of mice and men essay

Of Mice and Men: A Comprehensive Comparison of Novel and Movie
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.