Running Head: MY POINT OF VIEW, PILGRIM

The Grapes of Wrath: Its My Point Of View, Pilgrim

Emil Albrychiewicz

The University of California, Berkeley

College Writing Program R1A

MY POINT OF VIEW, PILGRIM 2

Its my point of view, Pilgrim

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it

were a nail." Abraham Maslow

There is a one fundamental question that comes to a mind when someone tries to

compare John Steinbecks book The Grapes of Wrath to the movie with the same title

made by John Ford. This question is why it even happened that Ford agreed to make a

movie about the struggles of the Joad family, who immigrate to California in hope of new

jobs. At first glance, Ford and Steinbeck were complete antagonists. Indeed, Ford, a

famous director who won many Academy Awards, but was a well-regarded republican

with strong traditional Christian values. In contrast, John Steinbeck, Nobel Prize laureate

for literature, was a strong supporter of socialist movements (Stancliff, 2014). The

explanation of this paradox conservative making a movie on leftist novel - might be the

idea of cognitive bias - both artists shared in common similar vision on the problem of

work immigration during the Great Depression but had their own personal opinions on

the solution and they defended their own truth with the masterpieces they made.

When another famous American director, Peter Bogdanovich, once asked Ford

what actually attracted him to the novel, Ford replied: "The whole thing appealed to me-

being about simple people- and the story was similar to the famine in Ireland, when they

threw the people off the land and left them wandering on the roads to starve. That may

have had something to do with it- part of my Irish tradition- but I liked the idea of this

family going out and trying to find their way in the world" (McBride, 2011). This

suggests that Ford connected to the subject matter personally. He saw a parallel

between the immigration of the Joad family to California and the immigration of his own

Irish ancestors to America. The reason was exactly the same lack of food, work a

tough set of circumstances that they needed to overcome. Not surprisingly, this part of
MY POINT OF VIEW, PILGRIM 3

the movie, the immigration of Joad family is shown in a really similar way to the book

version. Ford doesnt make significant changes as he may have felt that somehow he was

describing the story of his own family.

However, the second part of the story, when the family finally arrives in

California is substantially different in the film and novel Ford not only deleted some

scenes but also change the order of plot. Again, Fords biography helps to understand

why he decided to change the plot. He came from really poor family of Irish immigrants,

who had arrived in America just fifteen years before his birth. Ford followed his twelve-

year senior brother, who became a successful actor, to a career in Hollywood. He went

through all steps, starting as his brothers assistant, acting in his movies, and finally a

career as a director. Even during one of the toughest moments of American history, the

Great Depression and World War II, he triumphed, as a wealthy movie director and film

correspondent ranked as US Navy commander, respectively. Clearly, Ford had his own

vision of how people could deal with even the worst circumstances. He believed that

self-reliance, through hard work and devotion, led to success. In this sense, his personal

bias he was a California immigrant himself - gave him a cognitive bias. His life

experiences allowed him to distort the second part of the novel by making it more

optimistic.

Compared to Ford, Steinbecks background is completely different. He was born

in a family of German immigrants that had already established themselves in the US.

Spending most time of his life in the most fertile part of California and working on farms,

he saw the situation of immigrants on his own eyes. In contrast to his family members,

Steinbeck tried to take a variety of jobs and never settled down. Even with writing, he

had many troubles to become an independent author and his results were not always

positive. Striving through his whole life, he looked for California as an insider that had
MY POINT OF VIEW, PILGRIM 4

his own truth to tell. Not surprisingly, in the novel, he presented his own view of life as a

constant wrestling against the fate that never allows resting and settling in one place.

