As you know, I am very rarely a fan of remakes. I think if a movie is great, then you should just leave it alone. That being said, I think a remake of Grapes Of Wrath is a good thing and here is why. Is it a great movie? Yes. Do people watch it? Only when forced. I think that if you took the book and filmed it today that you could make it much better and much more relevant to younger people and maybe it would encourage them to read the book or another of his books. I think the way it is right now, people only watch it when they are forced to read the book and don't want to. Steven Spielberg is in talks to remake the movie, and if there is anyone who would do a respectful job of it, I would say he would.
Spielberg will do a great job with this. Does anyone know if Production Code issues dictated any changes from the novel?
ReplyDeleteI just cannot picture who you would cast in it today.
Some things are sacred. I love that book, and I learned just how truly tough it was for people to survive during the Depression, and how workers were taken advantage of. Now, I can see a movie akin to Grapes of Wrath set in the Ohio of today, but would anyone want to see it? Pretty depressing stuff.
ReplyDeleteThis is exciting!! I think this one could be much better than the original. However, the Steinbeck resurgence that will commence if it's a hit had better not touch "Lifeboat."
ReplyDeleteA good remake could also teach about a painful time in this countries history. This movie was wonderful on many levels, what happens to people during hard times, family, and the birth of unions.
ReplyDeletea bunch of those spielberg blue lights all thru out movie
ReplyDeleteas long as he doesnt overly dramatize it, count me in
War horse? you would think he was trying get the horse a best actor nom
Years ago (1982 or so) I was extolling the genius of Bruce Springsteen to a girl at college & she said "I just can't listen to that guy. It's like The Grapes of Wrath set to music". Now that's all I hear when I listen to Springsteen. Decades later Springsteen writes "The Ghost of Tom Joad". Smart girl (she's on the faculty at Harvard today so she really was a smart girl).
ReplyDeleteAnyway I suppose Spielberg wants exclusive rights to historic films being shown in public schools. He is well on his with with Lincoln, WWII, the Holocaust, the Atlantic slave trade and now The Great Depression.
They better leave in the breast feeding. Spielberg better not wuss out. Sometimes he uses the power he has well, sometimes Stevie can't STAND the idea of anyone not loving him.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a bleeding heart liberal, but I couldn't stand the Joad family.
ReplyDeleteOh no.......leave it alone, please.
ReplyDeleteMy daughter just read it for her English Lit course this year. You realize that the ending of the original film was bastardized due to McCarthy interference. Hopefully, Speilberg can stay true to the story and to Steinbeck's principles.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved the novel, but hated the movie. They made Henry Fonda (Tom Jode) the "star" of the movie. I thought the mother who held the family together in the book should have been the main focus. Maybe Spielberg will do a much better true to the novel movie.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Enty on this. I can't imagine how "you could make it much better." The film's a classic. Everything about it from the cinematography, the direction, the actors, their acting styles are highly evocative of a time and place which were near to the time when the book was written. Even the fact that, like almost all films in those days, this one was shot in black and white is evocative of that period. There's no way anyone can remake this film using more modern techniques and equipment in a way which can possibly be as "authentic" as the original. As far as making it "much more relevant to younger people" is concerned, if that doesn't mean merely "dumbing it down," then that can't be done either for people who are so bereft of culture as not to realize what "classic" actually means or who can't appreciate it when they do see it without sacrificing the very things which made the original book and film classics in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI would have expected better taste from Steven Spielberg than to involve himself in a mess like this.
McCarthy hadn't entered politics when this film was made. He was 1st elected as a war hero ("Tailgunner Joe") after WWII. Grapes of Wrath was made in 1940 before the US entered the war.
ReplyDeleteWho said hollyweird was running out of ideas?
ReplyDeleteBtw, Spielberg made "war of the worlds", he already knows how to fuck up a great classic into crap.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Robert: Agree 100%. You can't remake a classic; it will have to be Spielberg's version, the original stands alone.
ReplyDeleteMy God, that novel was depressing.
ReplyDeleteNot a fan of steinbecks writung. Depressing, and very bkack and white. Have no interest in this.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should tell the story of the devastation and loss of millions of jobs and dollars due to shutting down Central Valley water and therefore farming in California to save a stupid tiny fucking fish.
ReplyDeleteIt's a great movie. I just hope he doesn't get too ponderous.
ReplyDeleteThe only Steinbeck movie I can't watch is Of Mice and Men. It breaks my heart.
Good Luck with that, I think it's a horrible book, that was painful to read.
ReplyDelete