1) 1)The majority of John Ford and Gregg Toland’s classic film adaption of John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath remained faithful to its source material; yet, they did change some aspects of the story to make it more cinematic. Arguably the biggest change comes near the end of the film. While the novel ends with the saddening downfall of the Joad family, the film ends with them landing in a government supported agriculture camp and being able to stay together. I don’t feel as though this departure is indicative any auteur changes by either Ford or Toland. It seems as though something that the studio changed to cater the story to mass audiences. Seeing as though in many cases it is hard to accredit certain choices in any given film to the studio or director, I could be wrong about this.
2) 2) I think that if used correctly, Auteur theory is a very important and relevant branch of film study, theory, and analysis. I think that it has been looked down upon in recent years because it has been used incorrectly by many film critics. Auteur theory should be used to asses a given film or a set of films in comparison to a directors complete body of work (filmography). It should in no way be used in a normal review of a film which must be unbiased and objective. If used in this setting, Auteur theory can cloud a reviewer’s judgment and invalidate their ideas about the film. Auteur theory is a very useful tool in analyzing any director’s stylistic trademarks as used in multiple films. It is especially insightful for directors who have a set of distinguished trademarks that are easy to spot and analyze such as, in the modern film scene, Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, the Coen brothers, Alexander Payne, Wes Anderson, and Edgar Wright (among many others).
Ideally, artistic interpretations of a novel, materialized in a novel’s motion picture counterpart, are the responsibility of the director. So although it may be “hard to accredit certain elements in any given film to the studio or the director”, vast plot changes misconstruing the moral message of a film ultimately leave the director at fault. Therefore, changing the ending of Grapes of Wrath to the Joad family living happily ever after in a government agricultural camp has to be accredited to the director.
ReplyDeleteWith the prior established, it must then be assumed that the ending of the movie is indeed indicative of an auteur change by Ford or Toland. It is a departure from the letter as well as the spirit of the novel, and it betrays Steinbeck’s original intention for this story. Rather than preaching the necessity of retaining hope even in the most desperate of moments, as do the concluding chapters of Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, the movie preaches the notion that everything will eventually work out as long as we continue chasing our dream. While certainly an admirable moral principle communicated by Ford and Toland, it was not Steinbeck’s intention to perpetuate it; and the movie Grapes of Wrath and the novel Grapes of Wrath should mirror each other to the spirit, and the letter. The most significant element of a story is what the audience, or the reader, takes out of it, and to so severely alter the conclusion of a story so as to entirely reinvent the moral implications of that story, is to be in the wrong.
However, I agree completely with you on the analysis of “auteurs” and how it should be used. To apply its method of analysis to a single film is absurd, seeing as how the whole very nature of its form of analysis is to view films in context of what the director has done before it, as well as what the director has done after it. Auteur analysis yields a comprehensive understanding of a director in respect to all of his/her movies, but if used to critique a single film, out of context, it is without a doubt, more than useless.
I really do agree with your interpretation of this film and Auteur theory. However, some of the reasons why the changed the end of the film I'd like to add. You mention that they changed this to make it more cinematic, I do agree with this. However, the reason for the deletion of the breast scene is it was understood that audiences would not be ready for this type of viewing on screen in the 40s. Also, by showing that Tommy goes off and fights for the cause while the rest of the family has a good life in the government camps is catering to the audiences. People at this time who were going to see these films were not people such as the characters in The Grapes of Wrath. The upper/middle class audiences wanted to see a happy ending and I think Ford does a good job knowing what this audience wants. Would the breast scene be unfilmmable? I don't necessarily think so. However, in my opinion, just like Ford I don't think it is a necessary scene to end this film.
DeleteWith Auteur theory I do agree with you that it is necessary to analyze a persons collections of films. However, what if it is this filmmakers first film? How do you deal with that? I understand that Auteur theory was made to have a comprehensive understanding of a director just as the person above me posted, but what about those directors who have made some flop films or are just starting out? Maybe we can't exactly apply Auteur theory to them but it is hard to pick and chose just which artists we are going to apply certain theories to. I relate this to music with artists who have one hit wonders. Do these song lose their allure due to the fact that they only have one song? It is hard to critique a person who has one piece of art using this theory. Maybe it is better just left to the artist with a wide array of work.
JM