Blogs
The Fiction in Fact
John Ford’s Grapes of Wrath film just like Steinbeck’s novel was perceived by many of the public as truth. The film was shot using similar techniques to those that a documentary uses. However, just because the novel and the movie are somewhat truthful does not mean they are objective truth. Documentaries, movies, novels, photos, and essays are all subjective in some way or another. Documentaries are usually presented as objective truth, however this is not true. Documentarians, just like feature film directors can use many film techniques to slant the view of the film. John R. Smith writes in Making the cut: documentary work in John Ford's The Grapes of Wrath about an author named Robert Cole who examined these types of techniques. “Coles sees the documentarian as a kind of storyteller who constructs a narrative in which questions of organization become the guiding principle.”(Smith) Directors, cinematographers, and editors decide what is in every frame. Some characters are in the shot, others are not. Who sands next to who and why? What shot precedes, and follows each other shot? Is the shot a wide one or a close up? A close up has much different feelings then a wide shot. Is there music playing in the background? What kind of music is it? What actor was chosen to play the role? In many ways, a movie can be even more subjective than novels. Smith goes on to write about how Ford, Steinbeck, and other artists of the time use techniques in their field to shape their piece of work. The first example he talks about is Dorothea Lange, and her photos called An American Exodus. Although these pictures were taken at the time, and of real people, Lange was making decisions when taking the photographs. She may have omitted people or objects that distort the truth. "Dorothea Lange has, in a sense, removed that woman from the very world she is meant, as a Farm Security Administration (FSA) photographer, to document. The tent is gone, and the land on which it is pitched, and the utensils"(Smith)
Smith later writes how Ford makes similar choices in his feature film on the Grapes of Wrath. An example can be seen during the movie when Ma Joad is looking through her photographs before she leaves for the road. We see what photographs see is looking at, but when we read the book, we do not know what the photographs are. Ford is selecting the photos we see on screen. All artist including Ford, Steinbeck, and Lange have to make decisions when creating there work, and us, the viewers must be conscience of this. They are making statements when they make these decisions, and we need to consider them before we accept everything as objective truth.


Even watching just the first
Even watching just the first few minutes of the film in class, I couldn’t help but notice how much the film was the product of a million tiny decisions about what to include, what not to include, and how these decisions shaped the entire story and the message being relayed. The action was so condensed, becoming a much faster paced narrative, with event after event piled in and compressed. Casy’s theory, which Steinbeck reveals piece by piece over the course of many chapters, came out as one longwinded doctrine, already thought out and pieced together for example. To some extent the pace of the film, with the action playing out against a backdrop rather than couched between descriptive, beautifully crafted prose, has the effect of making it seem more documentary like. Having just read the book, however, counteracted that effect, because the differences in the story as it occurs through different mediums, points out the decision making process involved in creating a limited piece of art and expression. It was clear that the movie was not adhering strictly to its inspiration, just as I am sure Steinbeck’s novel strayed from what he observed directly. The writing of a novel involves just as many decisions as the making of a film—the crafting of the characters, the language, the juxtapositions, etc. but we cannot see what Steinbeck saw and so the disparity between his presentation and observation are less evident when we see only the interpretation without the original.
I agree when you say that
I agree when you say that documentaries, despite the claim of their supposedly objective truth, are not necessarily objectively true. The question of whether there is an objective truth opens to another discussion, and without going that far, it can easily be discussed how the very fact documentaries are the product, the result of an intention, for example, the intention of portraying the hoovervilles in such and such way, documentaries can be said to contain a certain level of bias. In this sense, many so called documentaries were used as propaganda in certain political regimes. Other documentaries however, pictures- videos of WWII for example, can hardly be considered as not being true... Other sources of information are more explicit in their objectivity, and place that objectivity in the interpretation of the observer, for example EURONEWS: "At euronews we believe in the intelligence of our viewers and we think that the mission of a news channel is to deliver facts without any opinion or bias, so that the viewers can make their own opinion on world events. We also think that sometimes images need no explanation or commentary, which is why we created No Comment and now No Comment TV: to show the world from a different angle…"
"