Movie Review

David Vasquez History 119 Movie Review #2 12/04/2005

Grapes of Wrath By John Steinbeck

Directed By John Ford

ASTRACT:

The novel Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck was made into a controversial

movie in 1936 directed by John Ford. Under the direction of director John Ford, the

Grapes of Wrath told the story of a particular family that was one of many migrants from

Okalahoma that was affected by the Great Depression and dust storms that corroded the

land they lived on. The economic and natural disasters that families had experience

forced many families to pick up and leave the farms they had worked and lived on for

years. The Goad family was one of these families that after decades of living and

working the only land they now had to leave; in fact, they were forced because although

they lived on the land, they were actually only sharecroppers. Share croppers such as the

Goad family, were forced to leave all they had and knew on the account that the

superintendents, under orders of banks and political elites, drove poor working class

people off lands for economic and political reasons.

Thomas Goad, the eldest son of the Goad family, returns to his family during this

time and after serving four years in prison. When he arrives, he finds them absent from

the family home, and the home is in shambles. Along the way, Thomas meets a preacher

who follows him to his old house and there they find hiding a neighbor who explains the

situation. The neighbor tells Thomas that his family is at his uncle’s farm and is

Commented [JU1]: NOTE: Title must be italicized or underlined.

expecting to leave to California with the rest of his family. Thomas find this hard to

believe due to the long history his family has had with the farm. However, he learns of

the forced evacuations and the “dusters,” winds that turned the once “Garden of Eden”

land into desert. The reason is however, unclear why families are forced to evacuate

since blame on the whole issue goes from superintendent, companies, banks, and

eventually to the mysterious unknown men back East.

Thomas is very disturbed and grows angry, and once he finds his family he joins

them through their struggles of leaving all they know for the unknown California where

they hope they will find work and prosperity once again. Inspired by a pamphlet that

promises such, the Goad family soon is on the way, with Thomas, and experiences the

hard realities of prejudices, discriminations, poverty, and false hopes that comes from the

migration. Through out this plot, the viewer can witness all aspects of social, political,

and ethnic determination the Goad family had to face. In addition, the severity of how

social class was used to pit people against each other in the name of progress and

capitalist gain.

MEDIA:

The Grapes of Wrath was made in 1940 and is entirely black and white.

Steinbeck became aware of the political situation back in 1935 during which mass

migration from Okalahoma became a hotly debated issue in California politics. These

migrants earned the named Oakies while on their arrival to California, and it was

Steinbeck in his novel that first captured their struggle. Along with movie director John

Ford, whom also had a fascination with the Oakies, both men began to make the film that

would capture the audience with sufficient amounts of drama yet that would teach the

truth of the Oakies and their experiences of discriminations and social struggle that a

documentary could bring out.

This combination of a Docu-Drama move made Grapes of Wrath very effective in

exposing the hypocrisy of Americas capitalists system and the class struggle of worker

against elite. The movie also was strengthening with the music that was played from

beginning to end. Director John Ford was also a silent films producer and director, so he

did not want to tune out the characters or take away from the plot; therefore, he was

conservative with placing music at certain times. However, he used the same song “A

Red River” in the beginning and end. This song expresses a land of bounty and is played

as the family leaves the farm; however, the farm they leave is no lush paradise only a

desert. The song may seem inappropriate, yet its place is justifiable because it represents

the hope the family has in their exodus to the new “Promise Land” California. This is

song is played both during the time they leave the farm and in the ending when the family

picks up again and head towards Fresno.

Ford was not interested in close-ups; his concern was to capture the audience’s

attention not only of an individual character. Ford’s purpose was to capture the entire

moment. For example, through out the movie, the characters can be seen contrasted with

the place and time that the particular scene is shot. The panoramic views of mountains,

plains, and roadsides can all be absorbed into the moment along with the characters and

their actions at that moment. Ford also made sure to shoot scenes outside of the studio

during the early morning hours and at dusk. His reason was to capture as much natural

shadows with natural light versus what would be artificial in a studio. One scene that has

had very high praise for its genius was the scene with Thomas Goad, his preacher friend

and the neighbor discussing the situation of how the families of the Dust Bowl came

about. During this scene, the only light that Ford used was a candle. This gave a

mysterious and realistic shot, and its effect pulled the viewer into the scene making them

a fourth member in the conversation. This was also one of the few scenes that had close-

ups, and proved how ingenious Ford was to be conservative in using close-ups.

It was also in this scene that the viewer could appreciate the dialogue that would

continue to be played though the whole movie. The language used was truly pure in the

representation of the people portrayed. Ford made sure to keep this film real in how the

actors used the migrants’ rough speech and body language. Back to the scene with

Thomas Goad learning of the struggles that had taken hold of his family, the speech along

with the candle lit room and conversation was perfect in how it represented the way these

hard men spoke and displayed their emotions. The speech used was also distinguished in

the characters and the class of a particular character played. For example, the

superintendents and police used language that was modern and educated whereas the

migrant and agitators were more loose in speech and displayed more freedom in the way

they expressed their words along with their body language.

