The Good Earth: the book vs. the movie

The Great Earth, made in 1937, was an intriguing portrayal of life in China during these times. Although I think it is an excellent motion picture for this period, I had a tough time associating with the film. The advancements in movie have made it tough to go back to older movies; things like digital effects and color have truly made older movies appear like ancient history. The characters appeared over dramatized and impractical. The plot did not stay with the book and appeared to change a few of the significance the Dollar utilized.

The book was far better then the motion picture and the movie did not do the book justice.

The book is a great representation of Chinese society and reveals the independence of each community and the absence of support that the government provides. The motion picture did not feature any Chinese stars in the lead roles, but appeared to speak for the Chinese people. Still, the book and motion picture made Chinese individuals genuine for countless Americans.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified writer

Proficient in: Film

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The Earth is translucented out both the film and book as a metaphor for the growth of life and culture in China. Loosing touch with the land likewise suggested loosing touch with customs, morals, and their identities.

By the end of the book the children no longer recognize where they come from and take the land for given. They have actually forgotten that the land was their source of wealth which they are dependent on the land for their future. The land also was very harsh to Wang Lung at times.

Everyday he struggled and O-lan struggled besides him. All his life he spent his time in the fields, not till his the end of his life did he get to unwind.

The Characters O-Lan and Wang Lung altered throughout the story. Wang Lungs character depicts a guy's unselfishness, decision, and commitment towards his family and buddies. The character in the end desires abundant things and invests money frivolously, and turns away from his family and towards enjoyments. Although during his more youthful years the household was his main focus. Wang Lung is not "free" as a male to do what he wants; he serves his father and his uncle and it his responsibility to also look after the neighborhood since of his good luck. Wang Lung is simply such an individual, the impassive farmer happily bound to the everlasting Great Earth. The household system oppresses but also supports O-lan with the worths, which describe, and support her life.

I felt that the feminist symbolism was very small. There were many ideas that I thought went against western ideas. Making it harder for Americans to relate too. We saw child-selling, wife-buying, foot-binding and self-sacrifice to the point of starvation. Americans remember O-lan giving birth and immediately picking up her hoe to go back to the fields. O-lan is a strong, competent person, essential to the household economy, who achieves many of her ambitions; she is betrayed (but not broken) as much by her husband's weak character as by social attitudes. The book raises fruitful questions about the Chinese farm economy, family, and the status of women. While the movie shows her standing by and watching her surroundings, not reacting to anything.

While Wang reacts to everything and blames everyone but himself for his troubles, he shows the characteristics the O-lan lacks. He blames the weather and the gods for the lack of rain. He fulfils the ideas that westerns have of peasants. The American audience reads a novel about "peasants," a word that does not exist in the Chinese language but is actually translated as farmer. Feudal Europe had "peasants," Republican America had "farmers," but China was an exception, neither Old World nor New, with a motionless history, populated by "farmers." Wang Lung works fiercely hard, but is helpless against nature--locusts and drought. When famine drives the family into the city, O-lan, who had been a slave in rich folks' houses, uses her knowledge to find hidden jewels and save the farm. Salvation comes through luck, not Christianity, and certainly not through class struggle.

Wang Lung doesn't suffer from "poverty," it's just that he doesn't have any money; his problems are individual, not social, running more to locusts and evil uncles than feudalism. The only foreigners in the book are naive fools. When an evangelist displays a picture of a figure on the cross, Wang Lung wonders what this criminal must have done to deserve such a punishment; he takes the evangelist's pamphlet and gives it to his wife to make shoes. This part of the book was overlooked in the movie. It shows the great naive lifestyle of the lower classes in China and the verge of change coming to China.

Although the book and movie had the same basic plot they were divided on the ideas of the Chinese people and their influence on the American public. The Chinese people were shown in two very different ways. The ideas of the Chinese people were misconstrued and the ordeals seem lighter then the actual turmoil O-lan and Wang Lung endured. The movie was a an easier path and less struggle for the Chinese people as a whole but made it easier for the Americans to sympathize with.