|Page 12 of 26:||               |
|Index||255 reviews in total|
When I say this I don't mean in the sense of how accurately the film follows Steinbeck's novel; the film starts to stray from the books story around halfway through the movie. What I mean is the film is great on it's own and ,unlike most film adaptations of books, this movie kept most of the others message intact. The key difference I found was that the book was much sadder. I know it's hard to believe seeing how depressing this movie was but their were many things the director chose not to show. The biggest difference was in the endings. The film leaves you with some since of optimism for these people, the novel does no such thing. The book leaves you with Rosasharn giving birth to a stillborn and offering her breast milk to a man dying of starvation. This obviously could have never been shown in theaters during the 1940's and I'm glad for it. I believe it would have been one powerful scene but the book was way to sad to begin with and the film was pretty depressing as well. Currently we could have handled a film like that just fine but back in the 1940's this was some amazingly heavy stuff. I just think keeping to Steinbeck's original ending would have instilled to much ill feelings in Americans in a time where we needed some optimism. So great film, don't watch it though if you can't handle a little despair though.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This film brings to light the great struggles people went through during the depression. It is a brutal reality check of what our futures may hold, a world of struggle and hurt that we can not even fathom. This hard working hopeful family is only one on the long road to a more fruitful life, and though along the way they hear of the good and bad to come they continue on. Throughout their journey one by one family members are lost; through death and separation. When they finally arrive to their land of hope it is one of little earnings and less than humane working conditions. In the end after all they have gone through they remain held together by Ma who never gives up on her family, constantly pushing them to persevere.
This film surely deserved being nominated in the Academy Awards.
Steinbeck's message was butchered and the story of the Okies disgraced.
These two viewpoints are both fairly accurate in their own respect.
Indeed this is very entertaining and captivates its audience, but it
also twists the story Steinbeck conveys in his book. Before considering
whether or not to view this movie, you first need to know if it is the
right match for yourself.
Entertainment: If you are searching for the perfect movie to sit back on a Friday night, maybe reminisce in the past, eat some popcorn, enjoy a classic movie, then you should continue reading under heading. This film did deserve being nominated for best film in the Academy Awards. Excellent cinematography and great actors like Henry Fonda and John Carradine set this movie apart and make the audience really feel for the Joads. After losing their family farm, the Joads set out as migrant workers on their way to California. They overcome adversity as the try to get settled and find work, despite the attitudes of the land owners. This is a story of overcoming odds and no matter what happens, staying together as a community, as the people.
Compare and Contrast: If you're looking to see how this movie compares to this book and are hoping that it will accurately depict Steinbeck's novel, then turn around. I'm not saying this is a bad movie, it does tell the story of the Joads and shows the problem they are facing, but the way in which the Joads combat this diversity is different between the two works. The beauty of the inner chapters isn't expressed to its full potential in the movie. It's not expected that this can be done, but the effects of the inner chapters is part of what made the novel what it was. In the book, the inner chapters tied the Joads to the entire community and helped set up some context. The movie tells some of the stories of those in the inner chapters, but doesn't give the sense of community that the book has. Along with the lack of sense of community the relationship of the family is not the same between the two entities. In the book the two kinds of families, the Joads and John Davis', are compared. The difference between the two are having the family break up, but have community replace it, or have a family that stays together, but their connection to the community is destroyed. The movie seems to take the stance of Joe Davis' family because the focus is put on the family and the aspects of the family falling apart like Noah's Departure and the Joads connection to their community is downsized. The Joads never meet the Wilsons and the boxcar seen is completely taken out. Also the family farm isn't really shown in detail and there isn't a sense of connection to the agriculture because not a single peach or piece of cotton is shown. This brings me to my next point.
Students: If you need to read this book over the summer before going back to school, watch this movie. It seems like a spark note of the book as it summarizes the travels of the family and their hardships. However, if you need to discuss the themes of this book, you might not get a very good grade. The problems of the Joads remain intact, but the solutions of their problems are different. Emphasis is put on the people instead of sacrifice to move forward.
