Customer Reviews

Tortilla Flat [VHS]

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

It's true that it's nearly impossible to make John Steinbeck's stories into movies. I had the advantage of having read Tortilla Flat before seeing this movie version. In cinema you have the visual facet of storytelling. You cannot go verbatim into film. Some things get mis-translated. Those who had a hand in making this film knew exactly where to take it. That or it was plain old blind luck. I could tell they knew the story well. They knew how to retell it in movie form. That was their strength. Black and white is like alchemy for many nowadays, but back then it was already a refined art. For the whole movie i hadn't noticed that it was in black and white. You don't yearn for color when all the elements of lighting, composition, tonal range, everything, tricks your mind into perceiving color. All of the characters were engaging and alive. The story took me in, into Monterey. It's a story of people who have very little, but in their friendships are more well off than the very wealthy. If you watch this movie before you read the book, it is just as well. You won't miss much by not reading the book. The movie is that good.

I read the book also like the critic below me but this is a film and one of MGM's finest. It is a wonder to behold. Spencer Tracy's performance as the hapless Pilon is a highlite and John Garfield as Danny is a performance to treasure. Buying this movie off of Amazon was a refreshment. It has always been one of my favorite films and will always be. The comments below mine is from an old book-crone from a person who spends time looking at the negative points of the film and cannot sit back and enjoy a real classic.

Victor Fleming's direction ("Gone With the Wind", "The Wizard of Oz") is truly fashioned in its true existential film about the life of the "paisanos" and Hedy Lammar's performance as "Sweets" Ramirez is her best. See this movie.

Time has not been kind to "Tortilla Flat" (1942). Spencer Tracy, John Garfield and Hedy Lamarr are regrettably miscast in this disappointing adaptation of John Steinbeck's 1935 novel. However, Frank Morgan earned an Oscar nomination for his standout performance as the dog-loving hermit - the best aspect of director Victor Fleming's misguided comedy-drama. The Steinbeck realism is hopelessly lost amid the MGM gloss.

This motion picture adaptation of the story by John Steinbeck is apparently the only version. That is somewhat surprising as it is a somewhat classic tale. It is the story about a group of layabouts led by a character played by Spencer Tracy. They try to survive by mooching rather than working and, when one of their group inherits from his grandfather, they move in to share in their friend's good fortune. It is considered a sin for one of their group to actually take a job, even though jobs are available (the motion picture was filmed in 1942 after the economy had picked up following the Great Depression). Marriage is to be avoided, because that would cause a man to work.

Some characters come across much stronger than others and tend to carry the motion picture forward. Overall, it is not five star, but is worth watching. It was filmed in black and white without the benefit of modern special effects

For a more recent story about a moocher, there is Bosco Dorff in "Murder...Suicide...Whatever."

This simple Steinbeck story takes place in the Monterey, California of the early forties. A little slow and drawn-out, the story involves Tracy and Garfield and their paisano friends and their adventures. Garfield's inheritance of two houses bring him instant respectability yet estranges him from Tracy and his other pals. Both Tracy and Garfield vie for the affections of lovely Lamarr and become near-enemies in the process. An entertaining little picture which has Garfield unfortunately miscast as Danny (his Spanish accent was pretty unconvincing) and the part lacked the dynamism for which Garfield was famous for.

