Review: The Outsiders

Teen life in Oklahoma in the 1960s, where kids are divided into the poor ‘Greasers’ and the rich ‘socs’ (pronounced so-shez). The two classes are headed for violent collision when two ‘greasers’ named Ponyboy and Johnny (C. Thomas Howell and Ralph Macchio) kill a ‘soc’ in self-defence, and are forced to hideout in an abandoned church with occasional supplies arranged by their ‘bad boy’ pal Dallas ‘Dally’ Weston (Matt Dillon), while they wait until things cool off. However, the socs (teen idol Leif Garrett amusingly among them) aren’t about to forget anytime soon. Patrick Swayze plays Ponyboy’s oldest brother Darrell, forced to act as parent to Pony and his brother Sodapop (Rob Lowe) after their parents were killed in a car accident. Emilio Estevez plays their good-natured buddy Two-Bit Matthews, whilst a young Tom Cruise is also a greaser. Diane Lane plays a pretty ‘Soc’ named Cherry, whom Dally tries to impress, with Michelle Meyrink (what’s an early 80s teen flick without her?) plays Cherry’s best friend. William Smith is cast as a surprisingly nerdy convenience store owner (!), and a very young Sofia Coppola (billed strangely as ‘Domino’) has a bit role at a gas station.

This 1983 Francis Ford Coppola (“The Godfather” trilogy, “Peggy Sue Got Married”) adaptation of the S.E. Hinton novel (a favourite in high schools), gets criticised for being overly-stylised but given how minor a contribution those flourishes have in the overall scheme of things (allusions to and visual cues reminiscent of “Gone With the Wind”, primarily), I really have no clue what the problem most critics have with this film actually is. It’s incredibly underrated and wholly entertaining. Scripted by Coppola himself (but due to some WGA nonsense, Kathleen Knutsen Rowell, whose original script Coppola dispensed with, shares credit), I think it’s a highly enjoyable teen drama, featuring seemingly two thirds of the so-called ‘Brat Pack’. Teen girls of the time no doubt loved it for the aesthetically pleasing male cast, but for me, the story and characters are also genuinely memorable and enjoyable. It’s a classic story of teenagers in the 1960s, friendship, gang wars, societal outcasts, the possible descent from innocence to juvenile delinquency, the choice of role models, and seemingly absent parenthood. The rich vs. poor motif is universal, but there’s definitely a male-centric worldview here that is really fascinating. I’m also a sucker for stories about teenage friendships and groups, as well as young outcasts, and particularly nostalgic stories (hence why “Stand By Me” is one of my favourite films, and “The Wonder Years” is my all-time favourite TV show). It’s a story that will surely always resonate with young people because there’s always going to be the rich kids and the poor kids. This is certainly a lot less stylised and a lot more accessible than Coppola’s subsequent and similar film “Rumble Fish” (another Hinton adaptation), which was pretty terrible, overdosing on the style (and a few ‘method’ actors who should’ve been reined in).

The cast is full of familiar faces, most of whom were on the rise at the time. The standouts for me are unquestionably Matt Dillon and Emilio Estevez. Dillon has always had a James Dean meets Marlon Brando with Monty Clift’s looks vibe about him, and is perfectly cast here is a rebel ‘Greaser’ forever getting in trouble and looking for a fight. He may have been introduced in “Over the Edge” and “Tex”, but I bet for people of a certain age, this was the Matt Dillon role and performance. As for Emilio Estevez, his cackling, slightly loopy (but loyal) Two-Bit is one of his best early roles. He constantly steals scenes simply by seeming to be terribly amused by it all. He’s hilarious as the kind of kid who other kids probably want to punch in the face half the time. The late Patrick Swayze is also perfect casting as the well-meaning, but very much imperfect put-upon parental figure struggling to keep his brother and friends from being beat up, arrested, or killed. His character is barely an adult himself, let alone capable of raising two others. C. Thomas Howell was never much of an actor and playing the lead role here he’s likeable but merely OK. Although he’s far too old for the part, Ralph Macchio (who was still playing high-schoolers the following year in the immortal “Karate Kid”) gives a really interesting, sensitive performance as the meek, troubled Johnny. Your heart breaks for him a bit. Diane Lane, meanwhile does well with a fairly standard role, whilst singer Leif Garrett is hilariously cast as a preppy arsehole competing with Dillon for Lane’s affections. As for Tom Cruise, there’s no indication of his star quality in this. In fact, he’s comically unconvincing as a tough guy. I’m not necessarily regarding that as a complaint, by the way. The big rumble at the climax sure ain’t “West Side Story”, let me tell you.

Now let me tell you a thing or two about the Director’s Cut, which is the version I most recently viewed. The differences are obvious, and the cuts appear to have only been made for run-time purposes. So if you can get to see the longer Director’s Cut, I do recommend that, as the theatrical version is simply too short. The opening scene is an immediate improvement as we get to meet Swayze and Lowe right away, which works much better. The earlier introduction of Tom Cruise’s character is much smoother, too. Lowe’s Sodapop character in particular stands out much more in the longer version, and Swayze’s character is fuller. Admittedly the final stages of the Director’s Cut are a mixed bag, but at least even then the focus is on the three brothers, which is as it should be. It’s a more clunky ending, but truer to the book. Overall, I think it’s a better version of a film that in its theatrical version was still pretty good.

I’m really surprised this film hasn’t been remade with a cast of today’s hot young things, but this still works as is, at least for me. I have no idea why it’s not more popular with critics, but it does have a special place in many viewers’ hearts, including mine. I actually think it’s better than the much more widely praised “American Graffiti”. It’s incredibly underrated, and the book is terrific too. Pretty decent opening song (‘Over Gold’) by the great Stevie Wonder, too, if anachronistic.

Rating: B+