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

comparability the Novel and Movie of Steinbecks Of Mice and MenWho doesnt know of John Steinbecks classic allegory Of Mice and Men? Itis a impertinent that almost e actually(prenominal)one educated in the get together States has either read itor pret halted to read it. But how more build seen the 1992 film Of Mice andMen? The relative obscurity of 1992 screen indication of this timeless drama doesnot mean that it was poorly done. Just the black eye 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 position of as the screenplaysfirst draft. There were some small changes, but they were instituted for the life-threatening of the film. I interchangeabled the film better than Steinbecks novel.Of Mice and Men is a boloney of people who express their troublesclearly, holding on to thin dreams as they go about their thankless business.The novel, set in the 1930s, is a story of friends hip of migrant workers GeorgeMilton and Lennie Smalls. The pair travels from ranch to ranch, dreaming ofsomeday making decent money so they can buy their own plot of discharge and a stakein their future. George is a father figure and withstander 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, tolerable 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 stain it anything other than exactly what it is,a timeless simple story. Sinise and Foote make American Literature teach erseverywhere proud they have left the films story uncluttered. Everything isvery clear, and makes sense within its context. They remembered Of Mice andMen is a classic for a reason, and if it aint broke, dont mares nest it.The screenplay and the novel are not synonymous but they are very closeto being that way. Sinise and Foote held very true in their adaptation. All ofthe changes do were minor a... ...im to bemore dirty and grizzled men. I ruling Ray Walston looked a little too feebleto play glass but his acting made up for any shortcomings he had in hisappearance. Slim looked a little too 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 dramaticconclusion. At the end of the novel we know what that George has Carlsons zepand 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 gu n 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 neer went too far and became sappy and overdone. This filmis great because the creators realized how master(prenominal) the original text was inmaking this film. They did not fool rough with it the story says all theywant to say.