Over last summer, I read Tortilla Flat by John Steinbeck. On Saturday, October 1, 2005, I watched the movie Tortilla Flat starring Spencer Tracy, Hedy Lamarr, and John Garfield and directed by Victor Fleming. While I watched the movie, I was confused. I wondered why Victor Fleming seemingly scrapped half the book and added a knew ending to the story. Victor could have called it "Tortilla Flat's beginning, and then whatever I feel like doing." Not only that, but he focused in on a character mentioned in only a few pages in the book, and made her the supporting actress of the movie. The movie completely changes the book, and is not nearly as good.
When I first read Tortilla Flat, I thought it was strange and intriguing. It is based on the lives of a group of vagrant mixes of California's original Hispanic settlers and the newly arriving ones and takes place on the central coast of California. Danny and his friends are living on the streets, but then Danny inherits two houses from his grandfather. At first, the group continues with their bad ways. One of Danny's friends cheats him out of his fair rent for one of his houses, and ends up wasting his money on himself. This continues for a while, until one night, the house that Danny's renting burns down when Danny's friends forget to put out a candle. (It also was the will of the saints that frequent the book). Then, Danny's friends decide to become real friends, and give up their bad ways for better ones. They become somewhat like robin hood and his band of merry men.
The movie's storyline is extremely different. In the beginning, it's the same, but when the house burns down, Danny's friends don't change their bad ways. A person they helped to live a better life in the book is a target for thieving in the movie, until they find out that he promised his money to a saint. Also, Sweets Dolores, a character mentioned only as a part of a brief adventure where Danny's friends help him overcome difficulties in the book, is the person Danny falls in love with in the movie. Also, the ending is totally changed. In the book, the characters have to overcome great grief and still do the right thing, but the movie has a fairy tale ending with everyone happy.
The question arises, "Why did they change the movie so much?" The answer is quite simple, and equally foolish. The people writing the script thought that if there was a tragedy in the end like in the book, people wouldn't want to see the movie. I think that idea is completely wrong. It usually makes a movie better if the ending is realistic. There's also a reason why they spent so much time on Sweets Delores: sex appeal and a love interest. They needed a sexy girl in the movie, so that there was some eye candy; and they needed love interest so that a larger audience would be attracted to the movie. They shouldn't have totally changed the book. Although they had to shorten the book for the movie, they should've at least included some more of the adventures, and kept its ending.
I believe that the book is better then the movie. It's deeper, showing the change in Danny and his friends from bums to heroes of their community. It's more interesting, showing the many exploits of Danny and his friends. It's more touching, going through tragedy and happiness, rather then having a fairy-tale ending. It's better written and more interesting, rather then being totally predictable. It's, of course, more descriptive, because no movie can match a book in that category.
To summarize this review in a few words, I'd have to say that the movie Tortilla Flat butchers the book and turns it into a new creation that goes by the same name. John Steinbeck would be angry at this movie.

This movie is a very loose adaptation of the John Steinbeck book of the same name which gave him recognition as a writer. It is all about these two guys named Danny and Pilon played respectively by John Garfield and Spencer Tracy. Danny inherits two houses which he considers to be a "millstone around his neck" and yearns for his earlier days of Freedom. His best friend Pilon is an alcoholic whose sole purpose in life seems to be to find the next drink. Mr. Tracy is very convincing playing an alcoholic perhaps because he had a lot of personal Real Life experience with this condition.Danny's other friends set fire to one of his houses and do nothing to extinguish the flames. With friends like this who needs enemies but I am sure that they all stayed good buddies when they shared their next jug of cheap wine. I give this movie 5 stars because the settings in it are very good and the camera work and lighting is excellent too.

INTERVIEWER: Welcome back! We're here again with Stephen T. McCarthy and discussing the Hollywood classics in glorious black and white. Tell us, Stephen, what makes TORTILLA FLAT, the 1942 adaptation of John Steinbeck's novel of the same name, one of your favorite films of all-time?

McCARTHY: Well, there's a great deal of wine-drinking in it.

INTERVIEWER: Ha!-Ha! Alright, but really now, why does Tortilla Flat rate so high with you?

McCARTHY: Because in watching it - or even just discussing it - I get a kind of contact high. I mean, they drink AN AWFUL LOT of wine in this movie! But beyond that, it's simply a wonderful production of a truly funny and heartwarming story. Also, one of the prime examples of how some of those marvelous character actors of yesteryear could sometimes steal a picture right out from under the stars during the Golden Age of Hollywood.

INTERVIEWER: The stars in this case being Spencer Tracy and John Garfield?

McCARTHY: Right. And Hedy Lamarr is the high candy. Excuse me - EYE candy. Lamarr plays Dolores "Sweets" Ramirez, the Paisano girl who drives young, headstrong Danny insane with desire. The virile Danny is portrayed by Garfield. When he unexpectedly inherits two houses in Tortilla Flat, it sets off a whole chain reaction of events that soon threaten to dissolve his old friendships and undermine the sway that the cunning and manipulative Pilon - played by Tracy - holds over him. Soon, Pilon and "Sweets" are engaged in a power stwuggle - uhm, STRUGGLE - for influence with Danny, while his oddball collection of loafing friends shpend their days trying to devise new ways of acquiring more wine ... short of working for a paycheck, that is. It's fabulous fun!