This is truly a good movie, but if you are hoping it will reflect the book, you might not enjoy it as much. Personally having read the book myself, I did enjoy this movie and respected it for what it did achieve for its time; however you can't view this thinking that it will be like watching Steinbeck tell his story.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The Grapes of Wrath is really an excellent movie fantastic actors and
casting, and cinematography, especially for the time it was made.
Seeing it after just finishing Steinbeck's book, though, I was a little
disappointed. Even though it's a great movie, it's not so great of an
Throughout the film, I never really felt Steinbeck's message really coming across, except in certain points when direct dialogue was used from the book. Steinbeck showed the story of many people in his novel, and how important it was for them to come together as a community, while the movie focuses simply on the Joads. There is hardly any interaction between the Joads and the other Okies at all. In the end, Ma talks about surviving, and how that was all they had to do to make everything better. Steinbeck never wanted the Joads or any other Okie to just survive, he wanted them to come together as a whole and make sure they got their rights. The movie shows that just surviving makes everything better. Ending with the government camp (craftily renamed "wheat patch" rather than "weedpatch") gives the sense that there are decent people, and the Joads will have no problem finding decent people and a place to live. Ending with the boxcar and the flood and Rose of Sharon's scene (which is understandably not in the movie) shows that the hard times were hard from over, but if they stay as a community, they can try to make things better.
All of this being said, the movie has some really good references back to the book. Most of the actors managed to completely get their characters down. My main problem was with Al, and how much he was downplayed in the film. (And I felt a little hurt when they completely forgot about Noah). Ma and Tom and Casey, however, really did manage to find their characters. The scene between Ma and Tom right before Tom left was the scene that felt the most true to me. I was upset, though, that the only characters allowed to be seen and developed through the movie were the Joads, and every connection they had with other families, like the Williams and the Wainwrights, did not exist. The connections between the families was what brought out the book's message, and made it about more than just the Joads. It made it about everyone.
I understand the context this movie was made in, with the Depression barely over, the memories and events of Steinbeck's novel still fresh in everyone's minds. A complete replica of The Grapes of Wrath would have a been a bit too harsh for everyone then, and honestly impossible with the technology of the time. I think I would just ask in a remake for them to try to get it a little better.
It really is a fantastic film, especially for the time period, and on its own it's great. In terms of displaying Steinbeck's message, though, it does miss the mark.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
John Steinbeck's original novel The Grapes of Wrath was intended as a stunning critique of life in contemporary America; the film, meanwhile, is rather tame in comparison. This is of course understandable when considering the film industry in the 1930s and '40s, making movies required money and corporate sponsors were not likely to hand out money to produce a savage critique of they society that they dominated. The film does stay mostly faithful to the book, with much of the dialogue taken verbatim from the original text, but has three major departures. The first of these differences is, understandably, the loss of the inner chapters that served as parables and generalizations in Steinbeck's novel; most of them would have been hard to write into a cohesive movie. The films second departure is the loss of much of the socialistic rants and sermons from Jim Casy, the almost prophetic former preacher that accompanies the Joad family on their exodus. In fact, his character in the film is downplayed until his two moments of self-sacrifice, while in the book he is almost as important as Tom Joad himself. The third, most drastic departure is the alteration of events at the end of the film; which have been re-ordered or cut out to dull the novels original ultimatum. The Joad families stay at the corporate farm is put before their stay at the government camp, lending the film an upbeat sense of hope that the text was certainly lacking. Also, and perhaps most importantly, the filmmakers cut the last scene of the book out of the script. Instead of ending with Rose of Sharon's miscarriage, the flood, and the family taking refuge in the barn, the movie ends with the family on the road to pick cotton, hopeful of finding work and saving enough to settle down. The film ends with hope, whereas the book ends with an ultimatum: pursue self interest and let individuals and families perish (capitalism) or let "the I become we" and live in a utopia (socialism).
