Comparing the Novel and Movie of Steinbecks Of Mice and Men Essay

Comparing the Novel and Movie of Steinbecks Of Mice and MenWho doesnt know of rear Steinbecks classic novel Of Mice and Men? Itis a novel that almost everyone educated in the United States has either read itor pretended to read it. moreover how many have seen the 1992 ikon Of Mice andMen? The relative obscurity of 1992 screen version of this timeless drama doesnot mean that it was poorly done. Just the contrary is true, it is one of thebest film adaptations of a novel that I have seen. The novel and the film arevery similar. The Steinbecks novel could be thought of as the screenplaysfirst draft. There were some sm every changes, but they were instituted for thegood of the film. I liked the film better than Steinbecks novel.Of Mice and Men is a story of people who point their troublesclearly, memory 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 GeorgeMilton and Lennie Smalls. The pair travels from feast to ranch, dreaming ofsomeday making enough money so they can buy their own plot of land and a stakein their future. George is a father figure and protector of the strong simple-minded Lennie. Lennies strength is his gift and his curse. Like the child heis mentally, he loves animals, but he inadvertently crushes them to death.Women, to him, are rather like animals, -- soft, small, and gentle. And therelies the tension that powers this narrative to its tragic conclusion.The film version and the novel are very similar. There is minimaldescription in the novel, enough to set the scene, and the rest is dialogue.The films story is very pure and lean as Steinbecks original.Producer/director Gary Sinise and screenwriter Horton Foote dont try doanything fancy, they dont try to mention it anything other than exactly what it is,a timeless simple story. Sinise and Foote make American Literature teacherseverywhere proud they have left the films story uncluttered. Everything isvery clear, and makes intelligence within its context. They remembered Of Mice andMen is a classic for a reason, and if it aint broke, dont fix it.The screenplay and the novel are not synonymous but they are very closeto cosmos that way. Sinise and Foote held very true in their adaptation. All ofthe changes made were minor a... ...im to bemore dirty and grizzled men. I thought Ray Walston looked a low as well as feebleto play Candy but his acting made up for any shortcomings he had in hisappearance. Slim looked a little excessively young and handsome to be the character Ihad envisioned. Overall, the casting and photography was excellent.Another reason why I liked the film better was because of its hammyconclusion. At the end of the novel we know what that George has Carlsons gunand then we know what is going to happen. At the end of the film, we dont knowGeorge has the gun and we cant see that he is holding the gun to the back ofLennies 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 wonderfulstory of friendship,loneliness, and pain. This was an excellent film because itwas dramatic but it never went too far and became sappy and overdone. This filmis great because the creators realized how important the original text was inmaking this film. They did not fool around with it the story says all theywant to say.