Comparison Between of Mice and Men Novel & Movie

Of Mice and Men Differences Between Movie and Book After having sympathize the pilot light version and the more recent film adaptation of John Steinbecks majorly winning brisk, Of Mice and Men, the appargonncy of differences between the two is at times crafty while also being very obvious during different portions of the moving picture. In the film there are several major differences between the image and the record book with three being plowshareicularly apparent. We are shown the differences through the portrayals of characters, Lennies sanity and, simply, the word-paintings themselves.When watching the film, the first difference the viewer can compute between the book and the movie is how the characters are portrayed. A nonable modeling would be Carlson. In the film, Carlson seems to play a oftentimes larger part compared to the information given in the book active his character. He is introduced much sooner in the movie and appears to be a part of umteen more com munications. 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 sleep with that he had finished preparing the diddley for fixing the mules hoof. The filmmakers changed this scene so that Crooks was not involved at all and that George prepared the tar sooner. Another massive difference between the book and the movie are the acts themselves. Going back to the previous point of Crooks and the tar, the scene when George took the mule into the vitamin B to fix its hoof is altered drastically.The impression given to those who have read the book as well is that it was changed because Steinbeck used it as a modal value to flesh out Curleys wifes character. This scene was presumable changed because there is no narrator and instead we are given a visual explanation of Curleys wife through her actions. Also, almost the sum of ch apter four is removed or altered in the film. We are shown only(prenominal) a quick conversation between Crooks and Lennie which is interrupted by George who scolds Lennie for tone ending 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 work force and seems to dedicate his shell so to speak which is followed by Curleys wife entranceway and tearing him down. This is a strange scene to leave out base on how important it seemed to be considering it shows more of Lennies character as well as Curleys wifes cruel side. Finally, at the end of the novel Slim, Curley and Carlson find Lennie dead and George with the gun in his helping 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 comfort George by telling him You Hadda George. and the two walking away for a drink. Curley a nd so asks Carlson whats bugging the two. This scene was completely cut out of the movie and replaced with Georges flashbacks which seems very scratchy considering how important it was to the novel and the idea that not all dreams are meant to be. The nett major difference between the movie and the book is Lennies individualized sanity. In the book, the reader is given multiple instances clearly showing that Lennie is not totally there so to speak. The best example possible is when Lennie hallucinates about Aunt Clara and the giant rabbit.This scene is removed in the film and instead Lennie seems to just 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 Mice and Men chose to show in a visual way some things differently from Steinbecks descriptions.One cannot involve an adaptation to be a complete carbon copy of the pilot burner 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 miniscule or large depending on how the reader (now the watcher) interpreted the book. The movie also won critical acclaim and exposed many heap to Steinbecks writing, something that would make people who disliked the film because of its differences appreciate it a bit more.