The Grapes of Wrath - Using Empathy and Structure to Narrativize a Tragedy (WGA's best screenplays #98)
This post is part of my WGA Top 101 Screenplays series. Each post examines one film from that list, trying to find what’s great about it and what screenwriting lessons we can learn from it.
I’ve never seen the film or read the book THE GRAPES OF WRATH and frankly, because the film (unlike the book) is not often discussed today, I braced myself for a less than exciting experience. I was worried at first, but by the end of the film I loved the Joads, and was deeply moved. I was also shocked and saddened by how relevant the film still is today.
Context
THE GRAPES OF WRATH is based on John Steinbeck Pulitzer Prize-winning classic, the rights for which were snatched up by uber-producer David O. Selznick. The adaptation was written by Nunnaly Johnson and the film was directed by John Ford. It came out in 1940 and was a financial and commercial success. It is the first film on this list to have been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, and had 6 other nominations, winning two: Best Director for Ford, and Best Supporting Actress for Jane Darwell, for her portrayal of Ma Joad. Johnson lost his nomination to THE PHILADELPHIA STORY, which I can’t really argue with.
Steinbeck’s book was a work of political fiction, almost activist in nature. Set in October 1938, it was designed to show the terrible human cost of the callous, capitalist policies which allowed Americans to be exploited, and at times even starved to death. Steinbeck said he wrote the book because: “I want to put a tag of shame on the greedy bastards who are responsible for this [the Depression and the plight of the worker].” It was panned by business and government officials for its socialist overtones; they denounced it as “communist propaganda”. Nonetheless, it was the top-selling novel of 1939.
Premise:
Humanizing the great depression through the story of one average all-American family, while pointing a finger at corporate greed and government inaction.
(Or from a producer’s POV: the film adaptation of John Steinbeck’s urgent, Pulitzer-winning, best-selling masterpiece).
So what happens? (Spoilers, obviously)
After he’s released from prison, Tom Joad meets former preacher CASY, and together they go home to Tom’s family. The Joads, like all the other sharecroppers around them, have been pushed out of their land. The Joads leave their Oklahoma home and head to California, where fliers promise copious, well-paying jobs. But that turns out to be a lie - after s perilous journey, during which grandma and grandpa Joad die, all the Joads find in California is that they are unwelcome. They are pushed around by the authorities until they land a drifter camp. When a confrontation emerges with the police, Casy takes the blame so Tom isn’t sent back to prison.
The Joads catch wind of an employment opportunity. They reach the location, are placed in a tiny, shabby shack, and are expected to work for nearly nothing. Tom finds a small group of strikers outside the camp, led by Casy. Casy now has a purpose - he knows that without strikers these bosses will lower the wages even further, to a wage people can’t really live on. Casey asks Tom to join them… but Tom can’t afford to give up on the money. The strikers are ambushed by cops, and as they try to escape, one of the cops kills Casy. In the heat of the moment, Tom kills one of the cops and runs off.
Afraid that Tom will be caught and sent back to jail, the family leaves the compound and find themselves in a new kind of camp, a much better and welcoming one, that’s run by the government. But when cops start examining the license plates in the camp, Tom knows it’s just a matter of time until he’s found. He decides to leave, and Ma catches him on his way out. As they part, Tom gives a heartfelt speech about how all people are part of one big soul, and that even if he’s killed, he’ll be part of that, and will appear wherever injustice occurs. Tom escapes, and the next day the family heads to Fresno, where seemingly, hopefully, good, actual jobs await them.
What Can We Learn From It?
Lesson #1: Narratavizing a historical human tragedy (and accusing a system)
During the second half of THE GRAPES OF WRATH, I realized the film is employing an episodic, naturalistic flow, and doesn’t quite follow the active, goal oriented progression of classical structure. This mechanism felt familiar. Eventually, I realized what THE GRAPES OF WRATH reminded me of: Holocaust Films.
