Jennifer Lawrence/Gary Ross Re-team for 'East of Eden'

Sawyer

17 and AFRAID of Sabrina Carpenter
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
113,295
Reaction score
26,272
Points
203
http://www.deadline.com/2013/09/hun...nce-gary-ross-reteam-steinbecks-east-of-eden/
‘Hunger Games’ Jennifer Lawrence, Gary Ross To Re-Team On Steinbeck’s ‘East Of Eden’ For Universal And Brian Grazer
By MIKE FLEMING JR

EXCLUSIVE: Universal Picture and Imagine Entertainment’s Brian Grazer have closed a deal with the John Steinbeck estate for a new version of his seminal novel East Of Eden that will be developed as a re-team for The Hunger Games director Gary Ross and Jennifer Lawrence.

I’m told that the book is Ross’s favorite American novel and that the director plans to tell the generational story in two films. The novel was previously adapted into one picture, the 1955 Eliza Kazan-directed film that starred James Dean and Richard Davalos as sons who compete for the attention of their farmer father in Salinas, California. Ross wants Lawrence to play Cathy Ames, the cold and cruel mother of the boys and estranged wife of the farmer. The films will tell their stories, leading into the rivalry between their sons.

The studio and Imagine first acquired the 1952 novel back in 2004. This was after Steinbeck’s modern retelling of the Cain and Abel story shot back up the bestseller lists when Oprah Winfrey made it the first selection of the revived book club on her daytime talk show. I’m told that the original option lapsed, but then the studio and Grazer put together a new deal in a competitive situation, this one built around Ross and Lawrence, the latter of whom won the Academy Award in January for Silver Linings Playbook. Universal Pictures chairman Donna Langley was very involved as was Jeffrey Kirschenbaum.

This comes just before Ross and Lawrence have their CAA agents shop a vehicle for another re-team, on the Hannah Kent novel Burial Rites. They are teaming with producer Allison Shearmur, who as a Lionsgate exec was a catalyst for the first Hunger Games film. I’m told CAA will next week shop the novel by Kent, who got a seven-figure deal for her first novel and rave reviews when Little, Brown published her tale of a young woman accused of murder in Iceland in 1829. The drama takes place between the murder and the prosecution of the case against a woman who is victimized and powerless against the forces trying to send her to a public execution. Ross will direct and Lawrence wil play the protagonist in a tale as bleak as her Oscar-nominated breakout turn in Winter’s Bone.

Back to Steinbeck, who is hot stuff. This is the second recent seismic deal for the late author; in July, DreamWorks and Steven Spielberg made a deal to mount a new version of the Steinbeck classic The Grapes Of Wrath.

On East Of Eden, Universal, Grazer and Ross are still working out the particulars. When the studio acquired the book the first time, it got a script by Paul Attanasio. It is unclear at the moment if Ross will rewrite it himself or work with a writer. Ross will most certainly have a hand in the writing; he is a four time Oscar-nominee whose book adaptations include Seabiscuit and The Hunger Games. The intention is to get the picture into production after Ross directs Peter And The Starcatcher for Sony and Disney, which is his take on the Peter Pan legend. Lawrence will catch up with Ross and East Of Eden after she completes the final two installments of The Hunger Games series. She will next be seen in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the David O Russell-directed American Hustle from Sony.

Anna Culp will be exec producer. Ross is repped by CAA and Alan Wertheimer, Lawrence by CAA and attorneys Gretchen Rush and Steve Warren. The book deal was made by RWSG Agency’s Geoff Sanford, Jill Gillett and Elizabeth Winick Rubinstein.
Only Steinbeck novel I've read is Grapes of Wrath, so I have no real opinion on this other than... More Jennifer Lawrence? :awesome::up:
 
Can't go wrong with Lawrence.
 
I saw the original once and man was it great. Still got it recorded with the other two Dean movies.
 
It's Jennifer Lawrence, she's awesome, enough said.
 
I didn't know East of Eden was only an adaptation of the second half of the book.
 
Last edited:
Just like Battlefield Earth was an adaptation of the first half of the book. Only East of Eden didn't royally suck.
 
I hated this book, but I surprisingly loved the Dean movie because it only used the most involving storyline from it (which was less than half of the whole thing, lol). I don't think I'll ever want to sit through an adaptation of that whole book.
 
