• Leonard J. Leff. "The Breening of America." PMLA, Vol. 106, No. 3 (May, 1991), pp. 432-445 Published by: Modern Language Association

Leonard J. Leff’s article “The Breening of America” works to point out the fact that as head of the PCA Joseph Breen worked not only out of concern for upholding decency and morality, but at the same time he attempted to promote a political, profit-seeking agenda. The article indicates that many famed Hollywood directors including Charlie Chaplin shared the same contempt for certain aspects of American culture written about by famous authors such as Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Steinbeck, but they did not have the same freedom in expressing it.

The article characterizes Joseph Breen, who had fully realized power in July 1934 when The MPPDA created the PCA and named him director. Breen is noted to be morally conservative, and at the same time to have tyrannical tendencies. Nevertheless, Breen is described most aptly in this article as a facilitator between social forces, and American filmmakers. He is attributed with both providing a staunch conservative influence on the social environment, and with maximizing the profitability of Hollywood by way of giving the American public precisely what they wanted to see.

This is a particularly interesting portrayal of an organization that was for all intents and purposes designed to provide censorship. A censor of the film industry cannot be arbitrarily lawless and continually maximize profitability. Joseph Breen realized this and therefore took on his aforementioned facilitator role. This applies directly to The Grapes of Wrath because it begs the question; would the film have been as profitable if it it’s thematic focus was more closely aligned with Steinbeck’s? Leff would contend that it probably would not have been as profitable. Needless to say however, the thematic focus of the film was tailored toward providing entertainment that was uplifting at least to some extent.

 

• Chambers, Whittaker "The New Pictures." TIME Magazine. Monday Feb. 12, 1940.

In a famous review of The Grapes of Wrath, then editor of TIME Magazine Whittaker Chambers defiantly raves about the film. A former Communist party member and Soviet spy, Whitaker ended up defecting from the party and becoming one of communism’s most notorious and outspoken opponents. After breaking ties with the Communist party in 1938, Whittaker went on to become an editor of TIME.

It is interesting to note that Whittaker mentions a brief, albeit scathing criticism of Steinbeck’s original book version of The Grapes of Wrath. Whittaker refers to the Pulitzer Prize winning novel as “propaganda” and containing “phony pathos.” Whittaker goes on to qualify that the type of person who is to gain the most enjoyment from observing The Grapes of Wrath is the one who enjoys “seeing a picture for picture’s sake.” Whittaker claims that The Grapes of Wrath could quite possibly be “the best picture ever made from a so-so book.”

Whittaker mentions that the book translates so effectively to film for a couple of reasons: “credit belongs accidentally to censorship and the camera.” The self-censorship of the Production Code Administration is namely what Whitaker is alluding to here. The editorial criticisms of the American economic system made by Steinbeck are also eliminated from the picture. What remains is an authentic tale of a U.S. farming family. “They wander, they suffer, but they endure.”

This article is highly significant because it not only points out the thematic difference that exists between Steinbeck’s book and Ford’s film, but it also provides a historical context. The P.C.A. at least to some extent allowed The Grapes of Wrath to become a film so long as the theme shifted toward a positivist one. There could not simply be a thrashing of the economic conditions in Great Depression America. Instead, it was necessary to instill some sort of hope in the storyline which culminates in the form of an enduring family struggle.

• Peter Lisca “The Grapes of Wrath as Fiction.” PMLA, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Mar., 1957), pp. 296-309 Published by: Modern Language Association

Peter Lisca writes in his article “The Grapes of Wrath as Fiction” that Steinbeck artfully integrates the two essential elements of a piece of fiction in such a way that it cannot suffer from the potential criticism of being labeled propaganda. The two elements Lisca aims to highlight are plot and characters. More specifically, Lisca is referring to the creation of the fictional family the Joads and their relationship to the harsh realities of the Great Depression.

Steinbeck is able to indicate quite convincingly that the entirety of his work is representative of circumstances brought on Americans by the economic and political context of life during the Great Depression. He falls short of shameless propaganda however, because he is able to develop his characters in such a way that all of their emotional responses are the byproduct of real social conditions. Further, the portrayal is not one-sided. There are moments of hope throughout the novel, and it even ends on a relative high-note.

