From what I can tell, John Ford's The Grapes of Wrath is a great adaptation of Steinbeck’s famous novel. I feel I must qualify this statement because, unfortunately, I have not read the book. However, from what was said about it in class, it seems as though the changes that were made when changing the book to the movie were done for good reason, because the film had a different purpose than the book.
Though it may seem the most obvious choice, the portion of the film that I feel most capable of comparing to the book would have to be the scene when the children are waiting outside the Joad family’s tent, trying to get food. As we discussed in class, the scene is very similar to the way it happened in the book, making it true to the letter of the book. However, because of the omission of the inter-chapters, the message is altered. When watching the film, this was not one of the scenes that stood out to me as particularly cinematic, which may be due to the fact that it mirrors the book so well. The changes made when adapting the novel to film (mainly the changes to the ending) were made because the film was meant to entertain, not incite people to act. While a film that followed the novel exactly would be striking, raw, and honest, it would also be incredibly depressing, disturbing to watch and difficult to make.
Auteur theory is a useful tool. Historically, it provided an interesting way of evaluating directors. The problem arises when auteur theory is the only system utilized for analyzing a film. Though the ability to produce an amazing film does make later success more likely, it is possible for great directors to make bad films. Conversely, terrible directors can get things right every once in a while. The best thing about auteur theory, in my opinion, is the way it recognizes directors for the specific style that they develop. Obviously technical abilities are extremely important, but a great personal style links the directors that I admire. Watching a film and being able to identify a director’s signature is a wonderful feeling. Evaluations based on a body of work are important; however, each individual film should be viewed on its own as well, and the offerings of the various people who contribute to the film ought to be recognized.
Lacey,
ReplyDeleteI am in the same boat with you, as I have not read the Grapes of Wrath either (although I was supposed to in high school!), but it is such an influential book and is talked about so often, that I still feel we can compare both the film and the book regardless.
I believe the scene in which the children are begging for food, while staying true to the book, is also quite cinematic. That moment where we see the kids rummaging through the pile of trash, searching for tin lids to use as plates is such a lasting image in my mind. This to me is cinematic.
This ongoing debate and comparison of books and their subsequent movies is seen with all adaptations, from the Grapes of Wrath, to Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings just to name a few. It is nearly impossible for directors to make these movies into exact depictions of the books. I completely agree with you when you say that if Ford had strictly followed Steinbeck's novel, audiences would have rejected Grapes due to it being so honest and raw. The book simply would not translate well on to the big screen.
With that being said, when it comes to film adaptations of books, I believe it should be the director's number one priority to stay true to the book in the sense of its overall tone, heart, and message. The film should follow the soul over the letter.
In response to your thoughts on auteur theory, I have mixed emotions.
Of all the "great" directors, we usually find common techniques, themes, and actors in their films. From Scorcese to Spieldberg to Anderson, their movies could easily be picked out of a line up, if such a thing existed. Considering this, I believe it is important that we compare directors' works with their previous releases, as to analyze their growth, consistency, and themes. At the same time, every movie is different. I think it is unfair to say in response to a director's recent release, "well, I liked it, bit it wasn't as good as...". This, in my opinion, is the wrong attitude.
To summarize, I believe Auteur Theory can be a useful and gratifying form of film study, but should be applied gingerly, for it is unfair and constricting to pigeon-hole directors style. This creates unnecessary and sometimes detrimental preconceived notions about anticipated films from our favorite directors.
- Thomas Macowski