Des souris et des hommes

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.

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

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.

This is a masterful and faithful portrayal of Steinbeck's classic novel. The screenplay brings to life the tragic yet uplifting story of loyalty and the kind of bond that can grow between men that we are often reluctant to acknowledge, much less show.

Aside from the story, the cast is what really makes this film. I have always held a soft spot for Gary Sinise after his role in Forrest Gump, wherein his character portrayed another facet of the bonding between men made brothers by cruel circumstance, yet can grow and flourish as the years and other circumstances come to pass. Here, as Lenny's friend and protector against a world that baffles and confuses him, he shows the kind of rough-edged tenderness and affection that both endears us to his plight, and fills us with the dread of what we know must come between the men. John Malkovich shows his depth as an actor by bringing to life the dull-witted but pure-hearted Lenny, in a way that will tug at your heartstrings. I found myself both laughing (in a sad way) at Lenny's ineptness in dealing with a world clearly more confusing than his limited wits can manage, and crying over his being targeted for taunting and abuse by cruel and crude men, and ultimately done in by his brute strength when it was lacking the direction and temper given by his friend George.

A pleasant surprise was Ray Walston as the aged but gentle and good-hearted ranch hand Candy, who has no one in life to love but his old sheepdog, who, like him, he knows, must ultimately be "put down" because of age and the wear and tear that a life of hard labor has worn down. The scene of his finally surrendering his faithful canine companion to be euthanized by a gunshot to the back of the head by another well-meaning field hand is very heartbreaking. Having grown up with the "Uncle Martin" of "My Favorite Martian" Walston, seeing his adept performance in a dramatic role gave me a new appreciation for his versatility as a character actor.

Those who watch this film should allow plenty of time alone to view it straight through with no interruptions. Swallow your pride and keep a box of tissues handy, and some time afterwards for quiet contemplation and "recovery".