It is important to note that there are very few critics of Steinbeck’s work. This being the case, if the theme of The Grapes of Wrath the film were aligned with Steinbeck’s it can only be assumed that it would have been popular and profitable. The film could certainly have been more inclusive of social conditions, and less focused on simply an examination of a solitary family unit. Nevertheless it is vital to recognize that the film did not represent a departure from a propagandistic theme. The thematic difference lies in the completeness of the portrayal of plot and characters.

• Vivian C. Sobchack "The Grapes of Wrath (1940): Thematic Emphasis Through Visual Style." American Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 5, Special Issue: Film and American Studies (Winter, 1979), pp. 596-615 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Vivan C. Sobchank outlines in her article the consistently overlooked features of John Ford’s The Grapes of Wrath. Despite the fact that The Grapes of Wrath is a film that has received much critical acclaim and has been highly visible since it was produced in 1940 Sobchank contends that there are important visual elements that require closer examination to fully realize the film.

Sobchank contends that a close look at the visual stylistic elements of The Grapes of Wrath has been hampered by a couple of factors. Firstly, John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath was an incredibly well known book which often times overshadowed the creation of the film and left an audience legitimizing the film only in terms of its ability to closely follow the book and not as an unlinked work. Secondly, the overpowering and dramatic thematic aspects of the film made an analysis of its visual elements of significantly lesser importance.

Sobchank emphasizes that when critiquing a film it is of the utmost importance to examine its visual elements. This is what makes the medium unique from other art forms. The visual portrayal of the Joad’s changes the thematic nature of the storyline from book to film. The film becomes less about ties to land and the overarching social conditions that resulted from the Great Depression and more centered on the resilience of one particular family experiencing severe hardship in a discrete time period. It is visualizing the film which allows this very different thematic concentration to arise.

A number of different visual techniques are used by John Ford to accomplish this end. Twenty-five out of the fifty scenes in the film occur inside the Joad truck or an “oppressive interior.” Ford makes use of shadows and darkness during climactic moments of the film. Long shots are used sparingly and close up shots focusing on characters with a contained background are employed. There is a departure from the use of land imagery as well.

Sobchank notes that Ford wanted to make The Grapes of Wrath not for its relevant social and political themes, but because it told a story of a “family going out there and trying to make it in the world.”

Sobchank’s article is highly important in understanding that The Grapes of Wrath was not only a criticism of conditions in America, but a positivist account of the intangible relationship of a human family. In the famous monologue when Henry Fonda proclaims, “wherever there’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there” the implications are two-fold. Tom Joad will be there to fight against injustice, but he will also be there to fight for his family. The latter is the thematic and visual concentration of the film making it unique in the social problem genre.

Hollywood was in a transitional period in the mid 1930s and into the 1940s. The self-censorship of the studio system culminating in the formation of the PCA changed the ability of filmmakers to portray certain aspects of American life. A particularly interesting case is found in examining The Grapes of Wrath (1940). Because of the fact that the story existed first as a novel written with complete freedom of expression, it made for a useful comparative analysis of theme. The combination of the constraints of censorship, the director's stylistic predilections, and the inherently unique quality of visualization in the medium of film made for widely contrasting themes in The Grapes of Wrath the film, and novel.

The Dark Side of the Genius lends insight into Hitchcock during the early days of production of Lifeboat. David O. Selznick had worked out a two-picture deal with 20^th Century-Fox for Hitchcock to direct Lifeboat and The Keys of the Kingdom. The second film was never made, as Hitchcock delayed starting the productions in a hope to receive more money. In the wake of the political fallout of Lifeboat, it’s unlikely that Fox would have wanted to shell out extra money for such an initially poorly received film.

While Fox pushed screenwriters to script Lifeboat, Hitchcock sought after novelists. Before Steinbeck, Hitchcock tried to convince Ernest Hemingway to take the project. Hemingway declined. Lifeboat is known as a picture Hitchcock saw as one of his cinematic challenges, putting him under the constraints of a single set and compositions of mainly close-up and medium shots. However, it seems as if he was also enamored with the idea of working with the additional constraint of creative input from an artist as well-respected and a name as well known as his.

With two deaths in Hitchcock’s family around the time of the production of Lifeboat, the theme of sudden loss and tragedy seems like a likely inspiration for the film to focus on the aftermath of a steady ship being thrown into turmoil. The impact of the deaths in Hitchcock’s own new concern towards mortality can be seen in the rapid weight loss regiment he undertook before Lifeboat’s production. The aftermath of this can be seen in the Reduco newspaper add in which he appears in the before and after picture, slimming down one-hundred pounds.