Steinbeck understood that others might not accept his perspective on life and

that his book would spark controversies. However, to his astonishment, the novel was

read by everyone, even by people like Ford who had completely different opinions and

political views. Indeed, as Peter Lisca describes in his book The Wide World of John

Steinbeck: "The book [Grapes of Wrath] was a phenomenon on the scale of a national

event. It was publicly banned and burned by citizens, it was debated on national radio;

but above all, it was read" (Lisca, 1958). Not surprisingly, the biggest criticism came

from California landowners. Steinbeck even received death threats and the book itself

was banned in most libraries. People criticized Steinbeck by accusing him of promoting

communist ideas or criticizing his style of writing, but they all agreed that the book itself

described the actual problem and it was a masterpiece

Ford as well recognized this book as a masterpiece. He just deleted elements and

details that didnt follow his views, and made a movie that equal praise as the novel. As

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his review of the film in Time magazine (then the leading

national magazine): It will be a red rag to bull-mad Californians who may or may not

boycott it. Others, who were merely annoyed at the exaggerations, propaganda and

phony pathos of John Steinbeck's best selling novel, may just stay away. Pinkos who did

not bat an eye when the Soviet Government exterminated 3,000,000 peasants by famine,

will go for a good cry over the hardships of the Okies. But people who go to pictures for

the sake of seeing pictures will see a great one. For The Grapes of Wrath is possibly the

best picture ever made from a so-so book. It is certainly the best picture Darryl F.

Zanuck has produced or Nunnally Johnson scripted. It would be the best John Ford had

directed if he had not already made The Informer (Chambers, 1940).

MY POINT OF VIEW, PILGRIM 5

However, Fords interpretation obviously sparked controversies as well, this time

from liberals. The studio responsible for the movie 20th Century Fox - received more

than 15000 letters from frustrated fans of the novel who claimed that the studio

shouldnt produce the movie, as they were too closely associated with the same banks

that Steinbeck had criticized. All the long monologues that described the unfair business

practices of car salesman, overcharging for food at camp markets or acts of cheating

with the scales that were used to weigh fruit at the farm were deleted. The hostility and

contempt of landowners and local inhabitants in the movie was completely gone. One

remarkable scene, in which landowners just throw fruits into the river to decrease

supply and thereby drive up price, yet rather than let hungry people take them, was

omitted. Liberals accused Ford of cowardice, claiming that such changes couldnt be

arbitrary and that his movie failed to address the problems it pretended to tackle.

However, still, the movie was praised for its outstanding realism and social relevance.

People loved the fact how Ford showed the importance of family, traditional values, and

connection with the land. Although leftists criticized Ford for being on the short leash of

businessmen, the movie was acclaimed as a masterpiece.

Here the paradox mentioned in the introduction returns. Here are two

masterpieces with the same story, same heroes, same environment but two completely

opposing meanings. When Steinbecks novel ends with desperate act of Rose of Sharon

who offers her breast milk to save an old men from starvation, the movie gives more

optimistic ending with a hopeful monologue of Ma Joad. Warren French, noted Steinbeck

critic, explains this opposition well: The final point of the movie is exactly the opposite

of the novel's. It is an insistence that survival depends not upon changing and

dynamically accommodating oneself to new challenges but rather passively accepting

one's lot and keeping plodding along. The film does not embody Steinbeck's
MY POINT OF VIEW, PILGRIM 6

transcendental vision of all human beings as part of one oversoul but rather the

traditional Christian concept of earthly humility and divine justice (French, 1973).

These different meanings, in other words, are strictly associated with the artists

backgrounds. Ford is not being dishonest with his picture; he presents the novel in the

way that he read it. He didnt focus on collectivism, the importance of we instead of I,

and Jim Casy as spiritual leader. For Steinbeck, Casy is the prophet of a new religion,

built on a self-organized, self-disciplined, and communal society. Casy was the preacher

whom Steinbeck was looking for in his own life. He believed in a political and social

system that would be based on the rule that one helps another a system with no place

for wasteful farmers, cheating businesspeople or corrupt police. Rather, Ford portrayed

Casy as a harmless goofball, loosening the whole spirit of this literary hero.

