1992’s “Of Mice and Men” Successfully Visualizes John Steinbeck’s Powerful Novella
Which was better: the book or the movie?
That question sets the tone for every piece and conversation concerning a film adaptation of a book. For years, Hollywood has been tapping into beloved books and transforming them into beloved movies. OK, maybe making a few bucks is part of the equation.
Popular belief dictates the book is always better than the movie. The truth of the matter is that their are plenty of great arguments that go either way. Is The Grapes of Wrath a better movie than book? I can see that. Are the Harry Potter books better than the popular movie franchise? I can see that, too. (For the record, Watchmen has to be one of the worst movie adaptations I ever had to sit through).
The real question with book adaptations is: does the movie do the book justice? I am all for re-imagining and taking certain creative liberties, but can the movie evoke the same connection one has with the book? That is what makes for a great movie adaptation. I — and no viewer — wants to watch a movie that is word for word the same as the book (*coughs* Watchmen).
Now with that settled…
John Steinbeck wrote Of Mice and Men in the late 1930s. As a work of fiction, the novella (a work of fiction that is longer than a short story but shorter than a novel) is highly regarded as a great piece of fiction. Set during the Great Depression, the novella tells the tale of Lenny and George, migrant workers who go from farm to farm looking for work. The story has been featured on the silver screen multiple times. The 1939 edition starred Lon Chaney Jr. and was nominated for four Academy Awards.
In 1992, Gary Sinise directed, produced and starred in Of Mice and Men, another adaption of Steinbeck’s classic novella. Sinise’s version is the epitome of a great movie adaptations. From Sinise’s direction to a screenplay written by Horton Foote (he wrote the screenplay for To Kill A Mockingbird), 1992’s Of Mice and Men successfully and captures the essence Steinbeck’s work.
Sinise stars as George, a smart, able laborer, who travels with a friend/companion/relative(?) Lenny — played by John Malkovich. A big part of Steinbeck’s novella is the language. When reading the two characters’ dialogue, there is a notion of authenticity that is extremely enjoyable to read. When watching George and Lenny speak on screen, it is as if you are the with the characters. The language is deep and strongly tied to that era. Sinise and Malkovich do a masterful job — yes, there is a tad overacting here and there — at delivering such an authentic take on migrant works of the 1930s. Translating Steinbeck’s strong writing is something this 1992 version gets so very right.
On a similar note, the set production masterfully creates the world in which Steinbeck created for George and Lenny. The dusty California farm is desolate — symbolically illustrating these poor, lonely characters. Yet, this setting provides a snapshot of the past that is beautiful. Not only is California a gorgeous state, no doubt, but the setting is utilized to provide another layer of authenticity Steinbeck’s novella. Coupled with the impressive dialogue, Sinise masterfully has the setting as another character for this story — perhaps more so than Steinbeck. However, Steinbeck’s language is so precise and descriptive, he did not need to spend much time on a setting. Sinise believes otherwise, which works.
Perhaps a mark against the movie, the 1992 movie follows a similar pace as to Steinbeck’s book. There is a lot of talking and hanging out with the other migrant workers. There is a lot of working montages — feel good montages, no doubt. To say there is little action is a perfectly correct judgment. But, to watch these characters interact is a joy — because of the strong writing/characterization. The little plot points that occur are not for naught. The ending is a shocker and perfectly captured on film. However, it comes to no shocker that the ending, like the rest of the movie, perfectly capture Steinbeck’s words. It’s heartbreaking, yet beautiful.
I originally watched this version of Steinbeck’s novella back in freshman year of high school. I recognized the greatness of both movie and novella. Both capture the struggles of friendship and those looking for work during the Great Depression. I consider it atop of the list of great book adaptations. It does everything right. 1992’s Of Mice and Men invokes the power and beauty of Steinbeck’s novella, while branching out and illuminating other aspects of life as a migrant farmer.
