Comparing Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men

As like with many other movies based on books that were written before them, there are some major differences between the novella, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, and the screenplay, by Eugene Solow. Many people find a few main issues with film adaptations of books and other works of literature. They are casting, alterations and director portrait. The Of Mice and Men movie was very well

Casting is a major issue starting and ending with the fact that, no matter how hard a casting director tries, they cannot meet the image that every one that read the books has of the characters in their heads. This is a flaw that cannot be defeated. But, the casting for Of Mice and Men was very well done. George fits his description in the books, …show more content…
It was a film that was done very well for it's time. All of the special effects, the deaths etc. were done by hand. These limitations greatly affected some very important ways. The impact of the death of Curley's wife was greatly lessened by the fact that we only saw it from behind. The same is true with Lennie's death, the entirety of the scene changed because they had to make the body look dead, something that could not be done from up close. So,if i was given the opportunity to alter the movie I would do a few things. I would cast Andre the Giant as Lennie and someone like Sebastian Stan as George. Curry's wife would look more youthful and Slim would have a kinder face. There would only be a few filming edits. The scenes in the barn would have to be better lit so that you could tell what was going on. There would be fewer wide angle establishing shots and more would be assumed from context. And, maybe most importantly, after every death and "trouble" incident the lighting would change, the shadows would get slightly longer, the lighting would get slightly bluer and there would be less light on the actor's