There are different evaluation principles for films adapted from literary classics and films adapted from short-lived popular novels. For the former, people have to investigate the degree of faithfulness to the original work, while the latter is an independent work of art, and its success or failure is determined by its own gains and losses. "Flower of Rage" undoubtedly belongs to the former category.
Since Ford's film came out, there have been countless attempts to make comparative evaluations. Some people, such as Lester Assheim, even listed the percentages of the corresponding plots in the novel and the film in their respective lengths as a comparison table, and their conclusion is that the percentages of the main plots given by the two are almost equal, that is to say. , The film is highly faithful to the narrative content of the original. However, from a qualitative point of view, the general conclusion is that the film retains the themes of "love for the land", "attention to human dignity", and "requirements to maintain the integrity of the family", but almost completely abolishes religion. The irony and denial of the company, the exposure of the wrongdoings of the business owners and the accusations of the judicial authorities. In a word, political radicalism has been diluted.
"Flowers of Rage" is Stembeck's famous work. Published in 1939, it is about the tragic experience of farmers after losing their land during the Great Depression in the United States in the 1930s. After a large company annexed their home in Oklahoma, the protagonist of the novel, the Jodd family, traveled a long distance to California to make a living. The cruel reality shattered their dream of that piece of "Western Paradise". The extortion and ruthless exploitation of landlords, large enterprises, police, and contractors made them often in despair. The orchard that grows luscious grapes is giving birth to the "Grapes of Wrath" (a literal translation of the original name of the novel). Although the novel does not clearly point out that "the ending can only be a revolution", this conclusion is hinted everywhere in the whole book. At the end of the novel, after Tom left, the Jodd family left the official shelter. Their fate was getting worse and worse. Finally, Rosa Shan had a miscarriage, and the stillbirth was thrown into the water in an apple box. This shocking ending caused almost unanimous negative reactions in the American critics. Not long after the Great Depression, President Roosevelt’s new policies are taking effect, the economy is becoming stronger, and people find it difficult to accept this "negative" ending. Although the novel described highly realistically the life of the refugees at that time, it was still widely praised and won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1940.
But it is another matter to make such a novel that sharply accuses the upper class and the security authorities of the United States into a movie. The criticism written on paper can be tolerated but cannot be allowed to reappear on the screen. This is a worldwide phenomenon caused by the huge influence of the film. When Tsinuk considered filming "Flowers of Rage" in 1940, he fully understood the political problems that this work would bring to his company. The filming process was full of mystery. Because of the fear that Oklahoma and Texas commercial organizations would prevent them from filming in the state, the company blocked all relevant information and announced to the outside world that it was filming a film called "No. 66". "Highway" movie. It is said that a large number of enthusiastic people who do not know their inside information are afraid that Tsienuk will not dare to shoot "Flowers of Rage", and they wrote to him and criticized them. As for Cinuk, it is precisely because of the fear that the future film will be blocked by the powerful groups, he tried his best to dilute the political sharpness of the novel, such as the numerous detailed descriptions of the recruitment company deceiving and exploiting the workers in the novel, and the businessmen’s treatment of the refugees. All the illegal acts we have taken have been deleted. There is no direct accusation against the police in the film. When Casey talked about the police coming to suppress the strikers, he added "not the formal police, but the people who wear tin armbands and they call the guards" and so on. Lines. The film also takes a vague approach to large enterprises that directly deprive farmers of land, and only makes people vaguely feel that there is something like "order from the east."
The most critical change is the end. The film does not follow the sequence of events in the second half of the novel with the plot to disrupt the strike (Tom is beaten, Casey is killed, and the strikers are dispersed). Instead, it ends with an episode that should have been in a permanent government-run camp before that. Make a knot, and delete the tragic scene of Rosa Shan's miscarriage. In the early hours of a sunny day, when Tom’s mother boarded the truck, she confidently said: “We are ordinary people, and we have a way out.” This seemingly simple change actually has the power to change the overall situation, just like Ass Heim pointed out that from the point of view of the subject, this "positive" ending means that action is not necessary, because "the people will always win anyway." "So a novel advocating action becomes a calming film, which tells people to ensure that the problem can be solved as expected and does not require action." However, it is worth noting that Stembek himself did not respond to this. Major changes are objectionable. The screenwriter Nannery Johnson once claimed that he had obtained the full power of Stembeck himself to allow him to modify the novel according to his own understanding, and the confident ending of Aunt Jod seemed to him to represent the original. Of the "real" spirit. Director John Ford put it more thoroughly: "I never read that novel at all."
