Would you call it an actual adaptation of Steinbeck's novel?

it is too long a book to do in one film, maybe a miniseries
But it didn't even capture the essence of the book. It was Rebel Without a Cause pre WW 1

I recently read the book. The movie was way off on so many levels. I understand Steinbeck was pleased with the movie - I don't see how, Kazan too so many liberties.

It has been a while since I read the book, but I think the definition of 'timshel" is a lot more complicated than deciding between good and bad. I think it is more the idea of having a choice. This was emphasized in the movie.

maggimae83

-ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO READ THE NOVEL BY J. STEINBECK--

I think "Inspired By" describes the movie.

The father was not a religious man in the book. He never even mentions the bible let alone quotes from it. He's a good man just not a religious one. He never speaks of God in the book.

Also missing are the Hamiltons (except Will)and the Chinese cook. It would have been hard to fit them in this movie but I missed their presence just the same. I loved how the cook spoke highly accented English but in the presence of the Hamiltons and the Trasks he spoke it perfectly. He considered them family.

There was a mini-series adaptation for television back in 1981 starring Jane Seymour and Bruce Boxleitner, which I remember fascinated me at the time, but I've never seen it again. I love Steinbeck and have read many of his novels. It was not until I after watched the miniseries that I actually read EofE. I do like the 1955 film, even though it reflects only a small portion of the novel. I've always believed that print and film are two entirely different media, and enjoy film adaptations when they capture the spirit of the book or the chief characters. I think this is what Kazan's film attempts to do with extreme success. Certainly a faithful and full adaptation of the novel would never have been permitted in 1955.