Compare and contrast the readings of Steinbeck’sThe Grapes of Wrathwith Ford’sThe Grapes of Wrath.
Controversy normally follows films that are made from books, that don’t remain true to the narrative or secret plan. Although films could be considered as a ocular image of the secret plan some may reason that they deviate from the chief events and subjects of the novel. The readings of John Steinbeck and John Ford, both Godheads of their ain version of The Grapes of Wrath in a novel and film severally, [ M1 ] played a cardinal function in the correlativity between both plants. Although the [ M2 ]Grapes of Wrathfilm and book are based on a similar secret plan, the fluctuations in perceptual experiences of both Steinbeck and Ford resulted in two celebrated, yet immensely different pieces of work.
First, while the subject of extended household and togetherness is an indispensable portion of the development of the novel, the film chooses to concentrate on a single-family unit, the Joads. John Steinbeck, a victim of the Great Depression [ 1 ] [ M3 ] , uses some [ M4 ] examples to convey up the construct of togetherness and the importance of household particularly during times of adversity. As the Joad household are about to put off on their journey to California, Casy says ; “But when they ‘re all workin ‘ together, non one chap for another chap, but one chap sort of harnessed to the whole shebang—that ‘s right, that ‘s holy.” [ 2 ] As observed from this quotation mark, the integrity of worlds, non merely household, can assist acquire through the hard times. While analysing the linguistic communication, the accent on working together is further enhanced by the uninterrupted repeat, such as “not one chap for another fella” , showing the importance of household. Furthermore, the linguistic communication associating to religion can be seen to reflect on the importance of integrity to Steinbeck, as faith had a major impact on the Great Depression [ 3 ] . [ M5 ]
Alternatively, the film focuses chiefly on the adversities of the Joad household. While the film does concentrate on Joads, Ford chooses non to include the same subject of integrity. For illustration, ( 37.46-40.42 ) [ 4 ] , demonstrates Ford’s perceptual experience of individualism. The thought of personal involvement is apparent during Grandpa’s decease, in which the loss of an aged wise man is seen in a positive visible radiation. Casy’s positive mentality and linguistic communication upon Grandpa’s decease can be seen to reflect on the incident as good. [ M6 ] While the loss of a household member may do some sorrow, the positive tone of Casy can be seen to typify Ford’s belief of individualism. The strong linguistic communication helps show the right flying attitude of the film, portraying individualism, as opposed to the novel’s left wing attitude, portraying integrity [ M7 ] . Some may reason that the exclusion of household in the film could hold been influenced by World War 2, in which the Nazis were considered enemies. The war stoked a distinguishable feeling of America vs. the Nazis and as such everyone wasn’t considered household, merely as the Joad’s attitude was portrayed in the film. The difference in perceptual experiences of the subject of household in the novel and film is merely one of the major differences that set both plants apart from each other. [ M8 ]
Second, bildungsroman, peculiarly in the instance of Rose of Sharon, a character whose development through the novel is extended, shows minimum development in the film. Her alteration in personality, although minimal at first, impacts the result of the novel. “Her manus moved behind his caput and supported it. Her fingers moved gently in his caput. She looked up and across the barn, and her lips came together and smiled mysteriously.” [ 5 ] The graphic imagination developed in this subdivision of the novel helps the reader to derive an penetration of the state of affairs. For illustration, the description of Rose of Sharon helping the old adult male helps the reader to visualize the scene. Whilst a negative subject can be observed throughout the novel, the imagination helps to develop a lingering message of hope. Through analysis of the description, it can be noticed that Steinbeck’s belief of prolonging hope and religion is expressed through the compassionate and stamp imagination [ M9 ] . Steinbeck’s strategic placing of this scene in the novel, informs the reader that although victims ofGreat Depression saw adversities, hope still exists. The stoping of the novel, where Rose of Sharon’s character development helped salvage a adult male, can be seen to resemble Steinbeck’s positive attitude toward the hereafter. Alternatively, the character development of Rose of Sharon, conspicuously portrayed in the novel, can be considered minimum in the film. It can be noticed that Rose of Sharon suckling the old adult male was excluded for grounds of discretion [ M10 ] . Ford’s exclusion of this imagination can be seen to ensue in a less impactful stoping for the spectator. The exclusion of this scene helps to prolong the positive subject in the novel, reflecting on Ford’s positive sentiments about the Great Depression, as opposed to a dramatic swing towards hope at the terminal. Furthermore, Ford’s exclusion of imagination can be seen to diminish the value of the character of Rose of Sharon, as she is unable to develop as a character. The application of bildungsroman in the novel, which was non as prominent in the film, can be seen to further thin the connexion between the film and the novel.
