Des souris et des hommes

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

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!)

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.

How often are we forced to endure the uninsightful changes that are made to American classics in the process of turning them into feature films? The 1939 version of this movie is a prime example. It, very simply, was not the story that Steinbeck wrote. The changes that were made were too sweeping to be seen as anything other than some ego thinking that Steinbeck could be improved upon.

Now, anyone who is truly familiar with Steinbeck knows that this is just not true. Gary Sinise has proven this familiarity. I have rarely had the pleasure of watching a movie that stayed so completely true to the original text. Not only does this movie not add or subtract from the book, the characters themselves are almost exactly how I had pictured them when I read this story for the first time.

If you are looking for overblown sex and violence, for spectacular special effects, or for unbelievable demonstrations raw physical strength, move on. This movie will not interest you in the slightest. However, if you are looking for a story of true love and true courage, if you are looking for a movie whose beauty stems from a raw sense of humanity, then find yourself a quiet place, where you won't be interrupted and watch this. You won't be let down.

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!