Disappointed with the adaption

It was impossible to make a truly "authentic" rendition of Steinbeck's novel as a mass-audience movie in 1940. The prevailing standards of censorship simply would not permit it.

Given those restrictions, the movie was still a powerful and generally pretty faithful adaptation of the book. It is still one of the most subversive mass-audience pictures released before the 1960s.

TGOW was adapted to a stage play in 1990 starring Gary Sinise. That version is more faithful to the original novel but there are still some significant omissions/ changes.


I think a remake could be made now, sticking much closer to the original novel. It would be less optimistic and more fatalistic than the 1940 movie but it could still be well done.

The directors/producers/writers/cast would have to walk a fine line to not fall into near-parody in some segments which pretty much must be done verbatim, and also resist the temptation to just change stuff for the hell of it, to show you are doing your "own" version.

And casting would be absolutely key.

Some guys who might be very good as Tom Joad (David Straithairn, Billy Bob Thornton, Sinise, George Clooney) are now the wrong age. Tom is supposed to still be fairly young, in his 30s at the oldest. He is not supposed to be an old man or even middle-aged.

Edward Norton might be able to do a good Tom Joad, but at 43, he is also moving out of the age-group in which he would be credible in the role.






================

4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.

Funny, John Steinbeck (1902–1968) liked it when it was made.


"Listen, I don't tan, I don't burn, I implode."

I think it generally happens that a really great book has layers and complexities that don't get into the movie. The movie will tend to pick up one of the strands in such a book, and emphasize it to the exclusion of others. In _Grapes of Wrath_ it's the political strand that got full treatment in the movie.

The powerful and moving final scene of the book, when Ma has Rose of Sharon breast-feed a man who is starving, got left out not only because it wasn't part of the story about union organizing, but because it probably couldn't have got past the censors in 1940.

If they re-made the movie now, they could include it.

that's funny, grapes of wrath is on the tube now, (I've seen it already) and I was just thinking the movie is so good I don't want to read the book.

Just as the book mentions, the way people who could in any way be seen as a "Communist" Agitator was black listed so i guess to keep a career as a director you couldn't be true to the book. Another example is the adaption of George Orwells Animal farm.

I wish the order of events would have been the same as they are in the book. I didn't like that the Joads went to pick apricots before going to Weedpatch. It just doesn't make sense. They were practically out of food & money at the apricot farm, and the government camp costs $1 per week. So like, how could they afford to stay at that camp & eat, eh? It would've been better if the movie stuck with the sequence of events in the book.

With today's technology and standards, it would be possible to include scenes from the book that were not in the original movie, such as the ending. In the 30's/40's, movie producers probably lacked the ability / resources to create rain & flood. Also, censors in those days would not have permitted nudity of any kind. Today, showing a woman reveal her breast should be okay, if done the appropriate way.

Movies never live up the book. Books offer so much detail and insight that a movie can not possibly replicate