In add-on, the distinction in Ford and Steinbeck’s perceptual experience of the political influence on the Great Depression suggested fluctuations in the true cause for the Great Depression in the film and novel. Steinbeck’s belief of the cause behind the Great Depression was house. [ M11 ] Multiple times in the novel, it can be noticed that the characters blame their hopeless state of affairs and famishment on the corrupt authorities and president [ M12 ] [ 6 ] . As characters realize that their land will shortly be taken off, the narrative states [ M13 ] ; “The bank—the monster has to hold net incomes all the clip. It ca n’t wait. It ‘ll decease. No, revenue enhancements go on. When the monster stops turning, it dies. It ca n’t remain one size.” [ 7 ] These strong words of choler farther enhance the uninterrupted repeat of the bank’s selfish Acts of the Apostless. Steinbeck’s use of linguistic communication can be seen to show a distinguishable political message of incrimination on the authorities. The term monster, frequently seen in a negative visible radiation, can be seen to instantly act upon Steinbeck’s consequence on the reader and direct a distinguishable political message. The strong use of words helps to indicate to one common hated figure. On the other manus, Ford’s perceptual experience of the political state of affairs puts the incrimination, for the pressing state of affairs of the Great Depression, on no peculiar group or individual. For illustration, ( 15:48-18:17 ) [ 8 ] , portrays Ford’s exclusion of political message. Ford’s usage of non-aggressive and laid-back words shows less hatred or fault toward one peculiar figure. In contrast with the novel, the unagitated attitude of the characters helps to diminish the political tenseness and do it look as if the Great Depression was a corporate attempt, merely as Ford may hold believed. As a consequence, the tone and linguistic communication can be seen to develop no existent political message. The inclusion of political message in the novel and exclusion in the film farther enhances the distinction in perceptual experiences of Steinbeck’s novel and Ford’s film.
While fluctuations in the Ford’s and Steinbeck’s readings may be, the word picture of adversities and battles can be noticed in both plants. The Great Depression was a clip of great poorness and widespread hungriness. Although the novel can be seen to demo the adversities in a more negative visible radiation, both plants do show the hardships of the Great Depression. “Curious kids crowded near, ragged kids who ate their discharged dough as they watched. They watched ravenously the unwrapping of the sandwiches, and their hunger-sharpened olfactory organs smelled the pickle, cheese and Spam.” [ 9 ] Steinbeck’s portraiture of adversity and, in this instance, despair for nutrient can be seen to correlate with his personal sentiment on the Great Depression.The look of adversities in the signifier of imagination can be seen to direct an apparent message of the hurting that was faced during the Great Depression. Furthermore, the close certification of his experiences, as a victim of the Great Depression, reflects on Steinbeck’s belief in the importance of history. Similarly, it can be noticed that Ford’s inclusion of adversities can besides be perceived to direct a distinguishable message of problems during the Great Depression. For illustration, ( 1:21-1:25 ) [ 10 ] , demonstrates Ford’s portraiture of the troubles of the Great Depression. Ford’s distinguishable usage of imagination in this scene shows the hardships being faced, such as a deficiency of resources. Using imagination over linguistic communication gives peculiar importance to the scene, as the reader genuinely understands the Joad’s predicament in the battle for endurance. The legion sums of people continuously walking for resources, reflects on Ford’s apprehension of the problems and hardships the Joads were walking into. Although Ford and Steinbeck’s readings may differ in the tone of their plants, both portion a common land of utilizing imagination to picture the adversities during the Great Depression.
All in all, while Ford and Steinbeck have focused on a similar narrative line and secret plan, it can be noticed that their readings straight reflect on the obscure relativity between the novel and film. The apparent subjects and motivations captured by Steinbeck in the novel could be interpreted as really obscure and elusive in the film. Rose of Sharon, whose character can be seen as go forthing a permanent feeling in the novel, is given minimum importance in the film. Finally, the strong political message in the fresh differs greatly from the little message in the film. Steinbeck’s typical usage of imagination and character development helped the reader engage in a realistic novel, reflecting straight on the events of the Great Depression. Although both plants are based on similar events and plot line, the different readings of Steinbeck and Ford resulted in two celebrated, yet diverse pieces of work.