INTERVIEWER Some viewers have expressed dissatisfaction with how the story deviates somewhat from Steinbeck's book.

McCARTHY: Sure, but what some people fail to realize is that novels and movies are two separate mediums and each has its own requirements - a certain form that must be adhered to generally in order to successfully relate a story. A novel has plenty of time to unfold, but a movie has 90 to 120 minutes in which to tell its tale vishually. Uhm, visually. You don't build a house like a boat and you don't build a boat like a housh. House. A film demands a centwal conflict, and the third wheel "love twiangle" - which occupies only a small segment of Steinbeck's novel - becomes the catalysht ... catalysht ... [hic!] ... becomes the thing that dwives the film. I think it was beautifully adapted to the big shcreen, retaining all of the charm and the overall tone of the novel. And in shome ways, the movie is even better than the book!

INTERVIEWER: But in the book, Danny--

McCARTHY: Yeah, Danny dies! How fun is that? And "Sweets" Ramirez is descwibed as "not pretty. Her voice is shwill ... shrill. Her face is hard and sharp as a hatchet, and her figure ish lumpy." Who wants to shee a lumpy woman? Huh? Tortilla Frat was directed by Victor Fleming. He diwec ... he directed GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ, too; he knew what he wash doing! Steinbeck wrote: "What ish a Paisano? He is a mixture of Spanish, Indian, Mexshican and assorted Caucasian bloods. He speaks English with a Paisano accent, and Spanish wish a Paisano accent." I don't know what shortta accent Spensher Tracy was doing, but it's loushy. But you get ushed to it after awhile.

INTERVIEWER: Stephen, you mentioned the character actors.

McCARTHY: They're mahvelous! Shtupendous! They practically shteal the show! John Qualen as skinny Jos[hic!] ... Jose Maria. And Akim Tamiroff as big, dumb Pablo. And Allen Jenkins ash Portagee Joe, who fallsh asleep everywhere. Sheldon Leonard as the jailer who breaks out of hish own jail. And eshpecially the great, great theshpian, Frank Morgan - he was the wizard in THE WI[hic!]ZARD OF OZ. He playsh Pirate, the old man with a long beard who lovesh hish dogs. Hish dogs are "good boys." There's Enrique, and Paja[hic!]rito, and Fluff - he's a pug. And Senor Alec Thompson, whosh a kind of an Airedale. And Rudolph - he ish "an American dog." And Portagee Joe stealsh the money, but they get it back an' dwink wine, an' the dogs go to church, an' Pilon cuts shquids, an' Danny buysh a vacuum cleaner, an' they shing bawdy [hic!] shongs about Arabella Gross an' Missush Morallush when they dwink wine. An' Shaint Franshish of Ashishi ish in the twees, an'--

DIRECTOR: Cut! Cut! Look, somebody get some hot coffee into him. Meanwhile, we'll get our establishing shot taken care of, and do some pickup shots, and maybe by then Stephen will be sober enough to complete the interview. ... Why, oh why? And to think that I could be directing MTV videos for Rock stars. Tons of money, scantily dressed women, and all the Dom Perignon I can drink! Instead, I take THIS gig and my career goes tortilla flat.

Very interesting to see 1942 Hollywood's depiction of Chicano life.The neighborhoods looked realistic enough, like an earlier version of Mi Familia's barrio.
Spencer Tracy was excellent as Pilon. Unfortunately, a real lack of Latino actresses and actors at the time.

This movie is overly sentimental and completely destroys the content and meaning of Steinbeck's original novel. The most poignant parts of Steinbecks novels are altered in such a way to meet the demands of a Forties audience. The novel ends with Danny's death in a mythological assault on the gods. The movie ends with Danny's marrying Sweets Ramirez and living happily ever after. In the novel, the corporal's baby dies. There is a lesson in that chapter about proper child rearing. In the movie, Danny and Sweets adopt the baby and it too lives happily ever after. This is a story that's about due to be made into a movie that more closely follows the story and meaning of the book.