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After taking a film class you get used to being shown the same scene
over and over again before having to tear it apart and examine the fine
points of film technique. After watching the entirety of The Grapes of
Wrath for the first time in my English class, I considered what I have
learned and what gear I have worked with doing filmmaking, even if it
was a beginner class. Understanding that in the 1940's, during the
Great Depression no less, filmmakers did not have the equipment or
technology we have the fortune of using presently, I believe Nunnally
Johnson's adaptation of John Steinbeck's classic novel deserves praise
for the exceptional cinematography.
The camera angles, different shot types, color scheme, and lighting all helped effectively portray the desperate times in which the Joad family lived. The varied shot types are used as the components of storytelling; the close-ups show the raw emotion in Ma and Tom's relationship when they are having conversations, while the panning long shots show the constantly changing settings the jalopy moves through. John Ford's choice to use black and white film versus color film significantly changes the overall appearance of the story; it comes out as dirtier and rougher; the darker side of America.
I do hold some narrow-mindedness toward the film seeing as I read the book beforehand. If you are planning to read the book and watch the movie, I recommend you read the book first so as not to confuse yourself when you find the order of events rearranged or missing all together in the movie. Those differences cause the entire message of the movie to shift away from Steinbeck's message in the book, but they had to be done in order for Fox to even allow the movie to be produced. I admit there were so many changes in detail that I was disappointed with the storyline of the film, but overlooking that I still deem this film as a true artistic presentation. John Ford generated an incredible film using the bits and pieces he was allowed from the novel ; he made do with what he had and kept on living, just as the message of the film goes.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The 1940 film, The Grapes of Wrath, is an artful depiction of the
contemporary book. Utilizing much advanced technology and
film-technique for its time, the movie was revolutionary in its
cinematic grandeur. However, Nunnally Johnson, author of the
screenplay, strayed from the path Steinbeck had purposely traveled down
with his storyline. While the film still includes some of the
fundamental values and scenes that make the book one of the best
historical pieces of fiction, the omission and reversing of certain
scenes may leave avid viewers enamored with the original story feeling
a sense of dissatisfaction. The movie ends with the superficial "riding
off into the sunset" ending which implies that all is well or will be
down the road (no pun intended!); however, this is counter to
Steinbeck's artfully crafted ending.
Perhaps the largest mistake made by director Tom Ford and writer Nunnally Johnson was the reversal of stops the Joad family made along their journey after their final arrival in the supposedly-plentiful land of California. The decision to make the government camp the last seen stop for the family sends out a blatant pro-government message, which at the time served as propaganda to rally support for the government in its Dust Bowl-related reforms. With the reversal of the sequence of the Joads' stops, the movie is not a precise display of the story that captures the essence of the novel: the hardships and obstacles of exodus, and the importance of family, community, and perseverance to find a home in a foreign land. However, keeping in mind the standards of controversy in this time, the original ending in the book would have been too racy for a movie. With that in mind, the ending is not as disappointing.
Furthermore, Grapes of Wrath remains a thought-provoking film that serves as a great culturally enlightening experience for those looking to gain insight on the Oakie migrations and pushing out towards the great American Frontier. After getting over the initial disappointment of the movie-produced happy ending, viewers can appreciate the believable historical setting and the development of the characters created by John Steinbeck in his original work. Overall, Grapes of Wrath is a movie that should be seen with an open mind and probably, without comparison to the book.
The Grapes of Wrath is not exactly an edge-of-your-seat type film, but it is exceptionally realistic and does a fantastic job portraying the suffering that so many people and families experienced during the Great Depression. This film was a perfect example of great American film making because of its genuinity. It smoothly combined everything you need for a movie to be successful - breathtaking cinematography, spectacular writing and most importantly - brilliant directing. The characters performances were powerful and inspiring. The Grapes of Wrath is an unquestionably beautiful and spiring - yet educational - film at the same time. It is a story about hope; the point of the film isn't so much the plot as it is the setting and the horrible conditions that a typical family was pulled into. I would definitely recommend this film to everyone! Two thumbs up!
