IDEAS for Blogging:
A) The opening scenes of the movie seemed to miss much of what was in the book. Agree/disagree? Examples?
B) How did the characters on the movie screen correspond with the images your mind formed as you read the book?
C) Casy and Tom Joad seem to have such an easy rapport in the movie and in the book. Do you think two men "bond" this quickly? What factors affect their relationship?
D) The darkness and wind add an element of sensory drama. Does the film have more impact than the book because we can see and hear the story?
E) Flashback techniques shape the story of the big screen. How does this method compare with the written story?
F) The visual impact of adds much to understanding the characters. Yet, the movie skips some critical characterization written in the book (i.e. the scene when Tom arrives). What do you notice? Comment on which format is best for characterization.
D) The darkness and wind add an element of sensory drama. Does the film have more impact than the book because we can see and hear the story?
ReplyDeleteThe film definately engulfs the viewer's senses, and is sensually much more powerful than the novel. John Steinbeck was a very detailed writer, but not even Steinbeck could create such imagery that a picture conveys. The combination of seeing the wind and dust, and hearing the wind and dust fly around, really hits the picture home. Another big difference between novel and film is memory. When reading, you forget minute details, such as someone cutting their hair, holding a hammer, or darkness, that affect the story. You wouldn't forget these kinds of things if it was shown right in front of you.
Molly, I totally see your points. I think a more contemporary version of the movie might grab me more. Yes, the sensory detials of sight and sound contribute to the setting; yet, I found something richer in the text. Perhaps I enjoyed imagining the scenes and somehow the film pales in comparison to the scenes I had in my head. The dryness, isolation, and sense of loss were somehow conveyed better through text. I HAD forgotten about the darkness, and the film did a nice job of imprinting the Joad empty house into our brains:) Thanks for sharing....I look forward to watching more scenes...though I also dread the movie because there aren't too many yipee-skippy moments are there? I'm thinking of car splats dog. Ugh. It must be fascinating to take a fantastic book and write a script for the movie. No way could you capture everything!
ReplyDeleteC) Do you believe in love at first sight? Neither do I; however, infatuation at first sight may be a real, common occurrence. Yet, since Jim Casy and Tom Joad appear to be heterosexuals, there must be another reason for their immediate feelings of fondness towards each other. I believe the ex-preacher and murderer bond quickly for two reasons in both the film and the movie. The first and smaller cause is the fact that actually, they did not become fast friends right away. In fact, Casy and Joad had known one another since Tom was a little boy, all the way back to Tom’s baptizing in the river. Therefore, in a way, it took them many years to connect. The major reason I feel they bonded as soon as their paths crossed in the book, was how society viewed them. Casy and Joad were both outcasts. During his time as a preacher, Casy had intimate relationships with multiple women. Even if the public did not know of these relationships, the fact that he quit priesthood is enough for most to dislike him. For Tom it’s even worse! Not only is Tom a convicted felon, he went to prison on homicide charges! Both Casy and Joad were made outcasts and underwent dramatic changes in their lives. Since both men had to weathered hardships that shunned them from many others, they were perfect friends for each other, and this fact shows how they bonded so tightly so quickly.
ReplyDeleteB) Grandpa in the movie was nothing like grandpa in the book, grandpa in the book was Tom's grandfather who expresses his strong desire to stay in Oklahoma. His full name is given as William James Joad. Grampa is drugged by his family with something to force him to leave but dies in the evening of the first day on the road after of a stroke. Grandpa in the movie is super hyper, jumpy, and acts like he is in his mid 40's. He also in the movie really does'nt have that desire to stay like he did in the book.
ReplyDeleteThe movie was surprisingly not very different than the book at the beginning. The characters portrayed in the film seem accurate with the characters in the book. The film does omit a short part of the book when Jim Casy and Tom Joad are travelling to the Joad's new home. Other than that, the film was relatively accurate. The characterization of Grandpa Joad was very entertaining, but not too accurate, however. The other characters in the film seemed to line up well with the characters in the book also.
ReplyDeletePROMPT D)
ReplyDeleteNO! I believe the book does a much better job at depicting sensory drama. For example during the dust bowl scene in the book, I remember re reading it quite a few times, because of how pulled in I was to Steinbeck’s amazing descriptor words. He does an even better job than the movie does, because of how well he describes the dust bowl and various other things in the book. The movie does no justice to how well Steinbeck helps with the sensory drama.
Levin, the "outcast" status of the two men, and their prior connectioin from younger years is good evidence to help us make sense of the bond. Thanks for all the comments:)
ReplyDeleteI wonder if many people "bonded" during the Great Depression years, due to the mutual "suffering"? I guess the book helped me empathize with the plight of these folks moreso than the movie.