Comparison Between of Mice and Men Novel & Movie

Of Mice and workforce Differences Between Movie and Book After having read the original displacement and the more(prenominal) recent impression fitting of John Steinbecks studyly no-hit novel, Of Mice and Men, the app arency of differences between the two is at times subtle while besides being very obvious during different portions of the movie. In the film thither are several major differences between the movie and the bear with three being peculiarly apparent. We are shown the differences through the portrayals of characters, Lennies saneness and, simply, the scopes themselves.When watching the film, the first difference the viewer can see between the discussion and the movie is how the characters are portrayed. A notable example would be Carlson. In the film, Carlson seems to play a much larger part compared to the development given in the book to the highest degree his character. He is introduced much sooner in the movie and appears to be a part of many more conver sations. On the opposite side of Carlsons portrayal is Crooks. In the book Crooks is characterized as a much more active character.An example of this would be when Crooks interjects in the farmers conversation to let Slim know that he had finished preparing the tar for begining the mules hoof. The filmmakers changed this scene so that Crooks was not involved at all and that George prepared the tar instead. some other massive difference between the book and the movie are the acts themselves. red back to the previous point of Crooks and the tar, the scene when George took the mule into the barn to fix its hoof is altered drastically.The impression given to those who have read the book as easy is that it was changed because Steinbeck used it as a way to material body out Curleys wifes character. This scene was likely changed because there is no narrator and instead we are given a optical explanation of Curleys wife through her actions. Also, almost the entirety of chapter quaterni on is removed or altered in the film. We are shown only a quick conversation between Crooks and Lennie which is interrupted by George who scolds Lennie for going into Crooks room. In the book, Crooks, Candy and Lennie all have a grand conversation about the farm and the dream of having their own land.Crooks opens up to the men and seems to leave his call on the carpet so to speak which is fol woefuled by Curleys wife entering and bust him down. This is a strange scene to leave out base on how classical it seemed to be considering it shows more of Lennies character as well as Curleys wifes cruel side. Finally, at the suppress of the novel Slim, Curley and Carlson find Lennie dead and George with the blast in his hand. George lies and tells the men that Lennie had Carlsons gun and that he took the gun 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 whats bugg ing the two. This scene was completely cut out of the movie and replaced with Georges flashbacks which seems very odd considering how important it was to the novel and the idea that not all dreams are meant to be. The final major difference between the movie and the book is Lennies personal sanity. In the book, the reader is given multiple instances clearly showing that Lennie is not all told there so to speak. The best example possible is when Lennie hallucinates about auntie Clara and the giant rab phone number.This scene is removed in the film and instead Lennie seems to unspoilt be a very confused person with a low thinking capacity. The film seems to try and have Lennie appear to be a character who is innocent and has just been dealt a bad hand in life. In the book, however, Lennies outbursts seem to be much darker in their description, particularly the murder of Curleys wife. These three differences between the film and the novel are ways of seeing how the director of Of Mi ce and Men chose to show in a visual way some things differently from Steinbecks descriptions.One cannot expect an adaptation to be a complete carbon copy of the original it is based on and it would seem as though the film was successful in bringing out the meat of Steinbecks story. These changes could, to some, seem either little or large depending on how the reader (now the watcher) interpreted the book. The movie also won critical acclaim and exposed many people to Steinbecks writing, something that would make people who disliked the film because of its differences appreciate it a bit more.