MovieChat Forums > A Tree Grows in Brooklyn Discussion > A Great Movie? -- Is It or Ain't It?

A Great Movie? -- Is It or Ain't It?

posted 17 years ago by detailsautumnrain
14 replies | jump to latest

After reading all the comments from an original post ("Did anyone else here think that the mother was nasty?"), I felt compelled to ask the above question.

Most responded to that post by saying: "read the book, read the book." // "according to the book. . ." // and, "oh, if only you had read the book. . . ." So on and so forth.

My question is; Do you feel that the movie was watered down way too much to be. . . . what? Good? Believable? Likeable? Heartwarming? You tell me. In your opinion, is ATGIB just utter syrupy sentimental crap? You. You who have read the book. Do y'all even like the movie? How many stars would you give it?

Has Hollywood given us a great movie with "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" -- or is it just ok, mediocre? Or, are those of us who haven't read the book just dopes? After all, Hollywood will sugar-coat and edit just about anything and everything to tug at our heartstrings, love their movies and buy tickets for them. That, even I do not deny. So maybe YOU guys are right. They should've remained as true to the book as possible.

But maybe, if everything, every character, event, and every detail referenced in the book was put into the film, perhaps we'd've had a very different movie. One that wasn't this classic.

Such is the cost of trimming the fat.

-Kev

[–] tmaj48 17 years ago

While I wouldn't say it was a great film, I would consider it a very good
adaptation of a great book. I'm someone who usually prefers the book version
to the movie version, so I don't think there are too many great movie versions
of good books ('To Kill a Mockingbird'and the 1951 version of 'A Christmas
Carol' are among the rare exceptions). And since "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn"
happens to be my alltime favorite book, any attempts at adaptations would
compare unfavorably in my mind.
I don't think the film is "watered down," per se. It's just that the book
is so crammed with memorable characters, stories, etc., that no average-length
film could begin to cover it all. What the book really deserves is its own
miniseries, but no one makes those anymore.
The one major flaw in the film, in my opinion: Academy Award or not, I thought
James Dunn was miscast.

So--read the book, read the book, READ THE BOOK!

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

[–] seekermatt 13 years ago

i just watched the movie.
i thought it was wonderful.

i bought the book a long time ago because it was my daughter's favorite book.
never got around to reading it, but i will now.

[–] downtownblah 17 years ago

It is one of my favorites and in general is a faithful adaptation of the book. I did enjoy the movie, but the movie and book diverge in some major aspects.

The key event leading the death of central character was overdramatized and overly sentimental and falsely linked to the Christmas season. The Christmas scene in the book is minor in my view, but was whipped up in the movie to make it a Christmas story, and it is not. The book was so much more.

Author Betty Smith presented Francie as a very gifted and very driven girl and young woman, one who was sure to rise above her station. Apparently, Hollywood was not ready show such strong female in 1945.

[–] detailsautumnrain 17 years ago

Gize,

I guess I'm barking up the wrong tree. After some thought, and from reading your posts, I do stand corrected.

I have a very comparable situation. I love my vinyl record album collection. It was a shame record companies came up with, and radio stations played 7" 45 records -- which were shorter in length (timewise). Why they would do it? I haven't the foggiest. I'm just 100% positive it has SOMETHING to do with making more money.

Its a kick in the face of the artist's integrity and his original work.

It'd be wrong on my part as well to ask those of you - who've read the book - to see things my way. I who haven't (as of yet) read the book.

Once you've seen, read, or heard and loved THE ORIGINAL VERSION of anything, anything less pales in comparison to it. You know better and accepting substitutes is something you won't stand for. Especially when YOU KNOW how much was taken out to make it suitable for the general public. Sanitizing it means it's no longer the artists' work -- but rather the vision of the one who's adapting it. Thus the phrase; "too many hands spoil a stew" (something like that). So I DO understand you guys maybe not liking it as much.

That said, after seeing it for the first time in 1994, it greatly moved me to tears. Peggy Ann Garner as Francie turns in a heck of a performance. It wasn't until I'd seen it the fourth time (it was in a Mother's Day Marathon rotation) that I felt the mother stole the movie from Francie. All of her pain and regret come out in that "deathbed" confession. It was the look on her face as Francie's reading the composition to her that gets to me. You really have to feel bad for her having to be the bad guy -- and the cost of all of her doings come out in that scene. Having to be the strong, responsible, and seemingly cold one, she sees how much she missed out on. It was heartbreaking to watch.

All of the major players did an excellent acting job in my opinion. As a movie, I thought it was GREAT! It ranked #2 on my top ten list. (that is, until Titanic came along and threw my top ten list into a tailspin)

Kev

[–] JoeLoebner 16 years ago

One of the best ive ever seen.

[–] bastasch8647 16 years ago

Yes, it is a great movie. I say this on its own merits, not having read the book (though I intend to read it). The film stands on its own, expertly treading the line between hope and despair, between elation and depression. By the ending, I felt satisfied that all major points the film raised had been met and that (apparently in line with the author's intentions) Francie and her family were moving into a future that will be a great improvement from the past.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Antoine Tremblay 15 years ago

Seriously underated, I just finished watching it and I am stunned. One of the best film I have ever seen. It had the same kind of impact that Robert Bresson's films have on me.

[–] nccomet 12 years ago

Yes it is a great movie. A very moving classic to watch with the family. It has one of the best performances ever by a child.

[–] maggimae83 11 years ago

I think the acting is what made the movie great. I believe it was Elia Kazan's first time directing (or close to first) and it is amazing the performances he got out of all the actors in his movies. Yes, the music was irritating, but that was what was done in the 40s. The sound is bad as well. I do think the sets added to the starkness of the story. I wish someone would rework this movie to make the sound better. Or better still, I'd like to see a remake. The book is one of my favorites, as is the movie. And I think Kazan was true to the message of the book.

maggimae83

[–] hka-3 11 years ago

Most responded to that post by saying: "read the book, read the book." // "according to the book. . ." // and, "oh, if only you had read the book. . . ." So on and so forth.

Thanks for the warning . I just started reading the thread you mentioned and people don't have to read the book to understand why the mother was the way she was, because in the film she explained her attitude, herself, particularly when she was in labor. It was all made perfectly clear in the film. All people have to do is have some understanding about human nature and put two and two together based on what's in the film.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jcnsoflorida 11 years ago

Haven't read the book so I cannot comment usefully on the adaptation. However, I think the film stands alone as very good. Certainly an impressive debut by Kazan, and interesting to see a period film about early 20th century NY that was released in 1945. Recommended for anyone who can stand the all the sentiment.

[–] zappalover 11 years ago

Yes, a great movie. Great direction, acting, screenplay, music, sets. Dorothy McGuire handles the complex lead brilliantly, and James Dunn is fully genuine in the role of his life. I only wish the DVD had some extra features to illuminate on the making of this gem. At the same level of Kazan's best work that followed it -- Streetcar, Waterfront, Face in the Crowd...

Life is a state of mind.