Comparing the Novel and Movie of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men

Comparing the Novel and Movie of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men

Who doesn't know of John Steinbeck's classic novel "Of Mice and Men"? It

is a novel that almost everyone educated in the United States has either read it

or pretended to read it. But how many have seen the 1992 film "Of Mice and

Men"? The relative obscurity of 1992 screen version of this timeless drama does

not mean that it was poorly done. Just the contrary is true, it is one of the

best film adaptations of a novel that I have seen. The novel and the film are

very similar. The Steinbeck's novel could be thought of as the screenplay's

first draft. There were some small changes, but they were instituted for the

good of the film. I liked the film better than Steinbeck's novel.

"Of Mice and Men" is a story of people who express their troubles

clearly, holding on to thin dreams as they go about their thankless business.

The novel, set in the 1930s, is a story of friendship of migrant workers George

Milton and Lennie Smalls. The pair travels from ranch to ranch, dreaming of

someday making enough money so they can buy their own plot of land and a stake

in their future. George is a father figure and protector of the strong simple-

minded Lennie. Lennie's strength is his gift and his curse. Like the child he

is mentally, he loves animals, but he inadvertently crushes them to death.

Women, to him, are rather like animals, -- soft, small, and gentle. And there

lies the tension that powers this narrative to its tragic conclusion.

The film version and the novel are very similar. There is minimal

description in the novel, enough to set the scene, and the rest is dialogue.

The film's story is very pure and lean as Steinbeck's original.

Producer/director Gary Sinise and screenwriter Horton Foote don't try do

anything fancy, they don't try to make it anything other than exactly what it is,

a timeless simple story. Sinise and Foote make American Literature teachers

everywhere proud; they have left the film's story uncluttered. Everything is

very clear, and makes sense within its context. They remembered "Of Mice and

Men is a classic for a reason, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The screenplay and the novel are not synonymous but they are very close

to being that way. Sinise and Foote held very true in their adaptation. All of

the changes made were minor a...

... middle of paper ...

...im to be

more dirty and grizzled men. I thought Ray Walston looked a little too feeble

to play Candy but his acting made up for any shortcomings he had in his

appearance. Slim looked a little too young and handsome to be the character I

had envisioned. Overall, the casting and photography was excellent.

Another reason why I liked the film better was because of its dramatic

conclusion. At the end of the novel we know what that George has Carlson's gun

and then we know what is going to happen. At the end of the film, we don't know

George has the gun and we can't see that he is holding the gun to the back of

Lennie's head. This makes for a very dramatic ending. Because I read the novel,

I knew what was going to happen, but I still was very drawn into the action.

The film was a very good adaptation of a great book. It is a wonderful

story of friendship,loneliness, and pain. This was an excellent film because it

was dramatic but it never went too far and became sappy and overdone. This film

is great because the creators realized how important the original text was in

making this film. They did not fool around with it; the story says all they

want to say.