movies. I had this fear with it though, that if I went back to watch my favorites and found they weren't all that I had thought they were after developing this new knowledge and appreciation for movies as an art form, that I would be embarrassed and they could no longer be my favorites. Luckily, this wasn't the case; if anything, I found a deeper and greater appreciation for a lot of my favorites, and it really expanded my knowledge of all the different works of my favorite creatives. 

One of the first movies I remember circling back to with this new mindset was The Outsiders. I had never read it as a kid, however, after watching the movie for the first time in the latter part of high school, I was intrigued by what the book could hold. So after reading and finishing the book and developing that "filmmaker's eye", I went back and rewatched the movie. And there was a lot to unpack.

I will say this now to get it over with: it is not a perfect movie by any means. And when I go to a lot of my friends asking their opinions on this movie, that's the first thing they make sure to tell me. Trust me, I know; there are moments of clunkiness, inconsistency, and just rough acting. However, I have a few things to rebut this with.

Firstly, this movie's purpose is not to be "perfect". And given the fact that The Godfather (also directed by Coppola, made in 1972, and is considered the greatest movie of all time) had already came out, I don't think Coppola needed to prove how "perfect" he could make a movie. "But Ellie, doesn't every filmmaker want to strive to always put out their best work?" Of course they do... their best work in that moment in time. Coppola's mission in this moment of time was not to put out the "perfect film" but a film that would serve the audience with the authenticity and connection this story had to offer.

For anyone who has any sort of knowledge on this movie, it was made because a group of kids from Fresno, California had sent a letter to Coppola saying they had read the book and loved it, and they would love to see him helm a movie adaptation. So right from the get-go, this movie was not made to break box office records or win Best Picture. Coppola read the story, loved it, and decided to actually pursue the project because these kids wanted a visually captivating and true story.

He hired a completely unknown cast of actors, all of which would use this film as the jumping off point to go pursue big careers (Ralph Macchio booked The Karate Kid a year after this, Rob Lowe with St. Elmo's Fire in 1985, Matt Dillon with Drugstore Cowboy in 1989, Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing in 1987, Tom Cruise with Top Gun in 1986, Emilio Estevez with The Breakfast Club in 1985, and C. Thomas Howell for Soul Man in 1986.. ya know.. just to name a few). He wanted a specific look and chemistry of boys, something that had never been seen before. He didn't want one A-List star to steal the attention of the story as a whole. And in retrospect, I think this movie was meant to be this way; otherwise, a lot of these actors we love wouldn't have been seen in the public eye and taken so seriously when it came to their craft. I'm not saying it was anyone's best performance, but it was a vital one that needed to happen. 

Now that I've established that yes, I know this movie has its weak moments, let's talk about the aspects that this movie actually does really well artistically. First off (and I know I just said that these boys didn't have the best acting performances), but two actors that really knocked their roles out of the ballpark were Matt Dillon and Patrick Swayze. The complexity Dillon gave to such a young character (Dallas Winston) with relatively low screen time is absolutely astounding. Dallas was the villain you loved to hate; he was the character you were secretly rooting for. His emotions flowed right in synced with the descriptions and narrative Ponyboy gave throughout the movie, and that rhythm made you want to follow him and see him grow. He was creative, out of the box, and showed all the sharp edges his character had to offer. Swayze also did a really nice job. I had never seen Swayze take on such a nurturing role before, and seeing him step into a mature but playful stance (and being a vulnerable leader through his role as Darry Curtis) was something really refreshing. It just goes to show you that he is versatile, and he truly lead this cast both on and off screen.

Another aspect of this film that I think is not talked about as much as it should be is the cinematography. After seeing many a movie since this rewatch, this still ranks as one of my favorite cinematography pieces (and YES, I know that there are more than one of those cheesy 80s overlays in this movie just bare with me). The cinematography is real and authentic to the story in which its telling (see a pattern yet of theme?). The lighting and angles of this cinematography really speaks for itself. The harsh lighting really mimics the unflattering lighting these kids likely had in their unkept houses and under the street lamps. The sharp angles and use of dutch shots (especially in the fight scenes) really makes them stand out from the rest of the movie. And when there are close ups, there are unapologetic closeups (I'm talking sweat and snot running down their face with the heavy breathing audio still in tact and the hair texture being completely in focus).  This cinematography looks raw and real, and has the details and rugged shaping of a home video. And it all stays true to the fact that this is Ponyboy's narrative (with quick POVs and synced up visuals with the kind of emotions Ponyboy is experiencing in that moment of the story). It is unique; it is harsh; but it stays artistic.

The two more "artsy" shots that stick out from memory are actually some of my favorites in the entire movie. The first is the mirror shot of Johnny showing Ponyboy his bleached hair at the abandoned church. Something about the use of the thirds in this shot really makes me want to look at it all day. The broken mirror really portrays the brokenness of Ponyboy's feelings as he loses his hair, all while putting unique proportions in framing into Pony's face. The second shot (and arguably my favorite of the two) is when Dally *(spoiler)* gets shot and is crawling through the streets to the boys. Something about the portrait angle, low to the ground, jerky movements of the camera mixed with the harsh, low lighting of Dally's face, along with the details the audience can see on Dally's face (blood, sweat, facial expressions, hair). It's something really captivating, and it's such a sudden stop to the fast paced camera cuts of the rest of that scene, that it really takes you by surprise. I'll give you a second to take in what I've been talking about with these shots now (I do not own any of these images by the way, please don't sue me): 

 The last thing I really want to say about this film is the brilliance it does in the adaptation. Anytime anyone ever asks my opinion about adaptation execution, I always tell them to go watch this movie. Why? Because it's the perfect example of the balance of truth and honor towards a story while inserting creativity and artistry to make your telling of the story unique. 

Did you know that every scene mentioned in the book was filmed? And that the movie was shot chronologically? And that about half the script was lines verbatim from the book? That's why this movie works so well! This adaptation does not reinvent the wheel; it treats its source material like a Bible (something I wish was done more often nowadays). The clothing, the demeanor, even the shooting locations followed the descriptions given in the book to a T. The details really run deep in this film in all aspects, but especially in the adaptation portion. 

"Now Ellie, that doesn't leave a whole lot of creative freedom left for the filmmakers?" Yes... and no. They still found ways to create and effectively tell a story through aspects not specified in the book (i.e. the cinematography I mentioned above). But, like I said earlier, the purpose of this movie is not to be the most creative, most mesmerizing piece of film you'll ever watch; its purpose is to give an accurate and true representation of S.E. Hinton's story. That's how the project was meant at it's conception, and that's how it remained until the final cut.

Coppola always kept his eye on the intention of this film; the cast even went back to Fresno to attend a private screening with the school who requested the film get made before its public release. And the class is even mentioned in the credits of the film!

So yes, this isn't the most flashy film in the world. But it's raw, it honors its original text, it's functional, and it's a great resource to have when discovering the book for the first time. If you haven't given it a watch, I think it's time you do. And if you've already watched it, I suggest you give it another time through. Let this marinate, and let me know how Tulsa treats you this go around. Stay gold :)