Grapes of Wrath, a novel by John Steinbeck and soon afterwards a film adaptation by John Ford, follows family struggling to make ends meet, as they cross the country looking for work during the Great Depression. At the very end of the film, our protagonist Tom Joad leaves his family and a pretty decent work camp because and promised to help out all men who couldn’t help themselves, the same way his friend did before he died. This is a completely different ending of the novel, in which the younger family member who was carrying a child finally gives birth, but to a stillborn. She then uses the milk in her breasts to feed some of the men of the camp she is living in. Changing just this scene creates a completely different message of hope that Steinbeck was not trying to approach in his novel. I believe John Ford’s decision to change up this moment shows his desire to win over critical acclaim in sacrifice of making a bold statement. In this sense, I believe that it was a cinematic move. Everyone involved in cinema, producers, audiences members, etc, felt more comfortable with the decision, and are left to enjoy the movie more. However, I believe this change in the film is proof of Ford’s inability to become an auteur. To tailor any part of your film you are creating to Hollywood in hopes of becoming more award-friendly or more audience-friendly shows an alternative motivation for creating films than a theme or message. Whether Ford, or Toland for that matter, was using the same style as previous films is something I cannot comment on, but I do not believe that makes someone an auteur. Instead, to further critique Ford and his decision, I believe not being able to change up your style to fit whatever theme you are trying to promote shows a lack of diversity in your cinematic skills. I can only lower my opinion on this film and Ford if most of his pervious and future works after Grapes of Wrath have a theme of hope and moving onward, but I do not believe if it did he would have chosen this novel to adapt in the first place.
Auteur theory is an important subsection of film study, especially for students interested in creating films themselves, but there should be strong parameters that educators use when teaching it. I believe auteur theory in a critical sense should be dismissed. There is no reason to categorize a director as am auteur until 100% of his work has been released. If a director or filmmaker is still creating films, we cannot completely categorize him as an auteur. Some examples of current auteur directors were brought up, mainly due to style of film; Tim Burton and Quentin Tarantino are what come to mind. Yet these filmmakers are changing up their style with every film they make. Tim Burton was after all the creator of the first Planet of the Apes adaptation, which I believe to be completely different from Sweeny Todd in every aspect. Quentin Tarantino films are changing as he acquires more and more budgets for his films, and his early work dialogue and long shot work has been replaced with more action heavy scenes. Even Martin Scorsese, who continues to make films after 30 years, changes up his styling. Shutter Island was extremely different from The Departed, and both were on completely different spectrums of the cinematic world to Raging Bull. To study auteur in a critical sense takes away from your views of the films as an individual. Going back to the Scorsese example, if you look at Scorsese as an auteur, you begin connecting themes and styles from Shutter Island to his previous work, trying to make sense not of the film at hand, but instead to fit the director’s choices into predetermined mindsets of themes that he “must” be trying to make. I believe that if looking at a director as an auteur limits your ability to judge a film objectively, it should be left out of the discussion.
To an extent, I agree with you completely. Ford's inability to portray the true ending of the novel, while still creating a successful movie shows how he is not truly an aeteur. I also agree with your idea that this shows his alternative motives for creating the movie. Like you said, as opposed to creating a movie based on themes and story, he created something that would appeal to movie creators and basic audience members, but in doing so, forgot about the essence of the film and it's endings. As I said in my screening notes, the movie provides a much more optimistic ending, as opposed to the book, where everything spirals down for the family.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I believe that we cannot entirely tell if he is auteur based on one film. Like most, I judge a director based not only on one film, but on his entire career. As such, it isn't fair to determine whether Ford's film, The Grapes of Wrath, represents him as a whole, like you said. Also, a director isn't in entire control of all aspects of the film. Some directors force changes in their style based on the wants and desires of audiences, like you said. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where there aren't outside forces that determine an artists' work, such as budget, and/or other officials involved in the film. As such, like you said, I agree that this idea should be left out of discussion.