The movie does suffer from the overacted, wide eyed, overreacting style that was prevalent at the time. The lone exception was Henry Fonda who would be great today.
shareI disagree, I think acting was good all-around in the film.
"I know you're in there, Fagerstrom!"-Conan O'Brien
I agree with the other reviewer, though your point is still well-taken. I just wanted to say Henry Fonda deserved an Oscar for this film and I still can't believe James Stewart won it. I didn't even think his performance in The Philadelphia Story was Oscar-worthy. Oh well, can't go back.
shareI have to disagree, every performance was ideal, I mean that's the way the characters are written in the book. The dialogue in this movie puts chills down my spine, everyone's lines are so well delivered, especially Ma Joad's. IT's beautiful, people like them existed, people where treated their way and worse, here in this country not a hundred years ago, and it makes you feel like your there.
Takes no nerve to do something, ain't nothin' else you can do.
Most of the characters in the film aren't entirely like the book. I admit Tom and Ma Joad are great in the movie, and Casy is good, but Al is portrayed as an over-the-top comic relief character and Noah may as well not even be in the film. This hurt the impact significantly for me.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I had no problem with the actors; I did think that some stuff was 'telegraphed' as if the audience wasn't trusted to get the point of a scene without some help.
The diner bit with the kids and candy didn't need to be 'spelled out'; Ma Joad didn't need to become William Jennings Bryan, and the 'I'll be there' speech should probably have gone to Casy.
Folks in those days created their own entertainment and so may have been more naturally flamboyant in a setting of their peers than we can easily understand several generations removed.
[deleted]
I'm not referencing the book; I thought the Casy characterization allowed for the profundity of the speech better than did Tom Joad. There has to be some excuse for ill-educated 30s sharecroppers sounding like screen writers.
share[deleted]
"Ill-educated 30's sharecroppers", were a wee bit smarter than your average TV/Government educated person today.
Having been raised by a product of that era, I'd have to say my Father was smarter than most teachers I had, up
through college professors/doctors.
He's long gone, but I carry his "screen writer" style speeches with me, as daily lessons, into my 50's!
If you ever, personally, knew anyone from that era, I'd guess, you'd have more respect.
Also keep in mind the censors of the time had big issues with the book's content. Many issues could not
be directly addressed on screen: Rosasharn's pregnancy!; (Warning Non-PC nomenclature!) Noah's mild-retardation; Even the men
calling social programs recipients Reds (Communists), were the "Bad Guys" in the movie.
The filmmakers don't really skirt Rosasharn's pregnancy, do they? I mean, she doesn't give birth during the film, if that's what you mean, but that matter isn't critical.
shareThe diner bit with the kids and candy didn't need to be 'spelled out'
Ma Joad didn't need to become William Jennings Bryan
'll be there' speech should probably have gone to Casy.
I don't think that The Grapes of Wrath suffers from the acting styles, nor do I feel that the acting in this movie is that over-the-top. Yes, the styles proved different then and not as naturalistic as we've since come to expect in film, but on the other hand, one can find a greater sense of idiosyncrasy, eccentricity, and variety (quirkiness, let's call it) to the performances and actors.
One also needs to consider that even in 'real life' in those days, people's mannerisms, both verbal and nonverbal, differed from contemporary standards.
I thought Pa Joad was too comedic in his mannerisms and voice. But otherwise, the acting was fine
share