Differences Between the Novel Of Mice and Men and the Corresponding Movie Essay

The book ``Of Mice and Men from John Steinbeck has a corresponding movie made in 1992. The story is se tin the 1930s about the friendship between the two main characters Lenny and George. Producer/Director Gary Sinise and Screenwriter Horton Foote keep very close in to the plot in the movie, which has only some minor changes in it.

The book has similarities to a screen play, as there are manly only four different scenes, which are the Salinas River, the bunkhouse, Crooks room and the barn. Therefore the two main differences from the book in the movie are that there are different scenes to various other locations, happening and emotions especially between people can be shown in pictures, rather then telling them the audience. The audience is told in the book, some background information, which is important to understand the story, but the movie shows them visually by adding more scenes. In the beginning of the story George and Lennie have to walk ten miles, because they got kicked of the bus. This is shown in the movie as the beginning. As well another example is, when in the book George is talking about how Lennie got him in trouble in Weed, but the movie shows this as a flashback scene. Some happenings got shifted around or even left out. An example is in the beginning where Lennie gets the mouse taken of George. In the book the mouse is thrown back, but in the movie the topic is brought up when George and Lennie have to stay overnight at the Lake. In the end of the book Lennie is hallucinating about his stepmother aunt Clara and a big giant rabid. This scene is left out completely in the movie. The character of Curleys wife got shown slightly different in the movie, as she appears more dangerous to the men. She always is seeking for attention, but if the men give her attention they might get into trouble with Curley.

The reason why some scenes got added to the story of the movie is that as there is the possibility to show these happening easily as an extra scene or as a flashback, which makes it easier to understand for the audients. In the movie scenes are not shifted around so the plot changes significant it is to the benefit of the movie, so the interaction and events can be presented better, which makes the whole movie rounder. The bit in the story in the end where Lennie is hallucinating got left out of the movie, because I think so the director thought it does not fit into the whole movie. It is movie without any special effects or any big Hollywood pushing. A scene where Lennie is hallucinating, which has to be presented in some way, either in a cartoon way or with the help of a computer animation would not have fitted into the simple story with beautiful landscape footage. In the book the character of Curlys wife is not appearing so dangerous, where in the movie she is always a threat to the men, because they might get into trouble with Curly. I think she was presented in a different way, so the audience could already feel in the end that it is not a good thing that Lennie is talking to that woman. In the whole lot the movie shows more the emotions and relationship between the characters, which is just easier to show in a movie and possible to underline with nice footage and heartbreaking music.

My personal opinion is that the movie is one of the best movie adaptations to a book I have ever seen. The story between the two characters, especially in the end is very easy to get emotionally touched by it. The only thing I think is not so well done is the presenting of the character Lennie. He is showing that he is stupid not only through what he is saying, he is trying to look and be as stupid as possible, where I think the intelligence of a person is to best shown through his talking and actions.