The character Winger plays is one of the main characters in the Cannery Row sequel SWEET THURSDAY. CANNERY is about Doc only; SWEET is about Doc AND the character played by Debra Winger. The title is misleading. But... it's not the first film that ruins - and/or alters greatly - Steinbeck's works.
"She's Goth. She's never heard of David Lee Roth." RM
Haha, that's one of the reasons I don't want to see this movie. I'm a fan of the books, and comparatively speaking, the two books were as distinct as apples and oranges. I'd think that a mashup of the two (especially with a clear emphasis on Sweet Thursday) would be a little uncomfortable.
The other reason I don't want to see it is because of the poster; it makes the movie look like a weird cross between Gone with the Wind and The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (is it any coincidence that the latter of those two was released the same year as CR?).
We got movie sign!
The original intent was to make a film combining the 2 novels. With CANNERY ROW contributing the character and "back story" of DOC, all the local color of the setting, and the interesting mix of unabashed people that made living in that neighborhood unique; while SWEET THURSDAY provided the love story.
The movie intrigued me (and you really should see it) and after seeing it I decided to read both books. I’d have to agree that almost all of SWEET THURSDAY is in the film. And if CANNERY ROW and SWEET THURSDAY were the parents of the film, then SWEET THURSDAY deserves custody. And of the two titles, SWEET THURSDAY probably is more representative of what the film is about, but I think they went with the title they thought would entice more people to see it.
I thought the film did a wonderful job of presenting the plot of SWEET THURSDAY, while retaining the atmosphere of CANNERY ROW and a memorable character sketch of DOC.
I never would have known that the novel SWEET THURSDAY existed, if I had never seen the movie. And, I enjoyed it so much, I now own a hardcover, 1st edition of SWEET THURSDAY.
SEE THE MOVIE! If you get the chance to spend 2 hours with good writing that is also intelligent, offbeat and occasionally funny, don’t pass it up.
For anyone who liked or loved Cannery Row, two other much maligned and panned films that I loved, and thought were witty, attention holding with quirky, but wondrous love stories, are THE BUTCHER’S WIFE with Demi Moore, Jeff Daniels, George Dzundza, Mary Steenburgen, Margaret Colin and Frances McDormand [FARGO]; and THIEVES with Charles Grodin and Marlo Thomas. There not quite up to MOONSTRUCK or TWO FOR THE ROAD caliber, but they’re unique and memorable.
I should also throw in CONTINENTAL DIVIDE with Blair Brown and, believe or not, John Belushi channeling Spenser Tracy. I defy you not to love this film. It was compared to a Tracy-Hepburn flick when it came out but I think it is more like the great Preston Sturges comedies of the early 40’s like THE LADY EVE and SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS. If you get to view it, you’ll also learn a lot about the mating habits of eagles.
If you see any of these films, and love or hate them, send me a IMDB and let me know what you think.
Nick
Thanks for this great assessment. I really love the film and am curious about the source novels so it is interesting to find out how much the filmmakers took from each book.
shareI recently re-discovered Steinbeck's "Cannery Row" and "Sweet Thursday." They are fantastic novels. And like you, I now own a hardcover first edition of "Sweet Thursday." It's probably my all-time favorite novel.
shareWhy not make one movie?
What’s next: combining the The Pearl and The Wayward Bus into Driving for Pearls?
What’s odd is this goes on all the time. Such as with another California author John Fante. They always add all this stuff into his work. When, like Steinbeck, Fante has already done all the work.
It doesn’t have to be that hard.
Agree with you. I guess the title is the more popular book to draw people in.
shareThe end credits say the film was based both on "Cannery Row" and "Sweet Thursday."
In the novel "Sweet Thursday," Doc wasn't a former baseball player. The conflict of him having injured "the Seer" while throwing a baseball as a younger man was written into the script.
Obviously the screenwriters felt Doc was too normal and wonderful of a man (as Steinbeck wrote him), so they wanted Doc to have a dark and disturbed past.
We know Doc was based on Stienbeck's best friend, Ed Ricketts. And he had his flaws. He drank too much. His lab went bankrupt. He had many affairs and children out of wedlock.
shareSo......Ed Ricketts "drank too much" and had affairs? Children out of wedlock? So what? I think there was only one child "out of wedlock."
I'm only pointing out that "Doc" in real life was not a tarnished and disillusioned ex-baseball player.
That was a fictitious back story created to make Doc (Nick Nolte) guilt-ridden.
In real life, Doc was an amazing and brilliant man---a marine biologist with a genius I.Q. who loved several women.
He died far too young.
I agree very much. If only David Ward's script wasn't chosen, but he always liked to write about baseball in his movies like Bad News Bears. If only we could get somebody like Matt Cimber who produced Burning Bright interested in doing a new film that follows the novel more closely.
share