Growing up in a comfortable suburban community, I had the option of
reading John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" in an English class. I wish
I had. But I'm not sure I would have fully grasped its significance.
Now that America is in a modern equivalent of the Great Depression,
some 80 years later, I can fully appreciate Steinbeck's work.
I have nothing against capitalism, but what is portrayed here is not capitalism, it is naked, ruthless greed destroying the lives of countless people. While the details have changed, the greed we see today is the same, and even more faceless and insatiable.
This movie is not just a story, it is a lesson about the need for compassion for our fellow Americans and human beings, a lesson that desperately needs retelling today.
In 1960, John Steinbeck traveled around America in a pickup camper to research the book that became "Travels with Charlie." The Steinbeck who saw the horrors of migrant labor camps portrayed in "Grapes of Wrath" did not like what he saw Americans had become in 1960, especially the racist "cheerleaders" of New Orleans. He was so demoralized he eventually cut his trip short and headed for home.
I wonder what Steinbeck would have thought about Americans today, especially the politics? I think John Steinbeck would weep.
This is a movie that every American should watch, especially if you are living in a comfortable suburb insulated from the pain many of your fellow Americans are experiencing today. This is not a comfortable story, but it is one you need to see, and probably will be glad you did see, unless you are one of the 21st century robber barons.
Directed by: John Ford Screen play by: Nunnally Johnson Produced by:
Nunnally Johnson Cinematography by: Gregg Toland Starring: Henry Fonda,
Jane Darwell, John Carradine, Charley Grapewin, Dorris Bowden The
Grapes of Wrath
A lonely four way country road with sounds of birds chirping in the back ground, a man dressed in a suite walking north in the middle of the street which led to the parking lot of a restaurant. This was what opened up John Ford's black and white, seven award nominated film The Grapes of Wrath.
The Grapes of Wrath (1940), John Ford's greatest film also in black and white was about the Joad's family from Oklahoma, Colorado who were evicted from their dirt bowl ancestry land. They migrated to California in search of jobs and to find a better way of life. Ma Joad (Jane Darwell) played a major role as mother of the Joad's family in the film. Ma Joad is a strong willed mother who always encourages the others to be positive and strong=g. She was the backbone of the family. She kept the family together throughout the migration and through the roughest times.
It was a pleasure watching Ma Joad take care of her family and providing them with the love and support needed to motivate and comfort each family member even when they were dying. During their migration Ma Joad lost two of her family members. Ma Joad fulfills every expectation playing her part in the film.
Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) played his role exceptionally well as the black sheep in the family. Tom who just got out of jail for committing homicide was released early on parole. He was very excited to see his family only to be told that his family and his neighbors were evicted from their ancestral home. He soon found them and joined them on the trip to California. Although he was very short tempered, and on parole he tried not to get into trouble because his mother has begged him not to get into anymore trouble. Tom played his part amazingly well in this film.
The film settings in black and white along with natural and low key lighting made this film exceptional. Everything looked so real, I felt as if I was character in the film. It felt like everything was happening while I was watching it. It all seemed so natural with the sunlight during the day and the low source of light in the night. This was the best black and white film I have ever seen. All the shots that made up the scene of the camp grounds were excellent. The high angle camera shot that was taken of Tom hiding when they were looking at license plates at the camp grounds was a great shot. This showed me how vulnerable and hopeless Tom was after killing a cop after they killed Casey.
While migrating to California I noticed there were a lot of informational signs. Most of these signs would say welcome to Arizona or welcome to California. These signs gave only a part of the information, they would then say the speed limit is, but the speed limits were never shown in the film. This family knew there were no limits to what they could do.
The Danger sign posted on a tree at the end of the film reveals that they were coming out of harm's way and that everything was going to be alright. This film far exceeded my expectations. All the characters played their part very well.
|Page 12 of 26:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|