"East of Eden" Will Be Split In Two

By Garth Franklin Sunday April 13th 2014 02:42PM
Filmmaker Gary Ross ("The Hunger Games") has spoken some more about his and Jennifer Lawrence's plans for a new film adaptation of John Steinbeck's classic 1952 novel "East of Eden" for Imagine Entertainmentand Universal Pictures.
Set around the Salinas Valley in California, the multi-generational story follows two sons who compete for the attention of their farmer father. The book is essentially a modern retelling of the Biblical Cain and Abel story. The property was previously filmed in 1955 and starred James Dean.
Asked where the project currently stands, Ross tells THR: "It's one of the things that is sort of on my plate, I'm interested in doing. I'm not certain if it's the next movie. Part of that is my schedule. Part of that is Jennifer's schedule as well. But it's definitely something that we intend to do."
Speaking about the differences between the new film and the earlier Elia Kazan movie, Ross says: "The Kazan film, which is brilliant, only deals with about the last third of the novel. It deals with Cal and Aron Trask when they're already almost adults. The novel begins much earlier, just after the Civil War. Deals with a generation earlier. It's really remarkable."
Thus the plan is to film the whole story, asked how he intends to do it, Ross says: "It may be two films. We may break it in half, into one generation and the next. And that's what we're talking about now... I am thinking about doing it as two films, we'll see."
 
This is a ridiculous trend.
 
This is a ridiculous trend.

Thought same thing when I saw the title of this thread. But a fan of Jennifer Lawrence. I just think fans of original films should just appreciate what they already have and dont fret over remakes, they do not take away from the original work. I loved the original, James Dean was an amazing presence on the screen.
 
I meant the post directly above, making it two movies instead of a single one. It's fine when it's justified but now they are doing it just to double dip movie-goers with making everything a multi-movie.
 
If it serves the story then two films is ok. Remember that this isnt some tween novel. Its a pullizer prive winning novel that is 600 pages. It might be honestly difficult to tell this story in 3 hours or less, and no studio today will release anything over 3 hours so its two films or nothing.
 
Maybe that is true but in light of the craze to split movies in two, it comes off as greedy.
 
Maybe that is true but in light of the craze to split movies in two, it comes off as greedy.

Ultimately, decisions to split films usually lie with the scriptwriters and director. They make that creative decision then pitch it too the studio or vice versa but the creative team plays a big part in whether it happens. It was like that on Harry Potter at least. Heyman and studio offered a split GOF to Cuaron and Newell and both declined. Yate's was the only one that considered it necessary for the plot, and that wasnt until book 7 when it was actually necessary. If he had said no then book 7 would be one film. So while their is money involved it is a creative decision when it is actually necessary.

What matters most is how it is executed.
 
Last edited:
Harry Potter is a good example of when to split a film in two. Ever since then it's become a trend to split movies into two parts for the climax of a franchise. I know The Hobbit did it before Deathly Hallows and I was fine with that... when it was merely split into two. Then they decided it had to be three and to do that they needed to pad out the other two films with lots of filler scenes.

Then Twilight did it, now Hunger Games and this isn't even a franchise but a single movie. Nymphomaniac I think is the only "singular" movie that sounded like it made sense to split it into two movies. The whole trend is just off-putting because it's so often unncessary.

Just because a book is 600 pages or a 1000 pages doesn't mean every scene, every plot and every character are necessary to adapt to a movie either.
 
Harry Potter is a good example of when to split a film in two. Ever since then it's become a trend to split movies into two parts for the climax of a franchise. I know The Hobbit did it before Deathly Hallows and I was fine with that... when it was merely split into two. Then they decided it had to be three and to do that they needed to pad out the other two films with lots of filler scenes.

Then Twilight did it, now Hunger Games and this isn't even a franchise but a single movie. Nymphomaniac I think is the only "singular" movie that sounded like it made sense to split it into two movies. The whole trend is just off-putting because it's so often unncessary.

Just because a book is 600 pages or a 1000 pages doesn't mean every scene, every plot and every character are necessary to adapt to a movie either.

Oh I agree its a trend more than an artistic choice nowadays. Im just hoping that with this type of book and the material that it was an artistic and creative choice. Could be wrong tho.
 
I will say it makes sense for East of Eden to be split if they're actually adapting the whole thing this time, considering how much time that book covers, but I still can't say I'm looking forward to it. As I've mentioned before, the main reason I enjoyed the Kazan version was exactly because it only adapted like the last 3rd of the book. Not a fan of the story as a whole.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"