No Piece of Paper

By Charlotte Malmborg, with comments by Ian Garsman, Sarah Carey, and Erin Meinert

[1] John Ford’s haunting film adaptation of John Steinbeck’s critically acclaimed novel The Grapes of Wrath brings the story of the Dust Bowl migrant workers to life. The film follows the saga of the Joad family, who leave their homeland in Oklahoma to find work in the green fields of California. The Joads learn to value family and togetherness in a time of desolation, as they fail time and time again to find steady work for meager but much-needed wages. Probably one of the film’s most stirring scenes is one in which Muley, a former neighbor of the Joads, recounts the tale of the bank taking his land that his family had lived on for generations. He explains that the same was happening everywhere and that in an endless chain of command there is no one on whom to place the blame for usurping the land.

[2] The scene opens with Muley talking to a businessman who works for a company that supposedly owns the land. This scene is a flashback that shows a story from Muley’s point of view. In his memories, Muley insists that the land has been in his family for years and that it is a crime to take land from the people who “was all born on it, and some of [them] was killed on it, and some of [them] died on it”(Grapes Screenplay, Part I, Johnson). Muley claims that a person’s life and death on that land is what signifies ownership, not a piece of paper from a bank far away. The businessman states that there is nothing he can do because he only speaks for the company who speaks for the bank. Muley’s threats to shoot the businessman are futile because the problem, he knows, goes far deeper than just one man’s word. So Muley is lost. He doesn’t know who to shoot.

[3] When Muley first explains all this to Tom Joad, Tom does not know how to react. After serving time in prison, he comes back to find his family on the verge of homelessness and unable to pay the bank. With the soil dried up and limited prospects for new crops, Tom realizes what Muley means: it is impossible to attempt to fight the people on tractors who come and mow down houses. Tom is taken aback by the state the land is in after having been in prison for four long years. He comes to terms with the situation and realizes that his family’s lifestyle is also at stake. Like the businessman in the film said to Muley, “after what them dusters done to the land, the tenant system don’t work no more.” Muley’s story instills fear in Tom’s heart and challenges Tom to come up with a solution to his family’s predicament as well.

[4] Ford truly captures the distraught form that Muley is in. The expectancy and anger that rises in Muley’s voice while he talks to the silver-tongued businessman with the cool demeanor causes the audience to feel his same pain and anger. Quickly his anger turns to despair as he picks up a handful of the exhausted, dusty earth and lets it run through his hands. He emphasizes the grip that he has on the land and how it has been ingrained in him. He simply can not let go of the dirt, as parched and useless as it is. It is almost as if the earth has Muley in its hands, not the other way around. It took root in his soul and won’t let him surrender. Muley’s devotion to the land is clearly plastered to his face throughout the scene. (see comment by Erin Meinert)

[5] The obvious contrasts between Muley and the businessman are another tool Ford uses. Muley is dressed in overalls and a fraying shirt while the businessman is wearing a leather jacket and is clean shaven compared to Muley’s rustic stubble. The clear line in their social status is an important part of the scene. It highlights the businessman’s cool arrogance and distant manner. Muley’s face is also always lit up, compared to the businessman’s face which is in shadow under the brim of his hat. (see comment by Ian Garsman) His darker face makes him a more imposing character that contrasts with the brightness of the scene around him. The car is another important part of the scene. The businessman does not even get out of the car to speak to Muley. He pulls up to hand him the paper, then he goes as quickly as he came. This sign of disrespect towards Muley reveals the businessman’s character. This also contrasts with the businessman calling Muley “brother.” He may imply that he and Muley are on the same side, but he is not homeless or unemployed, so he has no idea what Muley is going through.

[6] Another important element of the scene is Muley taking the foreclosure notice from the businessman. This is when Muley is the most upset. He is holding the piece of paper, which has written words on it, but they mean nothing to Muley. The paper is as dry as the soil, but to Muley the soil is what he chooses over the word of some bank in Tulsa or some company in town. To him, it is not up to others to decide his fate. As Muley crouches and scoops up a fistful of dirt, he holds the paper in the other hand. These are the two things that are conflicting ownership: written words and the work done on the land. The businessman is representative of the paper. He is clean-cut and full of information, almost more robot than human. Muley is representative of the dirt in his hand; the warm, organic character that belongs on the land. He crushes the paper and shouts at it that “not no piece of paper with writin’ on it” can tell him what to do. The way that Muley is positioned is also one of Ford’s techniques. As he is picking up the soil, his face is down so that he isn’t looking at the audience. It is almost as if his inhibitions are gone and that he isn’t pretending to be strong once the businessman has left. Muley’s crouch also shows his vulnerability. It is as if he is admitting defeat in the face of his struggle.

[7] Muley’s final inquiry about who to shoot is certainly a paramount part of the scene. He wants someone to blame. He wants to know that it is under control, that he can do something to make the problem go away and protect his family. Family is a vital component of Steinbeck’s novel, and Ford makes a point of including family members behind Muley as he is speaking with the businessman. One of the family members even gets involved in the dialogue between Muley and the businessman, which does not occur in the original Steinbeck novel. Just like Muley, his family is full of emotions and hold on to each other as they receive the bad news. Ford places family members in the background for support and to show the fear that Muley felt as he spoke with the businessman. If one gets hurt, they all hurt, and that is something Ford makes evident in this scene. Failure is another important part of the Steinbeck novel, and Muley’s desperation is evident since he would kill a man to keep him and his family on the land. His failure to maintain his family’s lifestyle proves to be a trying thing for Muley to handle.

