This movie was not very good in my opinion. As far as I am concerned the only moving part of the movie was Tom's (Henry Fonda) final talk with his mother claiming 'wherever a baby cries, ma, ill be there'... Aside from that scene the movie and the book did not follow each other smoothly at all... first of all in the book they went to the govt' camp first! My advice to people reading this is READ THE BOOK... it is 100 times better than the movie.
shareThe book IS better than the movie but, of course, that can be said of a thousand movies based on books. It's the nature of reading a book, full of exposition which defies transfer to a visual medium. Filmmakers have tried for a hundred years to find a satisfactory way of transferring this tremendous advantage books enjoy and have thus far failed. An author can take you right into the thoughts of a character and let you 'listen' to him reason, or fret or rage over his situation. Or an author can offer nearly limitless background information on setting, relationships or implication. It is simply one of the significant differences between reading and watching. Also, most books represent substantially more material than can be presented in a two hour film. (Also a reason books tend to be so much more satisfying). If anyone were to actually try to film the Steinbeck book, we would have a film stretching out to ten or twelve hours, hardly a manageable commercial length. So the filmmakers (the screenwriters and the director, mainly) must make some frequently difficult decisions about what can be included and what will have to be abandoned (this last, in many instances, a painful process). Admirers of a particular book are rarely satisfied with the film version, unless they recognise that what they're going to get is a necessarily truncated version of the story. You comment that 'they go to the Government camp first!' I'm not sure what you're saying here, 'first' in relation to what? Surely you're not saying before they go to the 'other' camp because they stop at the camp west of Santa Rosa, NM, where the 'ragged man' tells of his experiences in California and the deaths of his two children and his wife in Chapter 16 ( a very long, emotionally satisfying chapter) and then in Chapter 22, the family finds the Government camp with it's committees, Saturday night dances and settle into 'number four sanitary unit'. I find the movie satisfying on nearly every level and I love the book. A 'hundred times better'? I don't know about that, they're two different things.
share[deleted]
like blade runner, 2001, the shinning
shareI only read two books by Steinbeck because I was never into SERIOUS literature. OF MICE AND MEN and TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY plus a sci-fi short story. I like "mice" because it was short and to the point. The movie gave Bob Steele a great role as well as Lon Chaney Jr.
I remember seeing a tv adaptation of "Charley" years ago with Henry Fonda narrating, but I've never heard of it since.
I disagree... You have to read all of those boring little words in the book, but with the film you just have to watch the moving pictures and listen to the sounds... The movie is far superior.
shareI think any movie that is based on a book by Stienbeck cannot possibly be up to par. THe book is brilliant and should not be missed.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Of course the book is better, but when is a film ever better than a book? (Maybe if it is not a work of art but just a cheap story) Otherwise books always have more details, more emotions and let you get the mood better. Films not only have limited time to tell long stories but also lack narration which helps you understand things much more deeply. So I think the problem is not only the different endings or the differences in sequence. There is a lot more to books than films.
shareHave you ever read the novel "Forrest Gump?" It was a good idea for a vastly superior film. Doesn't happen often, but it CAN happen!
I hugely disagree. Movies, potentially, can be as detailed as books, can convey the same range of emotions. Why do u think that moviemakers have limited time to tell long stories? If it is true the fault belongs to the filmaker, not the medium.
Cinema (as an art form) can combine different arts, so it is potentially a fantastic medium to convey emotions. We can have images, sound, acting, technology. And filmmakers can re-made a scene that doesn't satisfy at all.
The truth is that literature is an older art than cinema. We should give Seventh Art authors the necessary time to let this art grow.
In the trivia section here... John Steinbeck loved the movie and said that Henry Fonda as Tom Joad made him "believe my own words". Each medium is different - and both the book and the film are masterpieces.
shareI personally don't like to compare books and films. They are different mediums, and as such, what works for one may not work for the other.
"Mediocrities all, I absolve you. I am your champion. I am your patron saint"
-Antonio Salieri
first of all in the book they went to the govt' camp first!
I believe the original poster is referring to the fact that in the book, the Joads went to the gov't camp before the peach picking camp (outside of which Casy was killed). True, but it's hard to argue that really effects the plot, or, more importantly, the message of the book.
I will agree that the movie isn't as good as the book, but that isn't saying much -- when is the movie ever as good as the book? (Except possibly for The Firm, which is more a statement about John Grisham's talent than anything.) Standing on its own, the film is awfully powerful. Fonda is truly absorbing as Tom Joad.
My only disappointment with the movie is the ending. I can understand that no studio in 1940 would have ended the movie the way the book ended, but 65 years later, would be nice to see it done.
How about when the movie is The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, 2001, Dr Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Vertigo, Psycho, Rear Window, Touch of Evil, Gone with the Wind, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, Slumdog Millionaire, Silence of the Lambs or Memento?
Admittedly I haven't read all the books these were based on but most of these are considered classics while the books have often been forgotten (or at least not regarded as highly).
Throw Jaws and Planet Of The Apes into that list as well,
share'The Grapes of Wrath' is the great American novel; I read it often. John Ford did the book a great justice. I can't imagine a better tribute to Steinbeck's masterwork.
The train-car scenes were not included, which is a shame, and Rosasharn's feeding the dying man could not have been included due to the content, but I think Ford lovingly transformed the book.
"What do you want me to do, draw a picture? Spell it out!"
Books are always better than the movie except for Shoeless Joe/Field of Dreams. THis movie is great. Stop complaining.
--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...
100x's? bold claim.
His name...was Julio Iglesias!
Presumably, if the rumored Spielberg-produced remake does happen, the original ending scenes of the novel will be restored, now that they could be included in an R-rated movie (maybe even a PG-13).
I would guess also the government-run camp would not be shown as quite as much of a nirvana as in the 1940 film.
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.