Unlike the novel Of Mice and Men, which was essentially created by one man, John Steinbeck, the film version is a collaborative effort. Each person behind the scenes influenced the overall film. In addition, some things that you visualized, as a reader, may have turned out quite differently when you saw them on the screen.
In a well developed paragraph of at least 100 words, explain how the viewing experience of Of Mice and Men differed from the reading experience. Use at least one specific, original example or observation that differs from those of the classmates who have posted before you.
Your blog should be posted by no later than Sunday night.
(And don't forget to go see Anna, Nicole, Carina, and Alison in the play this weekend!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
When I saw the main characters, George and Lennie, come to life in the movie, I was a bit shocked. I thought that the size difference between the two men was supposed to be a bit more extreme. When reading the book, I saw Lennie as an oversized, gigantic figure who everyone would stop and stare at. However, when watching the movie, he was only a little bit bigger than George and everyone else. Also, George was a little bigger in the movie then I expected. Compared to the other men in the movie, he was an average height. When reading the book, I recall Steinbeck describing George as smaller than most men. I figured that George was a lot shorter than he was portrayed in the movie. The truth is, in the movie, George and Lennie were not so different in size.
Once I began reading "Of Mice and Men," I could not put it down. So once we started to watch the movie I just did not want it to end! Just like most other movies established from books, this one gave you a better image of what life was like back then, the setting and the characters. For me, I think what I noticed most is the character of Curley's wife. In the book, she's described as a flirtacious, young women, dressed to get attention from anyone and everyone. She was, indeed, young and flirtacious, but how she dressed didn't really put the same thought into my imagination from first seeing her. She dressed very nicely, conservative in a way. Yes, she did hike up her dress a few times, but at first glance she looked like a nice young lady. Like that saying, "Never Judge a book by its cover..", the wife's attitude gave me the image of how she was described in the book. She was always looking for the spotlight.
I found it interesting in the movie version Of Mice and Men how they decide to portray Curley. In the very beginning they show you his father, who is the boss, now they portray the boss as a hefty older white man.
Later on when we first see the appearance of Curley he is an extremely tan boy, I figured he was a scrawny white kid, littler then George. Yet this Curley is medium sized, tan black hair, and not scrawny looking at all.
I just find it funny that he is supposed to be related to the Boss but the boss is really pale and Curley is very, very dark with black hair and eyes.
--Emily F.
When George and Lennie arrive on the ranch looking for work, they meet the boss. In the book, I found him to be really pushy and rude to Lennie. In the movie, however, I believe that the character they sketched him out in the book didn't come to life in the movie. As we all know, the boss wasn't too fond of Lennie, but that was in the book. I think the director of the movie, could of spiced up the boss' character a little more to get the full effect of how he was skeptical of Lennie. So, I was unhappy about how they portrayed the boss, because in my opinion, this scene is better in the book.
Brittany A.
Although reading the novel OF MICE AND MEN gives you a complete feeling of sympathy for Lennie, it is not until you see the movie that you feel complete and utter compassion for him. In the novel, you can only read and imagine Lennie’s wobbling voice as he begs George for his dead mouse back in the book’s two dimensional world, while in the film version, you can actually hear it and respond to Lennie’s tears and sullen behavior. Throughout the book, you are forced to trust that Steinbeck’s descriptions and the actions of his characters are true which makes it harder to imagine. However, when you can watch and see the characters physically react to each other, it creates this tangible sense of a brand new level of understanding about what these people are going through and the challenges that they face in their everyday lives. And it isn’t until you watch the movie that you can fully experience what it would be like to spend a week, working the fields with George, in Lennie’s shoes.
The power of words can allow us to visualize our own version of the characters. We, as the reader, can have completely different views of each character. I would say that agree with both Zizi and Katie about both of their posts. Curley’s wife in my mind is blonde, the flirtatious attitude makes her appear to be that way. Also, Lennie is said to be huge but in the film version we find him just slightly taller that George and the others. I also believed that George was older than Lennie, and because of Lennie’s childish attitude I never would picture him without hair on the top of his head. I always think that movies can never be as good as books and this book and movie are another fine example of that.
The viewing experience of watching the film differed from reading the novel "Of Mice and Men" because the sensory details that described the setting in the book differed from the film. First of all, I visualized a disorganized, muddy, unappealing farm. In the film, the setting was depicted as an organized, clean farm where the workers did their work well. In addition, in the novel the bunkhouse was described as "a long rectangular building. Inside the walls were white washed and the floor unpainted. In three walls there were small square windows and in the fourth a solid door with a wooden latch. Against the walls were eight bunks, five of them made up with blankets and the other three showing their burlap ticking." However, in the film the bunkhouse did not seem like a such a bad place to live because it was not crowded and neatly kept. The setting described in the book was a bit different than what was presented in the film.