How do you distill a set of circumstances that affected millions of people, into a story of a few protagonists? How do you tell a story of survival? How can you tell a narrative rooted in real events, which real people were helpless against? There are several decisions that helped this story achieve these goals:
Passive Protagonists
The many families who shared the Joads’ situation had both successes and failures, but those were more a result of luck and opportunity than the gritted teeth and determined pursuits of active protagonists. The Joads may have clear goals - finding jobs, keeping the family together - but at its core, this is a story of a survival they have little control of. This respects the historical truth that the situation of these displaced farmers wasn’t a result of a failure of character, but of bigger, external forces. The Joads couldn’t simply ‘outsmart’ their antagonists. They couldn’t gather enough money to ‘miraculously save the community center’ like in a Disney film. They can only persevere.
This constraint pushes the film to become episodic. The Joads are led from one false hope to another, usually through rumor or chance. They are often attacked by forces that care little for them, but they never have a personal relationship with their antagonists. This structure eschews long term suspense: since it’s hard to know what to expect, and the protagonists don’t have clear plans, it’s hard to be in suspense about what will happen (we never see the bomb’s timer, to use Hitchock’s metaphor). What keeps us engaged are the very high stakes, and our deep empathy for the Joads, so that each of their blows feels both dramatic and personal to us.
No Villain
The Joads meet many despicable people over the film - violent, corrupt cops, lying, greedy businessmen - but none become a single villain pulling the strings. Often, these antagonists feel like cogs in a machine. By not pinning the Joads’ problems on a single external antagonist that has to be defeated, the film draws a picture of systemic evil. The problem isn’t this one person who if defeated, everything will be ok, but something much bigger and inescapable.
Finding Meaning
Since the film can’t end with the Joads “winning” or “fixing” the depression, but the filmmakers still wanted to give them a win (and the audience hope), they crafted a different kind of victory for them. When Ma lets Tom go (giving up the unison of her family), and Tom talks about ‘becoming part of a bigger soul’, the story suggests that they have found meaning. It suggests that their experiences haven’t corrupted them with anger, but made them care for their unfortunate fellows, and eager to find ways to change the horrible situation inflicted on so many. The film shows us how Tom and Ma, like many survivors of harrowing ordeals, found meaning and grew from their experiences, how they’ve become better people who might make the world a better place.
Lesson #2: Character Design - what makes Ma Joad so moving and memorable?
It is true that the Joads suffer a lot, but we empathize with them (rather than just pity them), because they exemplify two universal values: family and tenacity. They never give up, they roll with the punches (even when they lose Grandma and Grandpa), and Ma is always there to try and keep the family together, healing them with love and warmth. Ma Joad is an immensely likable and moving character, which I’m sure is part of why Jane Darwell’s portrayal of her received an Oscar. Let’s examine how Ma’s character is designed and developed.
Even before we meet her, Tom speaks about her, describing an incident where she fiercely defended her family. That’s the first thing we learn about her. When Ma meets Tom, she expresses her deep worry that Tom has gone ‘mad mean’ in prison - showcasing her wisdom and morality (and creating a dangling dramatic question). On the night before they leave for California we see Ma going through a box of scraps and souvenirs. She decides what to keep and what to burn, since they have to travel light. In one particularly vulnerable moment, Ma tries on a pair of festive earrings, checks herself in the mirror, and smiles. This moment suggests past happy memories, but also highlights how precipitously her fortunes have fallen. It’s a moment of deep vulnerability that gives Ma’s character a past and emotional depth. This is a result of choosing an emotionally resonant action for the character to take - parting with her cherished memories before leaving her family’s home, forever.
After this vulnerable moment, the film chooses to emphasize a different part of Ma’s character: her strength and dignity. As the Joads’ truck pulls away, Ma is encouraged to take one last look at the house - but she refuses, saying there’s no point in looking at what she left behind, but rather to look ahead towards where they’re going. These aren’t big scenes, but rather small moments, that through specific, conscious choices, add dimensions to Ma’s seemingly simple character. These moments hint at her strength, her role in the family, her past, and her deep emotions.
All throughout the film, these aspects of Ma are reinforced, in particular her goal, defined as “keeping the family together”. This deeply relatable and aspirational goal gives the audience something to root for. Even when these characters are near starvation, when they have no hope in sight, at least Ma can achieve or work towards this dear goal, and we can root for her in the process.
