Watch The Grapes of Wrath

I like checking out the film version of books I've read. They make for interesting comparisons and discussion on what the director (or studio or screenwriter) decided to keep, if some things are considered "unfilmable" and how that's tackled.

Since I just finished The Grapes of Wrath I checked out the film version from the library. The film is directed by John Ford, a classic and well-loved director from the 40s who directed many westerns starring John Wayne. He's an integral piece of the film. Also integral is the cinematographer, Gregg Toland. He's most well-known in the film community as the guy who shot "Citizen Kane" a masterpiece in filmmaking that was groundbreaking in its  deep focus shots and use of light. Those are both on display in "The Grapes of Wrath," which was filmed a year before "Citizen Kane."

I won't quibble with the difference from the book and the film. A film, while obviously tied to its source material, should be evaluated on its own merits and taken as its own entity. So while the movie hits all the plot points it needs to and shares the same message, it is a visual medium and that's what I want to evaluate it on.

The movie is breathtaking. It opens with a very wide angle shot, setting the scene of Tom Joad returning to his home after four years in prison. It's beautiful. Then there's a classic John Ford scene shot through a door frame--it's marvelous.

The scenes that are lit with only a candle are amazing. The scenes are allowed to be dark. The candle is legitimately the only source of light in the scene, which is highly unusual for any film. It takes guts and a knowledge of the camera and light and the material. Toland nails this.

 Ford has some pretty great actors to work with. Henry Fonda as Tom Joad is just as he needs to be: a man doing his best in the worst of all possible scenarios, quiet but talkative when he needs to be. There's a reason the character is iconic. I was blown away by John Carradine's performance of Casy, the once-preacher who's lost the spirit. He wasn't at all what I pictured, but he captured the character perfectly.

As always, I reference you to read Roger Ebert's essay on the film, as he more eloquently states what I love about the film. Read it here. And for something really great, check out the New York Times' original review of it in 1940.