The
difference I would like to analyze between John Steinbeck’s 1939 novel
The Grapes of Wrath and John Ford’s
subsequent film of the same name is the ending. The novel ends with Rose of
Sharon giving birth to a stillborn baby, and then feeding a dying man her
breast milk. The film is much less controversial, ending with Ma Joad giving an
impassioned monologue saying that, “We’re the people that live. They can’t wipe
us out, they can’t lick us. We’ll go on forever, Pa. Cos’ we’re the people.”
While I consider some moments in the film to be cinematic (such as the wide
shot of the Joads surrounded by the vastness of nature, and the chiaroscuro
lighting of certain scenes), I do not consider this ending to be that
cinematic. It is simply framed, starting out in medium three-shot, and then
cutting to a closer medium two-shot to punctuate the end of the monologue. The
characters are all riding in the truck, as it has become an important fixture
during their journey; however, the importance of the truck is communicated in the
novel as well, so I have a hard time believing that the scene taking place in
the truck is to be considered cinematic. The cutting in closer to punctuate the
ending would (in my opinion) represent the most cinematic part of the scene,
which I do not rate as being that cinematic. While it may not be cinematic, I
do consider it Hollywood. By that, I mean to say that it is an uplifting ending
that strays away from controversial material – in this case, the prospect of a
stillborn birth, and then a young women feeding a man her breast milk. With
this in mind, it is difficult to determine if Ford is to be considered an
auteur. Truffaut would argue that he is not an auteur if he simply recreates
the book. In the production of this film, however, it is almost a certainty
that the studio would not allow Ford to recreate the ending of the novel,
regardless of whether he wanted to or not. Under Truffaut’s logic, Ford is
almost an auteur by default. If Ford is to be considered the auteur of this
film, which I believe a strong case can actually be made for, it is not as a
result of the ending of the film; to me, the aforementioned cinematic elements
of the film that appear earlier (framing/lighting) lend a much stronger
argument.
I
am split on auteur theory, as even though I think it is a valid form of film
study, I find it to be an unfair paradigm in which an argument can be made for
almost any director. Also, I believe that auteur theory rewards directors who
repeat themselves in style and themes. Sarris outlines auteur theory as having
three circles, “the outer circle as technique; the middle circle, personal
style; and the inner circle, interior meaning.” If there are common tropes
between a director in these three areas of his or her films, then the director
is an auteur. On the surface, this sounds quite grandiose in the scheme of film
history. However, I believe under these criteria, an argument can be made for
director such as Guy Ritchie to be an auteur. Playing devil’s advocate, I would
say Ritchie often deals with crime and the underworld in his films, and often
varies the speed of the film (in terms of slo-motion, not pacing) during action
scenes. This would seem to fill the criteria for Sarris’s outer and middle
circle, and any English major worth his or her salt could argue for a tension
between the material and the way the director approaches it (constituting the
inner circle). Now, I could possibly just not be giving Guy Ritchie enough
credit, and maybe Sarris would consider him an auteur, but I believe this is
not the case. Instead, it shows how Sarris’s vague standards for what an auteur
is result in a useless definition. The reason I think it is still worthwhile as
a form of film study, though, is I believe examining a film in the context of a
director’s complete work is very useful, and can shed light on the film that can
be missed if taken as a singular production.