When a novel is made into a movie, many important details are lost in translations sometimes, and a movie tends to take some creative liberties. I understand that finding a man who fit the character description of Lennie, a large and hulking fellow with the strength of a bull, could not be characterized exactly. I envisioned him as a giant of sorts, with superhuman strength and a deep voice with undertones of innocence. Imagine my discontent when a man barely taller than George, balding, and and a higher pitched voice than I imagined characterizes this mentally addled oaf. I do, however, want to point out that when George, Lennie, and Candy walk into the bunkhouse for the first time, I was not dissappointed as evrything was exactly as it was in my mind, right down to the card table in the center of the room. Kudos to Gary Sinise for his spectacular work in all things Mousey and Manly.
-Scott C.
Reading "Of Mice and Men", I pictured each of the characters to be more distinct-looking than how they were portrayed in the movie, including Candy's dog, whom I assumed could hardly walk, seemed quite healthy in the movie, considering his old age. Starting with Lennie and George, whom most of my classmates have already covered, personally I didn't picture Lennie being as dumb as he is in the movie. I know Lennie has a mental disability, but I didn't picture him speaking as if he was retarded.(Mrs. Morrison, I mean that in the sense of truly being handicapped) I think the way Gary spoke when we listened to him on tape was more of the "accent" I pictured Lennie having. George, I feel, was exactly the way I pictured him-shorter than most men, scruffy, with dark facial features. I also wanted to point out Curley's wife, whom I pictured to be covered in makeup, with a much shorter, revealing outfit. I thought of her to be less pale, with a similar skin tone to Curley's.
What I can conclude is that our imaginations create an entirely different cast.
-Melani H.
Making a movie that fits the high standards of the novel "Of Mice and Men" is very difficult. Especially when trying to intertwine every characters exact flaw and personality. Scott made a very good point, for a director to make Lennie's character come to life is virtually impossible. Which is acceptable because Lennie is such a unique individual. On the other hand, when I caught a glimpse of Slim in the movie I was a bit disappointed. I pictured Slim to be this built, good looking, golden-tanned gentleman with a defined jaw line and a voice that demands respect as well as shows compassion. The actor who played Slim didn't meet the requirements. The character in the movie seemed to have a status that met George's. It didn't appear to me like Slim had that divine, respected aura as it was presented in the book.
-Cassie K.
When watching a movie that was primarily a book, we tend to be harsh critics. If a character does not act, look, or speak the role we have conjured in our minds while reading the novel, we become distressed about why this is. While reading “Of Mice and Men,” I let my imagination take over to mold the characters into the way I envisioned them. As I began watching the movie, I cited differences immediately. One difference was the dialect of several characters. George’s voice was exactly the way I had imagined due to the fact that Gary Sinise narrated the novel and was in the film as well; short, deep, and occasionally playful. Lennie’s voice was the same in the sense of the child-like slowness and observations, but lacked a husky, misunderstood undertone that I had imagined he had. And lastly, Curley’s voice; I pictured a small man with terrible intentions as well as words. His voice in my opinion lacked intimidation in the movie. When intimidation is lost in the words of a character, the character loses a part of their own personality. Many other small details caught my intention, but when the character does not have the same diction, intensity, or sincerity as the reader imagined, it throws them off while watching the film adaptation. Like many other people have also mentioned in this post, the reader has the ability to create the characters in their own unique way, shape, and form.
In the translation of a book to a movie a lot of details can be changed around and maybe even left out. In the book I had an image in my head of the character Candy to be an old, tired, and slow moving old man. But in the movie I got the impression that he is a crazy old man that is a bit loud. I thought of him being sad and a hopeless man. But in the movie he just seemed a little to upbeat and ready to go. But that is only my opinion on the topic.
When I read Of Mice and Men, I had a visual planned out for what I thought the story might look like. As I began to watch the movie, my visual wasn't quiet what I had expected. Many parts of my visual were already noted above by my classmates, but there was one thing that no one had mentioned yet that I had taken notice to. As I read Of Mice and Men, I did not envision, nor even think of there being machines or vehicles present and used. When Lennie and George were taking the bus to get to Soledad, I was pretty shocked that they were actually using automobile transportation to travel. When I pictured them walking down the long road to the farm, I just thought that they had been walking continuously from Weed. Also, I envisioned them on the farm working by hand tools and bare hands by themselves, as opposed to many workers working together. As I continue to watch the movie, I am curious to see what other differences there will be to what I had pictured in my mind.
