In class we talked a little bit about the three endings to The Grapes of Wrath. Steinbeck, Ford, and Zanuck each envisioned a different ending, each with its own moral and political implications. In this blog post, I will take a look at these three endings and what they meant.
Steinbeck’s Ending:
_-_05.png)
Dorris Bowdon as Rose of Sharon (Rosasharn)
Steinbeck’s novel ends with more religious than political connotations. The Joads, homeless and starving once again, seek refuge in a barn during a rainstorm (symbolic of the flood). There, they encounter a homeless man who is on the brink of death from starvation. Rose of Sharon, having just given birth to a stillborn child, breast-feeds the starving man. Steinbeck insisted on the man being a complete stranger, thereby emphasizing the selflessness of Rose’s act. He also did this by building her up as a self-centered character earlier in the book. Steinbeck thus ends on a symbolic gesture, rather than a happy ending. His final scene is a message about humility and kindness towards fellow human beings. It is simultaneously the ending of a high romantic and a Marxist.
Ford’s Ending:
To say that John Ford was the ideal director for The Grapes of Wrath is an understatement. Ford was the son of Irish immigrants who left during the potato famine, and thus had strong emotional ties to the Joads’ story of land dispossession, hunger, and journey to the promised land of California. His work on The Grapes of Wrath won him an Academy Award, though the movie received criticism for diluting the novel’s more controversial points.
Henry Fonda as Tom Joad in Ford’s original ending.
Ford’s ending accomplishes two things. Politically, it supports FDR’s New Deal policies. This is largely done through the setting. In the novel, Tom Joad is hiding out in a cave when Ma Joad comes by to say her farewell. Ford moved this scene to the government camp, highlighting the camp as the only location where the Joad’s were treated as human beings. Furthermore, Ford cast an actor who physically resembled FDR to portray the camp director, and even had the actor mimic the President’s speech patterns. The visual impact is a strong argument for the government’s role as protector of the people.
The second effect is to emphasize the tragedy of land dispossession. To Ford, losing one’s land trumped unemployment and even starvation. As such, the most poignant scenes of the movie are when Ma Joad starts going through her items and burning memories she cannot take with her, and Tom Joad’s farewell. In Ford’s ending, Tom is seen walking towards the horizon alone, leaving his family and his refuge. His loss, the loss of a home, is the greatest loss he has endured, and he must go through it one more time.
Zanuck’s Ending:
Zanuck’s ending with Ma Joad’s speech (Jane Darwell)
Zanuck found Ford’s ending too politically provocative (since Tom intends to become a union activist). He therefore added a coda ending, meant to dilute the political force of Ford’s scene and simultaneously give audiences the “Hollywood ending” they wanted. Ma Joad’s speech echoed the feel-good American spirit of gritting your teeth and moving on. However, this ending did not sit well with many critics, particularly in the 60’s. They essentially considered Ma Joad’s speech a cop-out, a betrayal of the political spirit of the novel. The ending told viewers to hang in there and wait for things to get better, rather than take political action and rock the boat.