The book features an anecdote about lead Tallulah Bankhead’s exhibitionist behavior on the set of Lifeboat. As magazines sought to do features on the film, reporters and the studio higher-ups were not nearly as pleased as the male crew members about Bankhead’s behavior, with one reporter commenting about the rumors of indecent behavior in Hollywood being true. This taken in the context of the era of the PCA shows the careful attention the public paid to not only film content but their production environment and stars’ off-screen “performances.”

Prior to writing the novellete that would become the basis for Lifeboat, John Steinbeck wrote The Moon is Down, his first novel about the war.  Like Lifeboat, it is a heavily allegorical story that, although unrealistic to a modern audience, was well reviewed and liked by the World War II-era American public who "wanted not art but propaganda."

 

Lifeboat partially originated as a project that the Merchant Marines asked Hollywood to produce in order to create public awareness of the threat U-boats presented its ships.  Steinbeck's original version of the story was much truer to the Marines wishes, and much less of an allegory than the final film ended up being.  While the characters were meant to represent a microcosm of American society, the element of a disorganized Democracy set against the strong-wlled Nazi was not present.  In contrast, the self-made man shows the leadership qualities that must have been used to amass his fortunes, not the facistman who finds it so easily to give up power.  Also, the Nazi is a weak individual who after only one act of deception is killed.  The focus of the book is not the Nazi's ascension to control but of what life as a Merchant Marine and the experience of being shelled and stranded is like.

 

After Steinbeck completed his work on the project, three additional drafts were done, and by the end the story only vaguely represented the original.  MacKinlay Kantor's draft was thrown out early on by Hitchcock, though he is credited with increasing the allegory's prominence in the story.  One of Frank Capra's collaborators Jo Swerling stripped away a lot of the realism of the characters and provided the "Capra-corn" melodramatic elements.  Hitchcock, the master of details, rewrote the final draft shortly before shooting to "give it narrative form."

 

After seeing his original vision transformed so much, Steinbeck eventually wrote and asked to have his name taken off of the film, claiming that he wanted no part in something that so clearly "damaged the war effort."  Most of all, as revealed in a personal letter, it seems as if Steinbeck hated the transformation of the working class characters from ones with dignity to stereotypes, criticizing Hithcock's "middle-class" sensibilities.

 

In the midst of Hollywood's war time effort, incorporating pro-American propaganda into its films, it's somewhat ironic to see the process converting a film with origins in propaganda transformed by the process into what many reviewers of the time considered to be anti-American.

By 1941, Hitchcock was considered by pop culture to be in the same league as Frank Capra and Orson Welles as being a recognizable personality as well as filmmaker.  Hitchcock had begun to receive some autonomy on his films of this periods from studios like RKO (who also afforded the same courtesy to Welles).  However, while Welles’s autonomy came contractually, Hitchcock’s came from people’s dislike of confrontation with the standoffish director.  With RKO unsatisfied with the progress of one of his projects, they began to seek more direct involvement.  Hitchock responded by leaving the studio after the projects completion, with David O. Selznick helping him work out a deal with 20^th Century Fox.

 

Unused to and unaccepting of studio interference, Hitchcock’s brief stint at 20^th Century Fox saw Hitchcock having to deal with studio head Zanuck over many of the elements of production.  Zanuck’s biggest issue with Hitchcock was his slow production pace.  It took twenty weeks for a script for Lifeboat to be produced.  A short production schedule was imposed on Hitchcock which was ignored.  Zanuck constantly sent letters complaining of the inefficiency of Hitchcock’s shooting scenes in sequential order and wanted cuts to be made to keep the project under budget, with Hitchcock frequently never responding.  Hitchcock disliked the even stronger studio interference then in his earlier projects, and Zanuck disliked Hitchcock’s disregard for the budget.  With Hitchcock’s value to the studio questionable, a second film for Fox was not produced (as originally intended).

 

Leff also notes that although Hitchcock sought after Steinbeck, he still hesitated working with The Grapes of Wrath author.  Familiar with Steinbeck’s work, Hitchcock was afraid of the “political baggage” that would be brought to the film that was meant to be a technical challenge above all.  Ironically, Steinbeck’s original work was far less politically controversial then Hitchcock’s eventual film.  Even in interviews after filming, Hitchcock denies any reading of the film other then a political one.  Leff states this as being the film’s chief weakness.  Instead of focusing on the development of real characters, Hitchcock is more concerned with the allegory of political ideal and ideals colliding.

