of mice and men a comprehensive comparision of the novel and

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 though 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 and to nothing to detract
from the narrative. There were many more scenes in the film than the
novel. It is believable to think the novel was originally a play and then
was adapted into book form because there are only four different scenes
in the entire novel. Chapter one is set at the Salinas River, chapter two
and three are in the bunkhouse, chapter four in Crook's room, chapter
five is in the barn, and chapter six is at the river again. Scenes had to be
added to the film to keep the audience from getting bored. Dialogue was
deleted to help move the story along. The only way we get background
information about George and Lennie in the novel is through their
dialogue. There was less dialogue in the film because the audience can
learn the background information from visual cues from the added
scenes. For instance, in the novel, George and Lennie speak of walking
ten miles after being forced off the bus by the driver. But in the film, we
see the driver kick the pair off of the bus. Similarly, George only speaks
of the trouble that Lennie had gotten them into in the town of Weed. But
in the movie we are able to see what happens. Curley's wife,
played by Sherilyn Fenn, plays a larger role in this film than in the novel.
This character steadily develops as layers are peeled back like an onion.
The wife in this version is far more predatory and dangerous than in
Steinbeck's novel. Initially she acts quite sluttish, but she eventually
shows to be naive, lonely, and trapped in an abusive marriage. She acts
as a feminist voice that Steinbeck probably never intended. The film
version is different because downplays the novel's political subtext, a call
for humane socialism where people take care of one another. Instead,
the film version focuses on the human condition on the individual level
only. We are given characters, a setting, and events. The drama of this
story comes from two men who have formed a friendship that works -
they have a bond in which each takes according to his needs and gives
according to his abilities. The two main characters truly need each other.

When George is not there, Lennie would get into trouble and when
Lennie is not there, George would think of throwing away his dreams.
I liked the film better than the novel for several reasons. The
novel gave good descriptions of the characters but I learned more about
them and the story form the film because I was watching and listening to
them, rather than just reading about them. John Malkovich's (Lennie),
Gary Sinise's (George), and Ray Walton's (Candy) performances made
the film very worthwhile. Malkovich and Sinise are touching and
pleasurable to watch together. Malkovich uses his baldness with bulky
costumes to become convincingly large and stupid. He takes the time to
show us that the wheels are turning very slowly and uncomprehendingly
beneath his broad forehead. Many actors would have easily overacted
playing Lennie. They'd end up looking cartoonish, but Malkovich does
well because he exercises remarkable restraint. Sinise does a lot for this
film by doing less. He lets Malkovich's character be the attention getter,
while he does well in the quieter caretaking role. Sherilyn Fenn
impressed me in presenting a new take on Curley's wife. But Ray
Walston as Candy may have turned in the film's best performance. All
Candy had in life was his old smelly dog, but one of the ranch hands shot
him because "he was of no use anymore". Walston delivers the best
lines of the movie when he says, "I wish someone would shoot me when
I'm of no use anymore. But they won't, they'll just send me away." The
film is a success because it was well photographed. The film captured
some of California's picturesque golden wheat fields. The entire film was
very pretty but it maybe too pretty. I had pictured Candy and Slim 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.