Of Mice and Male Distinctions Between Movie and Reserve After having read the original version and the more recent movie adjustment of John Steinbeck’s majorly successful book, Of Mice and Male, the apparency of distinctions in between the two is at times subtle while also being very obvious throughout various parts of the motion picture. In the movie there are a number of significant differences in between the movie and the book with 3 being especially apparent. We are shown the distinctions through the representations of characters, Lennie’s sanity and, simply, the scenes themselves.
When seeing the movie, the very first distinction the viewer can see in between the book and the movie is how the characters are represented. A noteworthy example would be Carlson. In the film, Carlson seems to play a much larger part compared to the information given in the book about his character. He is presented rather in the film and appears to be a part of much more discussions. On the opposite side of Carlsons portrayal is Crooks’. In the book Crooks is characterized as a lot more active character.
An example of this would be when Criminals inserts in the farmer’s conversation to let Slim understand that he had completed preparing the tar for repairing the mule’s hoof. The filmmakers altered this scene so that Crooks was not involved at all which George prepared the tar rather. Another enormous distinction in between the book and the film are the acts themselves. Going back to the previous point of Crooks and the tar, the scene when George took the mule into the barn to repair its hoof is transformed significantly.
The impression offered to those who have actually read the book as well is that it was altered due to the fact that Steinbeck used it as a way to expand Curley’s better half’s character. This scene was likely altered since there is no storyteller and instead we are offered a visual description of Curley’s partner through her actions. Likewise, nearly the totality of chapter four is eliminated or changed in the film. We are shown only a quick conversation between Crooks and Lennie which is disrupted by George who scolds Lennie for going into Crooks space. In the book, Crooks, Candy and Lennie all have a grand conversation about the farm and the dream of having their own land.
Criminals opens to the males and seems to leave his shell so to speak which is followed by Curley’s other half entering and tearing him down. This is an unusual scene to leave out based upon how essential it seemed to be considering it shows more of Lennie’s character along with Curley’s other half’s vicious side. Finally, at the end of the unique Slim, Curley and Carlson find Lennie dead and George with the gun in his hand. George lies and informs the men that Lennie had Carlson’s gun which he took the weapon from Lennie shot him in the back of his neck.
Slim tries to console George by telling him “You Hadda George. and the two walking away for a drink. Curley then asks Carlson what’s bugging the 2. This scene was entirely eliminated of the movie and changed with George’s flashbacks which appears really odd thinking about how crucial it was to the novel and the idea that not all dreams are meant to be. The last major distinction in between the motion picture and the book is Lennie’s individual sanity. In the book, the reader is offered multiple instances plainly revealing that Lennie is not totally there so to speak. The very best example possible is when Lennie hallucinates about Auntie Clara and the giant rabbit.
This scene is gotten rid of in the film and instead Lennie appears to just be an extremely confused person with a low thinking capability. The film seems to attempt and have Lennie seem a character who is innocent and has actually simply been dealt a bad hand in life. In the book, however, Lennie’s outbursts seem to be much darker in their description, especially the murder of Curley’s spouse. These three distinctions between the movie and the novel are ways of seeing how the director of Of Mice and Men chose to display in a visual method some things in a different way from Steinbeck’s descriptions.
One can not expect an adjustment to be a complete carbon copy of the initial it is based on and it would appear as though the film succeeded in drawing out the meat of Steinbeck’s story. These modifications could, to some, seem either small or big depending upon how the reader (now the watcher) analyzed the book. The motion picture also won crucial acclaim and exposed many individuals to Steinbeck’s writing, something that would make people who disliked the film because of its distinctions appreciate it a bit more.