By the end of the film, Ma sacrifices this goal and lets Tom leave. Sure, the plot-reason is that they’re afraid Tom will be caught by the cops, but thematically, it feels like she’s sacrificing the unison of the family, her deep want, so that Tom can become part of that ‘greater soul’, so that he can be there whenever someone unfortunate needs him. Like Casy and Tom, she also shifts to communal thinking, one that supports the film's themes of communal responsibility.
Lesson #3: Using Character functions to express theme and stakes
Even more than in other films, every character in GRAPES OF WRATH has a clear, specific function. Every character exists in order to represent some aspect of the Great Depression, or connect us to the story of those who suffered from it. Tom is supposed to be a relatable everyman, who goes from being selfish, possibly even ‘mean’, to seeing himself as part of a greater organism or soul, thus exemplifying the point the filmmakers are trying to make. Ma is a supplier of warmth and strength. Grandma and Grandpa are the casualties, designed to show the stakes of the situation. Outside the family, cops and businessmen represent the callous villains who turned a cold shoulder and took advantage of the unfortunate. Various people the Joads encounter represent: the generosity of regular folk (the diner owner who sells the Joads bread and candy for nothing); people even less fortunate than the Joads (the starving kids at the camp); the worst-case-scenario for the Joads (a drifter who came to California but found no jobs there, resulting in his children starving to death); people caught between their jobs and their values (like the friendly cop who advises the Joads to leave town); and of course the strikers, who are the first group the Joads meet who take action and speak against the powers that be. Together these paint a picture of how the story sees the depression: most people are kind, but organisations and businessmen are greedy and corrupted by money, and those at the bottom had little recourse and were all but murdered.
Casy, who leads the strikers, is given the most powerful, and allegorical, function in the story. Casy starts out as a preacher who lost his faith. He tags along with the Joads mostly because he has nowhere to go - he has no goal or calling in life. He is disillusion personified. Like Jesus, he sacrifices himself, letting the cops take him instead of Tom. And again, like JC, he is ‘resurrected’ - he reappears, free and healthy. But Casy isn’t just resurrected, he’s also reborn. Casy 2.0 has a calling again, only it’s not a religious one - it’s a social one. He goes against the police and the businessmen: this is how he wants to make the world a better place, by making social changes that protect the economic interests of the little guy.
Casy dies for his new faith, but not before passing it along to Tom. Tom’s speech in the end of the film, which has aged a bit and seems a little overwritten in 2020 eyes, is still extremely effective in evoking a nebulous sense that somehow Tom will spread this faith. Somehow, through Tom and maybe others like him, Casy’s new belief will spread and create a better world.
Structure breakdown
Inciting Incident/Plot Point 1: The Joads decide to leave for California.
Plot Point 2: Tom kills a police officer.
Climax: Tom leaves the family to protect them, and go help those in need.
Personal Opinion
Some of the dialogue and acting in THE GRAPES OF WRATH has aged, and it is unabashedly a message movie, but it does work. You feel for the Joads, you feel for Tom and Ma, you hate the employers who seem nothing short of murderers, and you hate the cops that help them. The last two scenes involve some speechifying (and chickened out on the book’s far more daring final image), but nevertheless the film leaves you sad, yet full of love; shocked by what society is capable of, and yet somehow optimistic for the future. Is the script great? Yeah, because Steinbeck wrote an urgent masterpiece. Is this a brilliant adaptation? I haven’t read the book, so couldn’t tell you. (The most brilliant adaptation I know is the series MINDUNTER. I read the book, and except for the interviews, it has very little that suggests there's a series in it. The 3 episode arc with the tickling principal is one throwaway line in the book. THAT’S adaptation work). But the story of GRAPES OF WRATH is touching, and sadly, incredibly relevant. The organizing principle Steinbeck chose - a normal family trying to stick together who slowly learn they have to ‘become part of a bigger soul’ - remains a fitting vehicle on which to make Steinbeck’s social points, and explore how people persevere when they lose their job, their home, and nearly their humanity.