It is precisely because the film has undergone major qualitative changes with the approval of the original author, it has received a huge box office revenue after its release, and has also been enthusiastically praised by the critics. A reporter from the American "Nation" magazine reported that when "Flower of Rage" premiered in New York, the attendees were full of celebrities from all walks of life with gorgeous clothes and jewels. Aren’t they the representatives of the real estate companies that sent tractors to wipe out Joad’s home and the large enterprises that cruelly exploited bankrupt farmers as described in the film?
However, the film "Flowers of Rage" is a big step back from the novel in terms of revolution, which does not mean that it is lackluster. In fact, compared with other Hollywood movies on social themes, "Flower of Rage" is still the one that has the deepest contact with the contradictions and conflicts in American social life. The film’s harsh realism style (in addition to Ford’s rich experience in filming westerns, which plays an unquestionable role, Grieg Tolan’s outstanding photography is the main factor that makes the film’s atmosphere and sentiment highly realistic. ), which also adds a huge persuasive power to the film. The opening scene of the film: Tom Jord walks alone on the desolate Midwestern Plain. The graphic effect of the gray sky and the land completely tarnished by the dust storm makes people feel the ecology of the year. And historical disasters. Tom is patrolling the abandoned house and the camera slowly shakes across the dark and bare ground and corners. The gray tones and solemn accumulating angry voices are matched with the flashback footage of a long train of tractors creeping up to the horizon. , Resulting in a strong psychological effect. The long stream of black trucks crawling against the bright sky on Highway 66 is spectacularly photographed, and the campgrounds with bright lights are also full of life. This is the moment when people are full of expectations for the luscious grapes at the beginning of the Long March. After the Jodd family left the Midwest, despite the successive setbacks that cast shadows on Tom and thousands of refugees, the sky was always bright and bright. The superior natural conditions will not be affected by the protagonist's gloomy psychology, but it also represents the film creator's optimistic view of the future of the people.
In the film, the inter-chapter interludes, which accounts for about one-third of the novel, and the author's sharp comments on the scene of the Great Depression are discarded. There are both political and artistic reasons here. What Ford added to the film was an excellent visual language. One after another, trucks were overprinted on the screen, silently announcing the huge scale of peasant migration. A series of events are concisely connected with a montage of highway monuments. When Tom's mother was packing up, the whole process was composed of silent pictures. She carefully searched through the drawer to find a pair of earrings and put it on her earlobe. Looking at a broken mirror, she tried to find the joy of early and young spring. At this time, the tune of "Red River Valley" sounded. When the Jord family was walking through the hot and terrifying desert in the dark, we only saw the faces of Tom, his brother and dad through the windshield of the truck. Scenes like this "silent is better than sound" are difficult to count in the film. As Bruce Dong said, "If the moral anger of the novel is unforgettable, the film is unforgettable because of its beauty."
The cast of "Flower of Fury" is also excellent. In the supporting roles, John Carradine (Kathy) and John Quillen (Mulley) have a very accurate grasp of the character's unique emotional tone. Carradine expresses the cynical life attitude of a former priest who no longer believes in the power of God through dexterous and slightly comical body movements; Quilen’s despair is so strong that he holds it like a sleepy beast The gun was about to kill the man who took his land, but he couldn't find any evil clues in the labyrinth of the city, and finally fell powerlessly. Jane Darwell won the Best Supporting Actress Award for playing Aunt Jodd. She looks too plump in appearance and reveals her wealth. Ford originally liked the thin but resilient Billa Bunti. In order to make up for Darwell's physical shortcomings, Ford avoided making Darwell any crude behavior, but succeeded in attracting the audience's attention to her will and emotional performance. Henry Fonda, who played Tom, was already a well-known stage actor at the time, but he was still a newcomer in the film industry. Tom is his first successful role on the screen. The most impressive thing about him in the film is his penetrating eyes. No matter where he stands on the frame, people can always feel his unpredictable and suspicious gaze. Tom is not a person with deep thoughts, but he is strong-willed, rebellious, and full of sense of justice, and he especially values his dignity as a man. He doesn't understand politics at all ("What's the matter with the Red Party members?" he asks), he doesn't like abstract arguments, but advocates practicality. Fang Da made the audience remember this strong man with a peaked cap forever.
View more about The Grapes of Wrath reviews