Lennie as a child and Lennie as an animal were two analogies made and discussed in class as we read Of Mice and Men. We also likened the relationship between George and Lennie to that between Candy and his dog. While reading the book, the task of visualizing the love in the two relationships was left up to the reader. Although Steinbeck uses detail, it is often a challenge to visualize the details of a relationship, as these dynamics are often best seen in people’s eyes and body language. As I watched the movie, I could really see the love between Candy and his dog. I saw the way that the dog depended on Candy, and how Candy needed and cherished his dog. Watching the movie also illustrated the dynamics of the relationship between George and Lennie. I could really witness Lennie’s dependence on George, and the lengths George went to in order to protect Lennie, despite the trouble he caused. Actually watching relationships makes it much easier for me to understand and compare them. This helped me to better grasp the thematic significance of the comparable relationships.
Scott makes a great point about how much is lost when making a novel into a movie. Being that "Of Mice and Men" is a famous, well known novel, Gary Sinise took on a huge challenge in trying to make it into an accurate depiction of the book. I have to say, being that I enjoyed the novel very much, I was a bit disappointed in many parts of the movie. I feel that biggest thing the movie took away from the reader was their imagination, which often occurs when novels are made into movies. In example, I had a vivid picture painted of the scene in the beginning of the novel when George and Lennie were camped out a few miles away from the ranch. When reading, I pictured the two alone in the middle of the dessert, with not too much around them. I thought they would be able to look to the horizon and clearly see the hills that Lennie referenced many times when saying he was going to run off, not be surrounded by forrest. I was disappointed when I saw this scene in the movie and it did not meet my standards. I wish we could have finished the movie so there would be a chance I could like it better, but as of right now I am a whole lot more partial to the book.
-Arielle
Of course we know that with any book turned movie, the things you pictured in the book, like the characters and settings, are going to turn out differently onscreen. In the movie version of Of Mice and Men many things that I created images of in my head from the book were completely different. One major difference that I noticed right away was the setting of the farm. From the descriptions in the book I pictured the farm as being run down, and old-fashioned looking. However, in the movie the barns and bunkhouses were up kept, and the bosses office appeared very modernized which I didn’t expect. Another thing that was interesting was how they depicted the strength of Lennie in the movie, compared to the book. In the book they make a few short references about how Lennie is a hard worker, but in the movie they show his brute strength when he works. They show Lennie loading grain bags into the truck by himself, while in the meantime it takes two men to do the same thing. This was very interesting to me, and was depicted very vividly.
-Nick
Converting a great novel, especially “Of Mice and Men” into a movie, the novel becomes open to a lot of change from the book. Scenes can be added and removed at the producer’s discretion and characters are subject to change from one person’s point of view to another. In the movie I noticed two distinct additions that were not in the book. The first one being the opening scene of the movie goes through the entire experience in Weed. We see George and Lennie being chased by the other farm hands and how they made their way into town, which we only see a flashback of in the novel. An even more noticeable addition to the story was when George took the mule with the sore hoof back to the barn for Slim. George found Curley’s wife in the barn and she flirts with him and tries to get him to sit next to her until Curley comes in and sees her. He scowls at George and tells him to stay away from his wife. Although the movie is not exactly the same as the novel the additions help to transition between scenes and show us what we might not have been able to picture while reading the book.
dylan f.
Truth be told, the movie was very true to the book, at least from what I saw of it. George and Lennie did seem friendlier with each other in the beginning, rather than George complaining the majority of the time. John Malkovich does a wonderful job as Lennie, and he is exactly how I imagined him. Except, of course, for the lack of hair. I mean I expected him bald, but not with that strange wrap around hair thing he had going on. One thing I noticed was that from that extra scene, it seemed like they were setting up a possible romance for George and Curley's Wife, which is probably just one of those many movie liberties.
While watching the film version of Of Mice and Men, I discovered many things different from the reading experience of the book. While watching the movie, you get a better visual of the characters in the story, but you don't get to appreciate the details that the author points out in the book about the surroundings and such. One thing that I pictured differently in the book than the movie was Candy's dog. In the movie, Candy's dog was kind of small and a different bread than I pictured in my mind. I would expect to see the classic slouching old hound dog as an old dog in the story.