What really mattered for Ford was not the spirit of community but family: he

focused on the Joads individual efforts. Ford intentionally isolated the Joads from other

families (throughout the whole movie Joads didnt befriend any migrant families), as he

wanted to show a tight family unit, which transcends the particularity and specificity of

time and place. This completely contrasts with Steinbecks vision of the Joads as only

one of many families that were a part of a larger organism composed also of land, plants,

animals, and even the weather. The book spent much time detailing the Joads and other

farmers intimacy with the land. Ford omitted Steinbecks description of cotton or peach

picking. According to Vivian Sobchack, in not a straightforward way this serves to depict

family as a separate unit of the community as work in the novel was always done by a

group, not an individual (Sobchack, 1979). There is no place for strong relations with

other families; the only fact that really matters is what Joads achieved alone. Thus, as

Warren French notes, the director aims at "abstracting the Joads from any particular

context and treating them as ageless figures of dispossessed wanderers (French, 1973).
MY POINT OF VIEW, PILGRIM 7

This clearly connects with the biography of Ford that was mentioned before, and his

strong belief that determined individuals can achieve success. He believes that his

personal story is individual and yet universal at the same time; he succeeded and others

can follow his lead.

The difference between the book and movie also appears in the way the authors

build and express emotions. Steinbeck tried to achieve this aim in the book by using

animal symbolism. When the family is just about to leave Oklahoma, a long scene of pig

slaughtering takes place. It metaphorically shows the end of their farm life, and the fear

at what is to come. Another example is the scene of dogs death that foreshadows

families difficulties and death of some its members. However, Ford completely neglected

the importance of animal symbolism in his adaptation of the novel. Certainly, movies

express emotions in a different way than novels. Yet, Fords personal bias still plays a

part, as his changes serve his broader purpose.

Most film critics praised Ford for realism and authenticity. In their opinion, he

showed the reality of life the Great Depression, regardless of how well he adapted the

plot of the novel. Critics called the movie bitter, authentic, honest (Life Magazine,

1940); some compared it to documentary films. They remarked on the dramatic lighting,

scenes in the dark and camera close ups of main heroes. Through these artistic touches,

Ford diverted the audiences attention from Steinbecks harsh call for social and political

changes. Instead, he emphasized traditional value of the past: tight family unit, in which

members stay together and determinedly work towards certain goals. The aesthetics of

movie helped him to adapt the novel in less political and temporal way. He gave his

American audience a perfect evocation of harmony and traditions established in the

community.
MY POINT OF VIEW, PILGRIM 8

Both the book and movie were masterpieces that showed how artists with

completely different background interpreted immigration to California in the Great

Depression. Neither Steinbeck nor Ford can be criticized for what theyve done because

they simply showed what was most important for them. Their cognitive bias Fords

artful depiction of individual struggle and Steinbecks constant search for social justice

was reflected in they way how they presented the problem and solutions for the Dust

Bowl migration crisis. Nevertheless, they both achieved success as their oeuvres were

recognized as seminal works. As George Bluestone wrote in his novel about movies: "If

the novel is remembered for its moral anger, the film is remembered for its beauty"

(Bluestone, 1957).

References

Bluestone, G. (1957). Novels into Film. University of California Press.

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=14307&recCount=25&rec

Pointer=3&bibId=3212828

Chambers, W. (1940) Cinema: The New Pictures: Monday, Feb. 12, 1940. Time Magazine.

Retrieved from:

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,884004,00.html

French, W. (1973) Filmguide to The Grapes of Wrath Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Press

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=14133&recCount=25&rec

Pointer=3&bibId=4552890

Life Magazine, (January 22, 1940)

Lisca, P (1958). The Wide World of John Steinbeck. Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Press.
MY POINT OF VIEW, PILGRIM 9

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=13615&recCount=25&rec

Pointer=0&bibId=1355625

McBride, J. (2011). Searching for John Ford. Univ. Press of Mississippi.

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=13580&recCount=25&rec

Pointer=0&bibId=16285311

Stancliff, D. (2013). Remembering John Steinbeck, a great American writer. Times

Standard. Retrieved from: http://www.times-

standard.com/letters/ci_22658148/remembering-john-steinbeck-great-

american-writer

Sobchack, V. C. (1979). The Grapes of Wrath (1940): Thematic Emphasis Through Visual

Style. The John Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2712428?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Steinbeck, J. (1939). The Grapes of Wrath. The Viking Press.

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=13854&recCount=25&rec

Pointer=5&bibId=1459915

Zanuck D. F. (producer) & Ford, J. (director). (1940). The Grapes of Wrath [Motion

Picture]. United States: 20th Century Fox