After critical reaction to the flim Lifeboat complained of the weak portrayal of Americans in comparison with the superman Nazi, producer Kenneth Macgowan wrote this article about the intent behind the film. Macgowan tries and provide explanations for several of the issues that critics had with the film. He claims the reason the German is the only one who can row the boat because he's the only one with water and food tablets, avoiding the fact that no one man should be able to paddle that lifeboat, no matter how strong he is.

Interestingly, in the article Macgowan includes Steinbeck's name in the list of primary creators of the allegory that was being so strongly criticized because at the time, Steinbeck was seeking to have his name removed from the film.

Macgowan credits Hitchcock with the idea of shooting a film in a lifeboat, and saying that first and foremost, this was a gimmick film. It was Hitchcock's idea of a challenge to shoot the first ever film with only one set. For this reason, Macgowan claims that the allegory was never intended, and they stumbled upon it by accident, throughout the creative process. Steinbeck is the only one for whom this is definetly true as his early manuscript proves. However, a few paragraphs earlier, Macgowan was crediting Steinbeck, a man only involved only very early on in the process, with having an allegorical intent that was supposedly developed later on.

Macgowan's contradictions are best summed up in his final paragraph when he essentially says (paraphrasing), "You misinterpreted our intent.  Oh, and if you still disagree, we didn't have any intent to begin with."

In the same issue of The New York Times as the Macgowan letter in defense of Lifeboat, Bosley Crowther responds with a strong critique of Macgowan and the film.

Crowther's article is a strong reflection of the American view of films during the height of censorship. His article is not one of strongly synthesized arguments about why Lifeboat is bad for the war effort. Instead he frequently employs the use of rhetorical questions, asking questions like "What's going on out there[Hollywood]?" as if any film whose portrayal of America's strength is questionable is an outrage in itself and needs no further explanation.

One of Crowther's criticisms that does not feature a question mark is that of all the abilities given to the German. He is the only one with the mental, physical, and emotional ability to amputize Gus's leg, navigate the ship through the storm, and row it towards its destination. He credits all of his abilities as being well-explained, but critizes Hitchcock (and unfairly Steinbeck) for giving them to him in the first place.  His argument can be summarized as no matter how well you explain Superman's ability to fly, his super strength, or his heat vision, they still make him look like Superman.

He closes his critique claiming that anything that casts doubt on America is inherently bad to morale and for our image overseas, giving credence to the idea of film as Will Hays's silient salesman.  Censorship in the 1940s is often attributed only to organizations like the PCA and OWI. However, the critical reaction to Lifeboat shows that if they weren't strictly enforcing unquestionable pro-American ideals in film that their would be outcry from other outlets.

Bosley Crowther uses Lifeboat as a case study in the issues he sees with the current state of the film industry.  He questions why the screenwriter never receives the attention and the acclaim that the playwright does.  With control firmly rooted in the hands of the producer and the director, a screenwriter may find his name attached to a project that is significantly altered from his original vision.  Early criticism of Lifeboat came on the shoulders of both Hitchcock and Steinbeck.  Steinbeck was a well known name, but for his novels not for his work in the film industry.  Subsequently, his name was used to market the film even though he had no control and input on the final print.  The lack of control is a situation that many Hollywood screenwriters could find themselves in.

 

Crowther’s analysis and comparison of Steinbeck’s original treatment of Lifeboat and the final script reveals the specifics of the changes Steinbeck that drove Steinbeck to seek the removal of his name from the film.  Steinbeck’s tale was even more character and less plot driven then Hitchcock’s final film.  The largest change is the democracies foe was not the Nazi but the ocean.  The Nazi attempted take over was little more than a subplot which was handled after only one act of deception by the other survivors.

 

Crowther accuses Hitchcock and producer Macgowan of “preempting” Steinbeck’s “creative authority.”  However, he acknowledges that under the current system the director and the producer have every right to change, for better or worse, a screenwriter’s original intent and characters.  He places blame too not only the founders of the system, but the writers who do not do anything to change it.  Crowther does not seek a system in which the producer has no control, as without his financing the film would not be made.  He seeks for a more balanced industry in which the financial and creative input are on a more balanced footing.