When reading the novel, "Of Mice And Men," I pictured everything that was going on in my head. I pictured that George was almost nicer to Lennie than he was in the actual movie. In the movie, Lennie had a louder tone, and just always wanted to kill Lennie with his bare hands. When I pictured the horse that needed tar on his hoof, I pictured him as a beautiful black stallion who could not stop limping because it hurt his foot. I pictured the puppies that Slim's dog had, to be more like pitbulls. When Lennie said that the puppy made like he was gonna bite him, so he made like he was gonna hit him, I imagined the pups to be as more of an agressive type. All in all, I absolutely adored this novel, and it will probably be the kind of novel that I will read over and over again, just like "To Kill A Mockingbird."
-Holly M
When watching the movie Of Mice and Men I didn’t realize how modern the time and setting really was in the story. When reading the book I pictured the time older then it really was. I was surprised at the beginning when George and Lennie were walking through the town to get on the bus. It was more present then I thought. I also pictured the ranch differently too. I didn’t expect it to be so big and organized.
-Maureen B.
When I first read Of Mice and Men, I had different perceptions of who the characters were. For example, I thought George, Curley, and Curley's wife were black. I had no idea Lennie was bald, I thought he was younger. To be honest, this was the only book this year I liked, so that is saying a lot. The movie, so far, even looks like I will like it, and I don't normally like movies that I already know the ending of. In the movie, I noticed more how Lennie was like a child than in the book. The way Lennie would look at George when George was yelling at him and the looks George would give Lennie were so more vivid in the movie than in the book. The characters in the movie gave off a vibe with the way they would look at one another, and you can not get that in the book. I most definitely recommend both, though.
When reading a book, a character can easily be pictured in the mind of the reader by how much detail the author describes in. The characer of the boss is who I felt was very different in the book to the movie.
In the book Of Mice and Men, George and Lennie meet the boss when they first arrive at the ranch. He comes on very strong and is very harsh towards Lennie, which made him seem extremely intimiding. But when watching the movie, I felt that I was viewing a different version of the character. The movie showed the boss to be a lot more calm and not as straight foward with his attitude towards Lennie as the book described. He wasn't as rude and pushy, just like Lauren had also described in her blog. The boss was still intimidating to Lennie, but not in the same way as the book had described.
I also felt that the description I had in my mind of Lennie wasn't similar to what I had actually seen of him in the movie. I personally picured Lennie as a young, very tall, goofy footed, and strong guy(the perfect description for his physical strength: "built-like-a-wall"). But yet in the movie, Lennie is shown to be only slightly taller than George, and a lot older in age(I honestly was not expecting to see barely enough hair to cover his head underneath the hat he was wearing). Lennie's disabilities were the only non-difference I had found between the book and the movie. A reader may see a character in a book one way, but a director just might view them in a totally different one.
-Carina D.
The novel and movie “Of Mice and Men” are very similar but on a few subjects are worlds apart. One of the things I noticed that was not quite what I pictured in the novel “Of Mice and Men” is how Carlson looked. I understand Carlson is not a major character but when one reads the novel, a certain picture of Carlson is painted into the reader’s mind. In the novel, Carlson was a muscular built man that just seemed to scream masculine. However, the movie portrayed Carlson as a fat kind of slimy man. From the way the movie Carlson looked to how he spoke was polar opposite to what I thought Carlson from “Of Mice and Men” was.
Ms. Morrison, I'm sorry this is late but for some reason I could not post either under my name or anonoymously.
Of Mice and Men, paints a vivid,specific picture into the minds of the readers. In the movie, the description we read about Lennie, and the image we recieve do not match. His voice and stance do, but I don't think that his face or hair match up with the book. On the other hand, George is an exact replica of John Steinback's description. He is small, tough, and even his voice matches. The clothes they wear in the movie, are exactly how I imaged. In every novel the book differs from the movie because they cannot create exactly what the author instructed. Of Mice and Men had a few differences, but for the most part it was dead on.
Sorry for this being so late, I could not remember my password for this website.
When I read Of Mice and Men, I was so into the book. I picture things in my head differently than some people. When I saw the movie for the first time, it was quite interesting. I pictured everyone being different than what I saw. For example, Lennie looked more heavy-set than what I picked up in the book. Also, I pictured Candy to look much older, and sicker. The book describes how he is missing a arm or hand. When I saw Candy during the movie, I was in for a surprise. He looked better than what I thought of. The whole situation with his missing arm or hand, I didn't pick that up in the movie, so I was a bit confused. The book is still much better than the movie. The movie just lets the reader understand the book to a futher level.
- Sorry this is late, I totally forgot about it, but you told me to post it before the marking period ended.
Post a Comment