OF MICE AND MEN
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1992 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Loneliness and human pain are the
subjects of perhaps the best short novel of American
literature, Steinbeck's OF MICE AND MEN. This is a big-
budget adaptation of the story and the budget may work
against the effect. But the great story still makes a great
film. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4).
My introduction to John Steinbeck's OF MICE AND MEN was a terrific television production with Nicol Williamson as Lennie and George Segal as George. Envy me. At least as far as I am concerned no other production has been as moving. Steinbeck's very short novel is one of the greatest tragic stories of world literature, ranking (in my opinion) almost up to Hugo's LES MISERABLES. And it is probably shorter than Hugo's chapter on the Paris sewers. Actually, on my last reading--about a year ago--it occurred to me that what I was reading was not a novel at all, but a play in paragraph form. There is only minimal description in the novel, enough to set the scene, and the rest if dialogue. As I have heard subsequently, it was originally a play by Steinbeck and he later rewrote it in paragraph form. This 1992 adaptation is at least the fourth non-live version I have seen. Supposedly the classic version, but one I have not cared much for, is the 1940 film with Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney, Jr. Nor was I fond of the 1981 television movie version with Robert Blake and Randy Quaid. Having seen three versions already that are close to the book and having read the book who knows how many times, I find it hard to rate the film as if it is a new story.
Now I am not going to tell you the plot of OF MICE AND MEN. If you do not already know, your assignment is either to read the book--it will take you only an hour or so--or to see the movie. Suffice it to say that Lennie Small (played by John Malkovich) is anything BUT small in stature, though he does have the mind of a child. He travels with George Milton (played by Gary Sinese), a reasonably sharp thinker who for reasons not immediately apparent chooses to partner with Lennie. What really drives the relationship is part of what this story is about and told sparsely and with eloquence by John Steinbeck.
Sinese, who also directed the film, does a fine job as George, a part that could easily be overshadowed by that of Lennie. Sinese has starred in stage versions of both OF MICE AND MEN and THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Somehow Malkovich manages to look like a giant playing Lennie and at the same time gives the part more personality than it has had in the past. Neither Ray Walston as Candy nor John Terry as Slim manage to look as grizzled as their characters call for, though Walston still carries off his role. Terry is just too handsome and young to be slim, in my opinion. But a lot of this film really is just too pretty for the film's own good. It seems too pleasant to "buck" barley in these golden surroundings. One violent scene is just too bloody really to make sense. Horton Foote's screenplay leaves most of the book intact but like the 1981 version adds sequences to the story. Any variation from the novel seems out of place, since the novel is so near to being a script.
By most measures this is a very good adaptation of a great book. It is a wonderful story that is an essay on loneliness and pain. It is the only film that literally brought tears to my eyes this year. As an adaptation of an often-dramatized novel, I give it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. But if you do not know the story, *rush* to see this film. Then read the book.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzy!leeper
leeper@mtgzy.att.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews