Book to Film
Of Mice and Men
Of Mice and Men is the 1937 novel by John Steinbeck, a masterpiece and considered by many to be his best. It tells the story of two ranch hands in depression era United States, and their struggles living a life of pain and hardship. In 1939 it was adapted into a film starring Burgess Meredith, and adapted again in 1992 starring Gary Sinise and John Malkovich. During this essay I will examine both the book and the two films and compare them, looking for differences between the adaptations and expressing my opinion of each of the versions of the story.
The Novel and the 1939 Film:
The 1939 film, adapted for the screen by Eugene Solow and directed by Lewis Milestone, is a respectable adaptation of Steinbeck’s story. In truth it is not actually an adaptation of the novel; it is actually from the play, which Steinbeck wrote based on his novel of the same name. Comparing it to the book, it is has few literal changes, and those changes barely affect the telling of the story. The most notable change comes at the beginning. The movie begins with the main characters, George and Lennie, escaping from the people at the old ranch they used to work at, and hiding in the marsh. The novel begins after this, as George and Lennie settle down by the lake. Other minor differences include certain conversations taking place in different places and small details like a bird in a scene in the movie where it was a mouse in the book.
When it comes to the overall feel of the film however, there is a large difference. While the book is beautiful yet dark, the film has a much lighter feel to it. There seems to be more comedy in the movie, even if mostly unintentional. The characters feel more like caricatures than the real people they felt like in the book. It is an admittedly accurate account of the book, but it fails to capture the essence. That being said there are some redeeming moments, like the scene with Candie’s dog, but mostly it just doesn’t feel quite right. This may just be the fault of the actors, who manage to ham everything up. You can really only blame the acting style of the times though. This is the type of story that needs a much more real feel to it, and Lon Chaney’s over the top more idiot boy than mental illness performance can’t really cut it, nor can Burgess Meredith’s oddly uncaring take on his character.
The Novel and the 1992 Film:
The 1992 film is also based on the play instead of the novel, and in that regard is more of a remake of the 1939 film than anything. In its more literal similarities, it’s a lot like the 1939 film with almost nothing being changed, except for the odd change in location for certain dialogue. An example would be the first conversation between George and Lennie about the dead mouse taking place by the river, just like in the book. Overall, like with these examples it is slightly more similar to the book than to the 1939 film.
The feel of this adaptation more closely resembles that of the original book. It captures more the darker tones of the book, without losing hopeful streaks. From the way its shot to the way the actors play the rolls it feels like a more faithful adaptation of John Steinbeck’s novel. Unlike the 1939 film, the essence of what Steinbeck wrote is there. It’s still a shame about a lot of the performances though. John Malkovitch did a pretty good job as Lennie, playing a more believable mentally challenged person. Gary Sinise is just plain boring as George though.
The Best Form of the Story:
When it comes to choosing the best form to experience this story, it’s a pretty obvious and easy choice. There hasn’t been and probably never will be anything better than the original Steinbeck novel when it comes to Of Mice and Men. The story is so ripe with symbolism that really the best way to tell the story is through novel form. The novel has such a strong feel and sense of character that it’s just not likely to ever be topped.
If you could never read the book again, and still want Of Mice and Men in some form, I would go with the 1992 film. While it’s not perfect, brought down mostly because of poor acting, it is the best screen adaptation of the novel. The worst form of the story is 1939 film. While its not terrible, it slightly misses the mark on pretty much all fronts. It’s not necessarily a bad film; it’s just not a good adaptation of the story.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Of Mice and Men may be a tale best kept on page. Although the films aren’t bad, they simply are not good enough to stand up to Steinbeck’s classic.
- The Novel: 9/10 – Very well written story of The American dream being stamped out by the realities of life.
- The Films: 7/10/-5/10 - Both not bad, but both cant stand up to the book.
