1) Pick one
moment from the film adaptation and describe how it either departs from or
remains faithful to Steinbeck's novel. Is this moment "cinematic,"
and, if so, does it make Ford & Toland auteurs?
Though I haven’t actually read the novel “The
Grapes of Wrath,” by Steinbeck, we discussed certain moments from the novel
that weren’t faithfully portrayed in the film during class. Going off of our
in-class discussion, I would like to talk about the ending scene of the film
vs. that of the novel. The movie ended with Tom leaving his family in order to
protect them and to avoid being arrested. There is a heartfelt conversation
between Tom and Ma Joad mentioning their hope to once again be reunited. Additionally,
we are left with the belief that the family is going to be okay as they are
living in one of the better camps, with the potential to find work in the
future.
Based on what I have read online and what I heard
in class, it is my understanding that the book’s ending was quite different. In
the novel, the ending moments focus on Rosasharn’s miscarriage. There is a
starving, dying man, and in an attempt to help him, Rosasharn allows him to
essentially breast-feed from her. In addition, at the end of the novel,
we see the Joad family break apart and suffer defeat. We are not left with the
same optimism for their future.
I think that this change to the final scene was extremely
cinematic. I say this, because the decision to use this alternate ending seems
to be for a cinematic purpose. There is much logic behind this difference in
conclusion. First, there is the simple fact that this film was made many years
ago when film was still somewhat new. It was a big deal to have any kind of
controversial material grace the screen—thus it would have been incredibly
difficult for Ford and Toland to actually incorporate the breast-feeding scene
into a film. Trying to capture that on film would have been an aesthetic and
moral challenge.
Second, we need to look at film as a whole. We have
discussed this expectation that, we as an audience, have for films to have a
“happy ending.” To leave us with the belief that the Joads were going to die
would not have made for a very good ending to the film. Novels are different in
that sense. In a way novels are supposed to provoke us to think post-conclusion
more so than films. Yes, they both follow that beginning-middle-end pattern, but
when we watch a film we are “in a cave” and once it’s over—we are immersed back
into reality, expected to just accept the story that we have been told. When we
read a book, specifically one like “The Grapes of Wrath,” it is supposed to
keep us thinking long after we are done with it. Steinbeck in particular wrote
this book to make readers more aware of the historical, social, and political
climate.
A third possible reason for this change has to do
with Ford’s tendency to focus on a small group (i.e. the Joad family). With his
focus on the family as opposed to all mankind, it’s much easier to create the
aforementioned happy ending. There obviously isn’t going to be a happy ending
for everyone who is suffering. However, it’s not so hard to imagine one singular
family (like the Joads) being able to find prosperity.
This alternate ending absolutely makes Ford and
Toland auteurs. The ending gave the story a whole different meaning, feeling,
and spirit than the novel. The novel ends on a much more somber note. In
addition, the future of the Joad family differs between the two mediums. Ford
and Toland told a different story than Steinbeck. It was the same story up
until a point, but ultimately, Ford and Toland “wrote” a different tale.
(2) Most
critics today dismiss auteur theory for various reasons. Do you believe it is a
valid area of study in film studies? Why or why not?
I believe that the auteur
theory is a valid area of study. However, it is not the be-all and end-all when
it comes to film. It is certainly interesting and important to take note of
common themes, and patterns that emerge within films produced by a given
director. I know from personal experience, that when writing something, it’s
hard to stray away from a certain style. Last semester I took a creative
writing course and I wrote multiple stories for the course. What everyone
pointed out to me is that they all seemed to be variations of the same story. I
have a tendency to write white my teacher called, “O.Henry’s.” Every story I
produced had a twist ending! Therefore, I can fully buy into the auteur theory in that regard. However, I have to disagree with the auteur theory when it
comes to the belief that good directors only produce good films and bad
directors only produce bad films. There are always exceptions and this theory
doesn’t leave much room for “the underdog” to have a chance. As long as people
realize that the auteur has value but isn’t “law” per say—I think it’s useful
to study.
Aliza, I immediately connected with your post as I read Of Mice and Men in high school, but must have skipped over The Grapes of Wrath. Like you, I have only been able to differentiate between the film and novel via our class discussion. With the established fact that the ending of the film is distinctly an alternate version of what is presented in the book, I happen to understand the reasoning for this decision a little differently than you. As you state, the film ends with Tom leaving his family. It is important to recognize that this is not the true literal “final” scene of the film. I say this because it factors into the way I understood the meaning behind Ford and Toland’s choices. The actual end of the film is the scene of the Joad family driving to another farm for twenty days work. The scene is shot with camera over the hood of the car, so that we see Ma, Pa, and Al driving to their destination. Ma tells her boys, “I ain’t never gonna be scared no ‘more.” She goes on to utter the final words of the film, “we’re the people.” I do agree that Ford and Toland altered the ending of the film for censorship, and I also agree with their choice being purely cinematic. I happen to believe there is even more reason to this cinematic choice. Aside of avoiding controversy and wanting a happy ending, Ford and Toland end the film with the Joad family driving off on the open road with specific intentions. The film came out shortly after the book was released, and the general public always reacts to cinema differently than novels. Both a novel and a film are forever treasured, but a fictitious story often can gain greater believability in book form than on screen. The depth, development, and description provided by a novel can not be matched. There is something to be said for the reader’s ability to cater their imagined version on an individual basis. As an auteur pair, Ford and Toland had to alternate the ending in order to reflect the needs and desires of the 1940’s American public. The audience needed a visual confirmation that optimism and hope are on the way. The cinema often does like to provide happy endings, but this happy ending was created in order obtain greater meaning. Not only were Ford and Toland able to present their own spirit through changing the ending of the film, but in doing so were able to create an ending that the audience could directly relate to.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I agree that the definition of auteur has evolved over time. The great directors of our time, such as Scorsese, Copolla, Tarantino, Soderbergh, and Wes Anderson, do continue in tradition of auteur filmmaking. I feel like auteur theory is often the basis of great filmmaking, but is not the only method of creating a great story. Ultimately, it is crucial to have a director with distinct vision, whether the work be more collaborative or uniquely dictated, for the most part, by the director. The recognition that the director is not solely responsible for the success of the film is important, but it is also imperative to recognize that a vision must be established by a grounding force in order to aid those involved in achieving a final product. In the 21st century, I believe there is room for auteur theory in conjunction with the studio system. It may not have always been the case, but in modern day filmmaking there are not only studio-financed productions, but directors and actors have since created their own highly successful companies. Within their own production companies, there is total control over the vision and style of filming. There is room for many types of filmmaking, and auteur theory still can find relevancy in today’s world.
-Rachel Titen