(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?
I have not read Grapes of Wrath, but from what we discussed in class, it's apparent that the ending largely differs from the film's ending. From things i've read online, the film is very similar to the book in the first half but strays away in the second. Ford & Toland made a conscious decision to leave several scenes out that were in the book. All of these scenes, one in particular, gave the overall meaning to the story a more dreary effect. Like we discussed in class, the scene where the woman gives a dying man her breast milk was not included. According to Truffaut, he believed cinema should stay true to the literature and not change the spirit of the original work. I don't think the spirit of the story was changed too much by the movie, but it definitely made things seem a little easier than things were for the characters in the original story. The film's ending was simpler and gave a more positive message overall. The fact that Ford & Toland decided to do this definitely makes them auteurs because they made their own version of the story. However, because the movie was made in 1940, keeping these darker scenes might have been nearly impossible in that time in cinema because audiences were not acclimated to seeing that yet. I am not sure if Ford & Toland would have kept the scenes out in a later period or not. The ending is cinematic because it held back from showing things which were too much for film in that time period but that could still be told in literature.
(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 do believe auteur theory is a valid area of study in film, but I can also understand why some would dismiss it. I think film studies should include a lot of different types of theories, and auteur should be one of them, but definitely not the only one. Looking at a director's work specifically is a great way to get a better understanding of the director and how they work, and what they are trying to get across in later films. But I also think films should mostly be watched without even knowing the director so that your conclusions on the film won't be biased. I agree that not all films by a good director are necessarily good, and films by a new or not-so-good director can turn out great.
Some of the scenes that were taken out do seem to be more of the "dreary" ones, and it's true that the audience of the day may not have been ready for some of those scenes. For example, the kiss between Captain Kirk and Lieutenant Uhura, cited as the first interracial kiss on TV, was a big deal when it first aired; ten years earlier and that scene probably would have caused a scandal. Perhaps for a similar reason they chose to give the movie a more "positive" spirit. The scene where they stop at the edge of California and take in the landscape is a very hopeful one. However, I agree that they did stay pretty true to the spirit; although the ending was hopeful, it didn't foreshadow any signs that things were ever going to get better, and frankly, it made me wonder if they were close to hitting a dead end, such as they did in the book. Throughout the novel, the acting, and the movie in general, made me feel what I think Steinback wanted me to feel; pity, rage, etc. I was extremely upset at the big money driving the people off the land, who, in my opinion, had more of a right to it than the "owner". The letters did change, but the spirit remained intact.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Auteur theory, it may be a bit outdated. However, it still offers a unique perspective on film, and therefore cannot be replaced. Having more than one way to look at something really expands and gives greater perspective to that something, so I agree, it shouldn't be completely dismissed. To expand, directors still have a major influence on a work. As for watching a movie without knowing the director, this may or may not be possible. Someone who is a film critic may already know the director beforehand, or they may be able to pick it up by watching the movie. When you hear a song for the first time, sometimes you know who the artist is, just by the style and vocals. But I agree, not knowing who directs the movie can prevent some bias.