Netflix's East of Eden Fails by Sympathizing with Evil Without Portraying Goodness
Source: Elle Purnell. "Netflix's 'East Of Eden' Has No Knowledge Of Good And Evil." October 7, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Netflix's East of Eden adaptation fails because it tries to make the villain Cathy sympathetic without giving equal weight to goodness in the story, which breaks the moral balance that made Steinbeck's novel work. By softening Cathy's evil and shrinking the roles of genuinely good characters, the show loses the meaningful contrast between good and evil that the author believes is necessary for the story to be emotionally and spiritually compelling.
Conclusion
Kazan's Netflix adaptation of East of Eden fails as a story because it attempts to humanize and redeem Cathy's evil without establishing a compelling contrasting portrayal of goodness, making the narrative incoherent and unmoving.
Premises
- Steinbeck's original novel depends on Cathy being portrayed as purely, conniving evil in contrast to Adam's goodness and innocence; this contrast is what makes the Cain-and-Abel themed story about Cal work.
- Kazan and Pugh deliberately altered Cathy's backstory and framed her sins (sexual promiscuity, abandonment, attempted infanticide) as expressions of 'autonomy' and 'selfishness' meant to earn audience sympathy.
- As Cathy's character is humanized and increased in sympathy, the show diminishes or flattens the characters who represent goodness in the novel (Sam Hamilton, Aron, Lee), weakening the moral contrast essential to the story.
- The adaptation also strips out Steinbeck's digressive passages celebrating beauty, warmth, and human goodness (e.g., the Tom and Dessie chapter), along with using flat, gloomy cinematography, further diminishing representations of goodness.
- Philosophically and theologically, evil can only be understood in contrast to goodness (citing Aquinas: 'evil cannot exist without good'), and genuine goodness is rooted in God's grace and freedom from sin rather than within fallen human nature alone.
- Because the show looks only within fallen human nature for freedom/redemption rather than acknowledging a transcendent source of goodness (God's grace through Christ), it cannot adequately or compellingly portray the moral stakes present in Steinbeck's original work.
Assumptions
- A story about evil must also robustly portray goodness to be narratively and morally compelling.
- Sympathizing with or contextualizing an evil character's choices necessarily diminishes the portrayal of evil as evil.
- Steinbeck's original moral framework (evil needing a goodness-foil, evil as sin) is the correct standard by which adaptations should be judged.
- A Christian theological framework (grace, redemption through Christ, God as the source of goodness) is the correct lens for understanding morality in this story.
- Changes made by a female director/producer motivated by feminist sympathies are inherently distorting rather than legitimate reinterpretations.
- The reduction of secondary 'good' characters is a direct causal result of amplifying Cathy's sympathetic portrayal, rather than simply a function of adapting a long novel for limited screen time.