MovieChat Forums > The Grapes of Wrath (1940) Discussion > What a great and wonderful movie!

What a great and wonderful movie!

posted 16 years ago by lostinaction
11 replies | jump to latest

This was an excellent piece of art. I haven't read the book and I watched most of the western of John Ford. This movie shows something in todays world doesn't exists any more: the family. If you are a rich and inhuman person you cannot understand what this movie is about. Poverty and starving is a bad thing in the world. It shows perfectly how people lived in the 1930's and what was important for them. But it is not only about US History look, you can compare with the situation of immigrants round the world.
One of the best movies ever, it shows reality and if you are against Humanity and Social Behavior you may not like this movie!

[–] Niversas 15 years ago

Ditto!

----------
Movies are Art and Art is Personal Interpretation

[–] SayNoToRemakes 15 years ago

It definitely makes you appreciate what you have even if it isn't much. Imagine losing your livelihood and home without savings, government assistance, or severance pay.

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

Well it maybe coulda been great if so many of the folks wouldn´t have acted like clowns, especially in the first half of the thing.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] rc-108 13 years ago

I just rewatched it...

I love this movie...

[–] capell35 12 years ago

I am watching it on TMC. It is a perfect movie. The acting is superb.the directing superb,screenplay excellent,B&W cinematography beautiful.It is the best movie I have watched.Powerful,It is entertainment at its best.Its more then entertainment,.Every school should make this required to watch. Its all about John Steinbeck Salinas Valley. Great movies, Of Mice and Men. East of Eden.Grapes of Wrath.He grew up in Salinas Valley Monterey county.

[–] UncleDick 12 years ago

It was probably the best film that could ever be made of Steinbeck's dismal and overrated novel. Ford was wise to focus on the bonds between the Joad family and leave much of Steinbeck's political agitation on the cutting room floor.

The scene with Ma Joad going through her possessions and burning the old postcard and newspaper clippings was particularly moving, and anyone who's had to pull up stakes and move on to a new chapter of life can relate to it.

Fonda's Tom Joad comes across as more dimwitted than he was in the novel, which makes his serial manslaughter and political naivety more tolerable. The least appealing character in the novel, the insufferable Jim Casy, is rendered harmless by John Carradine's over the top performance.

The cinematography is superb, too, but the subject matter alone makes this one of Ford's lesser works.

[–] capell35 12 years ago

I watch this movie for the entertainment value ,I wan't my two little one's to watch this movie. To get an idea how some groups of people lived during the 1930's. These were sharecropper people for the most part. and in reality they were the lowest class of people on the totem pole of American society.In those days they lived on land owned by rich people and they allowed these people to plant crops on it, and payed the owners some percent of the profits. When the land went bust so did the share croppers.The abuse they suffered traveling from Oklahoma to California was terrible.In the 1930's there was no medicare,medicaid,foodstamps.no welfare in general. But,hey in retrospect it might have been better to live independent of the government then what we have now. Where you have a welfare class that depends on the government to supply everything. Thats the end of my political correct statement.I would want all kids to watch this movie and let them make their own opinions of the movie.

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

Saw The Grapes of Wrath for the first time today and I can not think of anything bad about it. Great acting, great cinematography and a great story. It conveyed brilliantly the breakdown of the American dream and the social divide during the Depression. Its quality stays with you long after its ended.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] capell35 12 years ago

In those days it was the Rich people who ruled the land. John Steinbeck portrays the Government as kind of watching the whole depression play outwhile they stand on the sidelines.The Rich people played by the Golden rule. He who has the Gold rules. Hey, It was these groups of people who had no where to go.They had been sharegrouping for years and the land went bust.But back to the movie The acting is the best.the directing the best, Black and white cinematography terrific.I love this movie.I believe they should show this movie in all the schools.there is no doubt in my mind John Steinbeck liked the socialist Ideology.But as I said before .having a socialist society ,where the government supplies all the foods.clothing,housing,medical care is counter productive, No one needs to advance or wants to advance, There is no incentive.Thats the end of my political corrctness for the year. In retrospect this is a magnificent movie

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

good points.

His name...was Julio Iglesias!

[–] redban (5283) 4 years ago

Yes, good film. Loved the visuals / setting. Tom Joad looked exactly as I imagined he would look.

The movie does focus on the importance of family. But the novel I think renders more general human goodness over family. In the novel, the family breaks up. And they receive much assistance from non-family, like the Wainwrights.