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 had read Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath in high school, but never had the opportunity to watch this classic book come to life on the silver screen in Ford and Toland’s film adaptation. I was excited to learn that I would finally have my chance at seeing this movie as one of our film presentations. The film to me was true overall to both the letter and the spirit of the book.
One scene in the film that was very powerful and stood out from the rest was when the Joad family was driving into the transient camp in California. Up to this point, the scenes presented to us, the audience, were of the characters, of their past recollections, and from their viewpoints. In this scene, the audience is shown the viewpoint from the front of the Joads’ truck. As their vehicle slowly curves throughout the camp, we see the faces of the other families that have taken the same harsh journey after they either were kicked off of the land that they had lived on their whole lives or had lost their business because of the forced migration. From the position of the camera, the broken, uninviting, sickly faces of the fellow campers seem to be looking up and over into the vehicle. This effect makes the audience feel as though they were also in the car, as another member of the Joad family, or sitting on top of the car, watching the people as the Joads past by them. This scene remains faithful to the novel in that it shows the poor conditions of the camp and of its residents. Where this depiction departs from Steinbeck’s vision is that it secludes the Joad family from the others and steers the film into a story about a singular family unit instead of mankind as a whole. This moment is very “cinematic” since only a film could capture this as well as the feeling of despair that the audience is given when shown the other families’ faces at this distantly different angle. I believe that this moment shows that Ford and Toland are auteurs since not only did they perfect the technique of the way they captured the scene and add their own personal style by creating a different viewpoint with the camera, but they also brought a deeper meaning of this scene to the surface, depicting all of the anguish and distrust the campers had developed throughout their individual journeys.
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?
The auteur theory is when a body of work shows that the director’s best films have the same degree of technique, personal style, and, most importantly, interior meaning. The director has to use decoupage to put together the film in a cohesive way while still maintaining their attitude towards the piece. After learning about the auteur theory in class, I feel that it is a valid area of film study. This theory makes students view films in a different way, while interpreting and evaluating a movie based on the director’s work. I can now view a film and decide whether the director is just a technician, developing a certain technique for the creation of the movie, a stylist, adding their personal touches in the scenes, or an auteur, meaning author, adding these traits with a specific, interior meaning to the film as a whole.
I would agree with your reading of Grapes of Wrath as keeping to the letter and spirit of Stienbeck’s classic, as well as, the idea of Ford and Toland being auteurs. I believe what the two were able to accomplish with this film was to be an example of the grey area, when the auteur theory is brought up. This area, of course, is one where both faithfulness and personal signature, while expanding the story in a film.
ReplyDeleteYou brought up the arrival at the camp scene, which to me was also the most impactful moment. The moment right before, when Joad’s family is just getting in to the car and the Ma says, “Never had to lose everything I have” and shows the despair and sadness on her face. Then it cuts to the back of the truck and all you see are the family members. I felt that this scene, when paired with the scene you mentioned really illustrate how the two were able to breathe into this novel the life that only cinema can do, encapsulating this travel into a cinematic metaphor for this family’s hardships as the hardships of every family at the time. This is why, I would disagree that they don’t focus on mankind as a whole. By telling their story and the cinematography used that places you there with them (the moment you mentioned), they are able to give you a wider range of the emotions of the time. While you are with this family you are still part of this whole. It is Ford and Toland’s ability to make the audience feel the confusion as to “how do you recover from this” to a fear of being new and seeing what the depression will do to you, which keeps them connected to the whole. This expansion of the emotions instilled on the audience to feel for themselves, which can sometimes be missed in reading, is a factor that makes Ford and Toland auteurs.
When our focus of the week was the auteur theory, I had never really given much thought to the debates of whether or not it was a valid area of study. Like you, I will agree that it is a valid area of study, but it has its place. There are plenty of directors out there that transport you to a different world or just let you see the world through their eyes. It’s this consistent mixture of style and technique that make it difficult to argue against this theory. The interesting part of this theory is that it came with a short list of categories for all types of directors. My belief is that many critics have an issue with the production as a total not being account for, but also this idea that you should be looking at all directors in light of this theory and trying to place them. This is where, like I said before, it has its place. There are certain films and directors, which auteur theory should be looked at in film studies, in order for students to see a stylistic or thematic growth of a particular director. In a way they’re furthering the development of cinema as its own art form, but these films and directors should also be looked at from a detached eye as well because it does only show one side. Like many applications of theory we are speculating the intended meaning and this should always be kept in mind when looking at auteur theory.
Keishla Rivera-Estrada