De hombres y ratoncitos. La fuerza bruta

Often a movie is associated with its actors or its director. I would associate this film more with Horton Foote the brilliant scriptwriter, who sculpted the script from a great book by a formidable author, John Steinbeck.

When I read Steinbeck's book I was in awe of the author's powerful strokes of simplicity. Adapting the book into a screenplay can be formidable. Foote did it earlier with Harper Lee's novel "To kill a Mockingbird". He did it again in Beresford's "Tender Mercies". Some of the flashes of brilliance in the script are the opening sequence of the woman running scared into the camera, the opening and closing images of light falling on the dark insides of a train car, the empty bus ride that Steinbeck did not present. Director Gary Sinise and Foote made the adaptation of the novel on screen look easier by adding details just as scriptwriter Robert Bolt and director David Lean did the opposite by compressing the details with Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago". Both "Dr Zhivago" and "Of Mice and Men" are great examples of adapting literary works for the screen.

This is not to discount the contribution of Gary Sinise. Director Sinise and Actor Sinise were admirable. The former brought out the finest in the latter. This is Sinise's finest performance.

Malkovich is a talented actor--he commands attention. Whether a more restrained performance was called for or not is debatable.

Equally stunning is the film's music by Mark Isham--the man who grabbed my attention in "Never Cry Wolf", "Mrs Soffel" and "A Midnight Clear". Sinise was wise using the music effectively when required and not overdoing it to evoke pathos. The music doesn't sooth you, it nudges you to reflect on life.

The film is a great essay on loneliness. Most importantly, it is a great example of how a literary work ought to be adapted without changing the author's vision. Remarkably, the film added more to Steinbeck's work with the train ride and the bus ride. That's Foote!

"Of mice and men" is one of these movies we definitely need in our times.Gary Sinise 's directing is classic in the noblest sense of the term.The cinematography recalls some of those Ford (who adapted "Grapes of wrath",another Steinbeck's novel for the screen) gems of the forties or fifties.It is heart-rending to see Malkovich and his portrayal of the half-wit is one of the finest you can see in a nineties movies and leaves,for instance Dustin Hoffman's "rain man" character far behind.It takes a lot of guts to play such demeaning parts !Gary Sinise should not be forgotten either,in a performance which offers all the subtleties of the heart.

What moves me in the movie is the loneliness which frightens the characters .Everyone is searching for someone to rely on.Not only the two heroes (I think that ,actually, George needs more Lennie than the other way about)but also the old man -the scene with the old dog is almost unbearable;it will have an equivalent in a terrifying way at the end recalling Horace MacCoy's "they shoot horses don't they?"- Curley's wife;only the black guy has resigned himself to solitude.The scene when Candy and the two pals are talking of their future house -which we know from the very start they'll never have- is really heartwarming.At least,for one precious and fleeting moment,they could dream of a home,a fireplace and a hutch full of rabbits.

If you are looking for a movie that has every scene, every character, and every part of the plot that is exactly accurate to the book, you have found it in this film. It was absolutely incredible to watch one of my favorite books come to life.

Well, well done.

Warning, I'm a Steinbeck purist.

I loved this film. I even arm-twisted my two pre-teen/teenaged daughters to go with me. For the closing scene I left my chair, went to the back and cried, even though I knew what was coming.

The acting, the sets/props, the cinematography were all outstanding, sometimes brilliant. The only problem was the script--Curley's wife was softened, made into a victim instead of Steinbeck's brilliantly conceived and rendered cruel, cynical female villain. All that work, the craft, sweat and tears it took for him to create her, mutilated for the sake of profit.

But this is nothing new. Every stage and screen interpretation of OMM has done the same thing. Why? Money, of course. Women make up the majority of moviegoers (and an even larger majority of movie-going decision-making). What producer has the courage to offend a predominately female audience?

Well, American BEAUTY didn't do so badly.

It is well known that Elaine Steinbeck lobbied John to allow the Curley's wife character to be softened. She was trained in theater. She wanted the stage and film versions to be a "success."

Well, just once I'd like to see Curley's wife depicted just as John created her. Especially the scene where she barges in to Crooks' room and calls him "N****" repeatedly and threatens him with lynching.

It's cultural self-deception to pretend that women can't be just as nasty as men. Are all you producers cowards or what?

(Kudos to Ken Wales and Jane Seymour for going the distance with EAST OF EDEN!)

First off, the acting in this movie is incredible. It's funny how someone as intellectual and bright as Malkovich can pull his role off so well. Gary Sinese was great too, effectively portraying George.

But if you really get into the book, the movie doesn't follow it too faithfully. Curely's wife is portrayed to be flirty, and a "tart," when in the book, she was just as lonely as everyone else on the ranch. She wasn't looking for sex, she was looking for companionship. The screenwriter didn't interpret the book quite as well as I had hoped.

Now I'm just nitpicking, but when when Lennie pulls the stunt by faking the puppy, it's just not like him. Lennie is not clever at all, and wouldn't think to do that.

But all in all, great movie, definitely great for comparing to the book in a lit. class or anywhere.

8/10