For a while, I was unaware that a movie adaptation of The Grapes of Wrath existed. I knew it was a famous and much loved book, but I guess it never occurred to me that someone might adapt it onscreen. But then came AFI's new Top 100 Movies List, and I saw The Grapes of Wrath on there. Initially I was shocked and pleased, and then I thought rather sheepishly to myself, "Should've guessed." After discovering the movie, the obvious thing to do would be to put it on Netflix immediately. I checked my parents' movie collection, since The Grapes of Wrath seemed like a movie they might already own. They didn't, so I Netflixed it.

Even my mother was surprised at how early the movie was made (1940). She had guessed 1960, and was shocked to see it in black and white. I never checked the year it was made, meaning I was fairly surprised too. But unlike my sister, movies don't have an age limit with me. I'll watch any black and white movie as long as it's worth watching.

...I'm still trying to decide on how to mark this movie, actually. I do indeed believe it's awesome, but I can't tell if that's because it was based on an already awesome story or if the movie itself is just great. The movie does follow the book rather faithfully; I haven't read the book in a long while, but I could still see that the events were taking place almost exactly as they had in the book. I suppose you can't take too many chances when adapting something already considered a masterpiece, though.

As it is whenever you see a book you've read onscreen, you are shocked by how your interpretation of the characters is much different than the movie's. The same was true here: Ma was more corpulent than I had imagined, Grandma was frailer in my mind's eye, and Grandpa was a lot younger. And then, of course, Rosasharn's name was different from what I had always thought it was. ROH-zuh-sharn was how I always read it ('sharn' as in 'sharp'). I knew it meant Rose of Sharon, but it never occurred to me that they pronounced it ROH-zuh-shaarn (shaarn as in 'share'). I makes a lot more sense, now I think of it.

There was some great acting in this movie. Tom Joad was pretty good throughout, Pa stood out whenever he had a scene for himself, Grandpa was hilarious in his short time onscreen, and Ma was simply fantastic the whole way through. Casey was also exactly as I had depicted him in my head, and he did a fine job acting. The exchange between Ma and Tom at the very end was brilliant, better, even, than the book it came from. Ma has a very motherly disposition. Although she can be forceful when she needs to be, she has a very worried tone and face most of the time, which fit perfectly when Tom decided it was time for him to go. And Henry Fonda (Tom) was a great actor (and he looks a lot like Willem Dafoe. Anyone else notice that?), so his performance was just as good as Ma's.

It takes a bit of time to get used to the prices of things back then. Five cents for a bucket of peaches? That sounds like a horrible ripoff in this day and age, but back then, I guess five cents went a really long way. A red flag went up, though, when the waitress in the restaurant claimed that the candy canes were two for a penny. That seemed like a lot of value for one penny even considering the time the movie took place in. But then the guy tells her off for selling the candies for less than they're worth, and I appreciated the scene anew. Especially since the waitress seemed so stone-hearted just a few moments ago.

I love the humanity of this story. There are so many random acts of kindness in it, and it really shows how kind people can be at times. The aforementioned candy scene was one of them, and there were multiple others along the same lines. The man tipping the Joads off about the upcoming riot. The kindly owner of the camp where there was running water and dance nights. The cops letting the Joads pass because of Grandma. It all shows how hard times were, and how everyone knew what everyone was going through. That can bring out the best and the worst in people. For the owners of the peaches and oranges, it definitely brought out the worst. But for the common folk, they all had great sympathy for one another. Which is what makes this sad tale slightly heartwarming as well.

I'm not entirely sure why they never showed Rosasharn giving birth. She seemed pretty close to delivering at the movie's end, relying on the others to transport her where she needed to go. Perhaps the filmmakers didn't think it was too central to the plot, and decided to end it with Ma's nice little speech. Or, maybe they just didn't know how to handle the miscarriage onscreen. Maybe they didn't have the technology to produce a miscarried baby. I don't know. I thought it was a pretty good way to end the novel, but the movie's ending seems...more proper, I guess you might say. Ma acknowledging the hardship of the weeks passed while still not giving up hope is a fitting end to this tale.

I guess I can't help but to give this movie a 10. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it, as much as I enjoyed reading Steinbeck's novel of the same name. Some people found it dull, since it takes place in an area where so little happens and the people deal with issues we can't even imagine today. I never once found it boring, though. The characters in the book (and movie, by extension) are all superbly written, and they tie the story together. The plotline could be rather boring if it weren't for the family that was experiencing it. That was what made Steinbeck's book so good; he gave names and faces to those thousands of nameless migrants looking for work, and brought them to our attention by doing so. I suppose this perfect 10 is more for the book that Steinbeck gave to the world more than the movie, but the movie captures the magic of the book about as perfectly as I could ask for, and I think it deserves a 10 just as much as the book does.