Henry Fonda played Thomas Goad; he was in fact the most notable actor and had

played in other movies directed by Ford. He was especially chosen by Ford for the part

of Thomas Goad because he had the look that Ford wanted in expressing a young man

who was angry at society and the injustices. Ma Goad played by Jane Darwell, was not

originally selected but was chosen because of her experience in silent films; therefore she

was able to utilize her experience by making Ma Goad a major role in the movie. Ma

Goad was soon taking over the movie when it came to expressing the struggle Of the

Goad family; this can easily be accredited by the way Jane Darwell was able to capture

the moment with her body and facial expressions. Many of the other cast members had

also played roles in Ford movies; however, none were as notable or famous as Henry

Fonda.

CONTENT:

Three of the most pivotal scenes were in the beginning with Thomas Goad being

told of the facts that had been taking place with his preacher friend and old neighbor in

the candle lit room, the scene in which the family leaves the farm, and finally the ending

with Thomas Goad explaining his thoughts to his mother as he departs for good. As I

stated before, the scene with Thomas Goad in the candle lit room was the first pivotal

scene because it set the movie on the course to explaining the situation. In this scene, the

first special effect takes place as the Thomas’ old neighbor flashes back in time

describing how the superintendents evicted the various farmer families off the lands.

While explaining this, the neighbor, in his working class speech, practically breaks down

describing how unjust it was that they took his land. He argued that his land was his to

live and die in just as it has been for decades. However, I could not help but think about

the various Native American tribes who lost this same land that this man was now crying

about loosing. Was this really sweet justice? Nevertheless, his arguments brought

Thomas to the current events taking place and also revealed something unfamiliar to

Thomas. Thomas was now transforming from an “I” to “We” and begun to see himself

not angry in a selfish way for his own problems but angry for what his people have been

experiencing.

Right after this scene Thomas meets up with his family at his Uncle’s house.

Here he learns more of the economic and natural troubles that have caused his family to

leave for California. Soon as the family leaves, Ma Goad is in the middle seat of the old

jalopy truck that is half-way to being junk, she’s asked why she don’t give the old farm

one last look and why she looks so scared. Ma Goad’s response would be pivotal

because not only does it display how families like the Goads lost everything it also

showed the determination that these families had in overcoming and pressing on to.

However, Ma Goad’s response was ironic; she said in her response, “I never had my

house pushed over” and “I never had to loose everything I had in life” this was a

statement that could have easily been said by the Native Americans who suffered the

same lost by people like the Goads and other migrant who now faced the same pain in

being stripped of the only land and home they had.

The third most pivotal scene was at the end of the movie. Throughout the whole

movie the idea was to get to California as a family. However, the trouble that found them

along the way made this impossible. Thomas Goad was coming close to being caught for

a crime and had to leave. His mother caught him first though, and before he left, so as

not to bring any trouble to his family and the decent migrant camp, Thomas shares the

developing ideas that have invaded his mind since the beginning of the journey. Both

mother and son have grown incredibly close, and their relationship has captured the

whole movie by now. Thomas explains that his time has come to move on before trouble

arrives; furthermore, Thomas wants to learn more of the economic and political problems

that have caused his people to face the social crisis they have. This conclusion brings the

whole movie in perspective and shows the purpose Ford had in expressing Steinbeck

novel. The idea that Thomas was an angry young man, a loner, he now sees the bigger

picture and the movie comes about representing the social, political, and economic

struggle, not of an individual, but of a communal experience of working class people.

BIAS:

Ford and Steinbeck did not use any slants or bias. During making this film both

Steinbeck and Ford received great criticism and controversy for presenting a film that

promoted communism and anti-government propaganda. They in fact had to face being

black listed in Hollywood and also were investigation with the F.B.I. However,

Steinbeck and Ford were not communist and did not support communism. They were,

however, liberals and many conservatives still questioned them for being anti-American

and boycotted the Grapes of Wrath movie, book, and had book burnings demonstrating

Ford and Steinbeck. In the end, the movie actually proved to be quite water downed from

the novel and the real life situations in the migrant camps. Eleanor Roosevelt also backed

this up when she visited these camps across California.

EFFECTIVENESS:

I felt very privilege to have seen this movie, they do not make movies this pure

and sincere when portraying historical and social events. I was at first hesitant in

choosing this film because I was in fact the one with the bias. I had the idea of knocking

the film down for excluding how the Mexicans and other migrants who were foreign and

of color were affected by the Dust Bowl Migrants. But, in the end, I believe this film

goes beyond color lines and of ethnic culture it is much broader in prospective and

purpose. This movie brings together the culture of working people, which affects all. Ma

Goad said it best in the last few lines of the movie when describing the differences of

elite and working class people. She emphasizes the pride working people should have

and that indeed they are “the people” that makes our country peculiar and great. Caesar

Chavez said it best,” it brought memories of my past just like my life” and “I never felt so

proud of poor people before after I read that book.”

HISTORICAL CONTEXT / FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

It was almost impossible to make this film because of the paranoia of a “Red

Scare” that was taking place in the U.S. and its fear of communist agitators. Steinbeck

and Ford had to be very careful in making this film and the film had not been very well

received or appreciated until later on in the century for that reason. Nevertheless, this

film has proven historically accurate according to primary sources from those that

experienced the struggles of the 30s and the Dust Bowl Migration. Today the story of the

Dust Bowl Migrants continues with the story of Mexican immigrants who suffer similarly

what Oakies had. The movie Grapes of Wrath should teach us that the American dream

is still being sought after for to this day. Appreciating this film and the values of family,

persistence, and hard work it portrays through the Goads, should remind us to be thankful

and appreciative to the new immigrants today who share these same values, the values

that have always made America great.