According to Truffaut, film adaptations of literature have value only when undertaken by a man of the cinema. He believed that it was crucial for the adaptation to maintain the spirit of the original work. It’s interesting, then, to compare the similarities and difference between John Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath and John Ford’s film adaptation to determine whether or not the film remains faithful to Steinbeck’s novel.
To begin, I want to answer the following question: 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?
In Steinbeck’s first chapter, he describe the desolate setting in which his characters will be placed: “Every moving thing lifted the dust into the air: a walking man lifted a think layer as high as his waist, and a wagon listed the dust as high as the fence tops, and an automobile boiled a cloud behind it. The dust was long in settling back again.”
This description paints a vivid picture in the reader’s mind of exactly how much dust there is and how it behaves. The bleakness of the area describes not just the physical landscape of the story, but also sets the mood of the novel.
Similarly, Ford and Toland must establish the desolation early on in the film in order to set a similar mood as the novel. In once of the first scenes, Tom Joad is shown walking up a road to his family farm. As he walks away from the camera, his footsteps kick up a cloud of dust around him, invoking in the viewer’s mind the above Steinbeck passage. It’s clear that Ford and Toland looked to Steinbeck’s description to guide the filming of this particular moment.
While Ford and Toland remain faithful to the passage, the moment in the film is also extremely cinematic and achieves something that the novel could never do: the viewer is able to see the dust actively lifting into the air as Tom walks. I do believe the decisions that Ford and Toland made in how to visually present the scene—filming Tom from behind and having him walk uphill away from the camera—provide a glimpse of the personalities of the two men as artists.
So I end by answering this question: 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?
Although most critics have dismissed it today, I do believe that auteur theory is an important aspect when studying film. I believe there are too many directors that pride themselves on a strong sense of personality in their work that it would be foolish to dismiss it. Directors known for their distinctive style include Quentin Tarantino, Tim Burton, the Coen brothers, and Woody Allen. While I do not believe that auteur theory is necessarily enough to understand a film completely, I think it is still applicable today.
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?
ReplyDeleteI remember a similar comment to this being made in class, and I very much agree with your statements. Ford's treatment of setting is very well adapted to film. This remained faithful to the letter, and more importantly the spirit of the novel as best as he could. Your image from the film captures the description that Steinbeck wrote of perfectly.
I just am unsure of how this can really be accredited to Ford. Any dusty location would create this effect. I don't think it was an intentional choice on his part, just a natural one that greatly contributed to the film. To be fair, many film critics would say to me that I can't really evaluate his intent, but can only go by what is on screen. Still I feel like auteur theory walks across fine line here.
My favorite "cinematic" element from the film was the use of road signs in the establishing shots. I wasn't able to find a still of it, but in scenes where the family car approaches a new stop there is usually a road sign that is heavily featured in the shot. They naturally delineated the film into chapters. Many of these shots also feature great depictions of nature in the background. This is the closest Ford could have gotten to filming the "unfilmable".
2) Do you believe it is a valid area of study in film studies? Why or why not?
I do like auteur theory because many great directors have been able to make multiple contributions to the art of cinema. "One hit wonders" hardly exist in film. Analyzing the qualities between the films of a director is very beneficial to understanding not only each individual film and his/her entire portfolio.
Still, I feel that a director's films should also be compared to films of other directors, such as those that influenced him or his contemporaries. For example, Francis Ford Coppola's Godfather, Brian de Palma's The Untouchables, and Martin Scorcese's Goodfellas are three highly respected gangster films, all from different directors. Each also feature actor, Robert de Niro (in Coppola's case, Godfather Part II). I'm sure that there is a plethora of comparisons and contrasts to be made here, which would completely override auteur theory. Auteur theory works in controlled doses and only with specific directors. It fails to recognize that many "auteurs" should also be compared with each other.
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?
ReplyDeleteOne scene that exuded a cinematic feel for me was Tom and the preacher's conversation as they walk down the road talking about Mr. Joad's "Holy Spirit." Classic imagery of the holy spirit in the Catholic faith made appearances in the wind as well as the flame in this scene (http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/250448/Grapes-of-Wrath-The-Movie-Clip-No-More-Holy-Spirit.html).
While similar effects can be achieved through the theater, the shot of the sky as the two men begin to discuss the wind is something I don't believe any other medium could have depicted quite like film. Shots like the sky in this instance with the wind (representing heaven as well as the spirit) help maintain the spirit of the source material, highlighting the them of faith in a higher power that pervades Steinbeck's novel.
The shot of the sky followed by the flame in a darkened room felt intimate and certainly had spiritual undertones, at least from a thematic standpoint. Danielle mentioned the dust shots at the outset of the film while kiransoty appreciated the use of road signs in establishing shots. There are just certain auteur choices that create subtle tones and emotions, which I believe feeds right into...
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 the auteur theory is very valid in film studies. Directors and their teams have crucial stylistic routines and work practices that make their films known. Overall, directors have a message they wish to convey and they compile the best team to communicate that message. Like Danielle said, it is far from the only way to look at film, but film studies needs that perspective and individuality.
Nowadays, I believe the director has the power to assemble like-minded people who want to tell a similar story and have a fairly universal message to send. So, while I know there are tons of people working on an individual film, I credit the director and the auteur theory for its message because at the end of the day, the director serves as the head coach of this staff and ultimately has his/her message shine through.