[8] The audience is drawn to side with Muley in his argument with the businessman. Ford uses the extra characters in the scene to make the audience feel compassion towards Muley and his family who cannot afford to stay on their land. The audience is supposed to hate the businessman who treats Muley like uneducated riff-raff and doesn’t offer to find a way to help. The businessman says that he just delivers the messages and cannot be held responsible, but he is watching this family with hunger, sadness, and anticipation in their eyes and does nothing to reassure them. He offers no support or advice, only to be sure to clear off the land if they cannot manage to pay for it. The emptiness of the businessman’s character and the range of emotion of Muley encourages the audience to side with Muley and the Graves family. (see comment by Erin Meinert)

[9] The scene also has historical value for the film. It shows the beginning of the plight of the migrant worker: the loss of their home and work. It shows how the banks foreclosed on sharecroppers and forced them to either come up with money or to find a new place to go. The scene also involves Muley taking a handful of dirt, which the audience can see is dry and dusty like sand, unable to bear crops for the year, and therefore unable to yield any profit for the sharecroppers. Ford deliberately shows how decrepit the soil has become. There is a breeze at the end of the scene too, which blows the dust around Muley as he crouches in the dirt. The dry soil is evidence of the Dust Bowl plight that ruined Midwestern agriculture in the 1930’s. (see comment by Sarah Carey) This scene represents the first piece in a long series of struggles that “Okies” faced during the Great Depression. The scene also shows the fragile state of the “American Dream,” where one can own and work their land and make an honest living by working hard. Muley’s dream for his family is shattered, just like many other American families who underwent the same troubles in the 1930’s.

[10] This is not only the first struggle in historical context, but it is also the start of Tom’s struggles throughout the film. The scene is a big contrast to Tom’s recent happiness. He is just out of jail and finally returning to his family. He learns that his family farm has become one of the status quo, just another one of the farms plowed over by the cat tractors that prowl along the land, devouring all in their paths. The Joad family’s story mirrors the story of the Graves, which is another element in the scene that shows the audience how common this problem is among Okie farmers.

[11] The scene is one that was not uncommon in the Dust Bowl region during the Great Depression. Many families were uprooted and forced to move away and change their way of life. Ford brought Steinbeck’s characters to life and put fear and anguish into their eyes as they were removed from the land that they had called home for their entire lives. Already meager living became even worse, as people starved without food or a place to call home. Family life plays a large role in the scene and also throughout the film as the family unit is pushed to its extreme limits and bonds are tested. The migrant life that ensued from eviction proved a tough test for Muley, the Joads, and for all the people who lived during in the Dust Bowl. The search for a new life and the “American Dream” became the norm for families who had nothing left, and Ford’s film depicts that family struggle effortlessly and beautifully.

Comments

Ian Garsman 10/4/10

Charlotte makes the point of the contrast between Muley’s lit up face and the businessman’s dark shadowed face. Light often connotes purity and safety, while dark signifies danger and death. Looking more in depth at this contrast, the interpretation of light and dark images is reversed in Grapes. In this instance, Muley is victim to the harsh light, and instead of being safe, he is in danger of losing his land. While the businessman is in the shadows, he is safe from any threats. Yes, he is an imposing and intimidating character because of his dark face but only because he feels safe in the shade under his hat. In addition, the bright light exposes Muley to the unjust reality of the world. For the businessman, his eyes are shaded and shielded from the immoral actions he is committing on the helpless farmer.

Erin Meinert 10/4/10

Charlotte, though I agree that the audience is supposed to feel contempt towards the businessman, I also believe that the viewers are led to feel empathetic and distraught for him and his family’s situation as well. As Muley questions him “who do we shoot?” his explanation proves that this depression had not only impacted the Joad family, but their neighbors as well. Muley’s situation was not unique for his time. The businessman was also a fellow Oklahoman, who also had a starving family at home, and this was likely the only job offered to him that provided a means to his impoverished ends. In my opinion, it is probable that if Muley were offered the same job the businessman was, he would have taken it regardless of his morals, because of the desperation of the situation. This scene proves the brutality of the Dust Bowl as numerous Oklahomans were left to struggle and tend to various jobs to support their families. Inevitably, tensions arose, but the ones who should have been shot were big businesses and the government, not their poor Oklahoman mouthpieces.

Erin Meinert 10/5/10

The humbling image of Muley holding the soil from his property in his weathered hands is the snapshot I most remember from this film. The barren background appears lifeless behind his worn figure draped in ragged clothes, his face is downcast and greatly distraught, and his hands are as limp and lifeless as the soil they are so desperately gripping. The dirt is not merely tangible evidence of his family’s property, it is also the intangible evidence of who he and his family are, where they came from, and what they have worked so desperately for. In this image the lifeless soil tragically slips through his fingers just as he is informed that his land will be taken away from him. This image resonates throughout the entire movie as it encapsulates the greater message of this tragedy, which is the struggle of farm families during this era and how, both literally and figuratively, much of what they once had slipped through the cracks of their fingers.

Sarah Carey 10/6/10

Here Charlotte discusses the shot in which Muley picks up some dirt from the ground of his land, kneeling down in sorrow for the loss of something so ingrained in his family history. She discusses the topical and visual value of this scene, but I think the deeper, symbolic value should be discussed as well. Muley’s action of stooping to pick up dirt from the ground and letting it trail through his fingers is a really touching shot in the scene. It shows a lot of emotion, without words or a shot of his face. That physical connection with the dirt and ground just emphasizes what Muley just made a speech about -- his heritage on the land and his love for it.