Converting popular books into films has become a growing trend. However, as Stephen King once said, “Books and movies are like apples and oranges. They both are fruit, but taste completely different.” Some fans may prefer the movie over the novel, others the novel to the movie. Between the book and its movie adaptation, many elements differ, including the characters, plot, and dialogue. One of the numerous books that has been turned into a movie is John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, a story about two men, George and Lennie, who are trying to make a living so they can earn enough money to get a ranch of their own. Regardless of same story being portrayed through two forms of media, they express the narrative differently.
To start off, the development of the characters diverges between each. In the book, the characters are essentially representations of important thoughts and themes. For example, Curley, a character in the book who is out to get Lennie, is married, and his wife’s name is never revealed. It is intentional and meant to represent the discrimination against women during the time period the novel is set in, the Great Depression. In the movie, you are unable to catch on to these little details. Nevertheless, the film has good qualities. You can clearly see the strong bond between the main characters in the movie much more than in the book. Regardless of the trouble Lennie causes, George cannot and never will abandon him. In addition, the emotions that some of the characters acquire are more distinct in the movie. Candy, another character in the book, is evidently in pain, sorrow, and regret when he lets another character kill his old dog. On the whole, all the characters are portrayed amazingly.
Dialogue between the cha...
... middle of paper ...
... show that even though Lennie is gone, in actuality he really isn’t; he will always be remembered by George.
In conclusion, books and their movies are never the same. This tenet is known to cause some serious controversy in the secret world of fandoms, the community of people who are dedicated lovers of the same books, movies, TV shows, or any other form of media. John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men is a great example of the changes that differentiate between a novel and the book, as seen above. This book and its movie have obvious changes between the characters, the plot, and dialogue. These things are picked up in practically every book and its movie adaptation. Because of this, there are various discrepancies amongst enthusiasts debating whether the movie outshines the book, or vice versa. But it is all up to you to decide: Do apples taste better, or do oranges?
The aspect of the John Steinbeck novels, The Pearl and Of Mice and Men, that is most comparable is how, in both books, Steinbeck denies the main characters of each book, Kino and George and Lennie to change their role in life or to beat fate. Steinbeck’s grim outlook of life was perhaps brought on through his early failures and poverty, because all three of the pre-mentioned characters had opportunities to change their fate or role but failed. The elements of discussion are Kino, George and Lennie, a comparison and a contrast.
In the novel Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck brings out the themes of Lonliness and companionship, and strengths and weaknesses through the actions, and quotations of the characters. Irony and foreshadowing play a large roll on how the story ends. Lennie and his habit of killing things not on purpose, but he is a victim of his own strength. George trying to pretend that his feelings for Lennie mean nothing. The entire novel is repetitive in themes and expressed views.
Warren French writes, “The world just hasn’t been made right, so that dreams are the only things that can keep men going.” Agree or disagree with this statement.
The daily struggle of the working class, fear of loneliness and the reality of putting all your energy into plans that fail are the different themes relating to John Steinbeck's novel, "Of Mice and Men". The characters depicted by the author are individuals who are constantly facing one obstacle after another. The book illustrates different conflicts such as man versus society, man versus man, man versus himself and idealism versus reality. The book's backdrop is set in the Salinas, California during the depression. The two main characters include two men, George and Lennie. Supportive characters include a few ranch hands, Candy, Crooks, Curly, Slim and Carlson.
The film that was produced after the novel has a lot of differences and not as
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
The novel Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck, is about two ranch hands, George and Lennie. George is a small, smart-witted man, while Lennie is a large, mentally- handicapped man. They are trying to raise enough money to buy their own ranch, by working as ranch hands. During the setting of the story, they are at a ranch whose owner’s name is Curley. It is in this setting that the novel reveals that the main theme is death and loss.
The story Of Mice and Men took place during the 1930’s. That time period was very different from today. Race and gender were very important characteristics that determined whether a person had the opportunity to make money. The 1930’s were also a time where people started questioning life and the American culture. Many people like John Steinbeck thought that life was very unfair and questioned whether if life was even worth living. In Of Mice and Men John Steinbeck demonstrates that mans dream is destined to be destroyed by a cruel reality.
It’s pretty clear that film and literature are very different mediums and when you try to make one into the other, such as an adaptation, you’re going to have some things that are lost in translation and seen in a different light. When an original work is made into a movie, I think they’re kind of at a disadvantage because they only have a few hours to get the whole story across while also keeping the viewer intrigued by what is taking place on the screen right in front of their eyes. Movies are able to contain special effects, visuals, and music though which can impact a viewer and make a scene stay in their mind longer which is a plus side to being able to view something. Literature on the other hand, has a greater advantage. They can keep the reader entertained for a considerably long time and you’re able to get more information about people and events such as what a character is thinking or what is happening behind the scenes during a specific event. I understand that people are going to have different opinions when it comes to whether a book or film adaptation of a work is the best and it is not always going to be the same for each and every piece of work. One thing I think though, is that The Namesake in both the film and the movie, they’re both accurate and concise in the way that they relate to one another.
Usually movies try to take the story to a different level or by adding parts or just try to change it to a completely different story. Some of the differences between the movie as to the book are some little and large differences. They might also try taking little parts away that will change how the readers see the story characters. An example of that would be Walter not smoking in the movie (Pg 115). Walter usually smokes because he is stressed or just as a way to relax. Walter also does not get punched by Mam...
Second there is more detail in the book than the movie. Well, I think that more detail is better because the more you know the better you understand the movie or
The movie lacks a lot of insight onto the other characters in the book, it mostly focuses on Ponyboy. For example, in the movie there was a lack of detail on characters such as Darry and Sodapop even Dally. Dally was a major character in the book but his death in the movie seemed a bit minor because there wasn’t much detail for viewers to get attached to his character. I felt as if his death was glazed over and easily forgotten in the movie while in the book it was described for at least two pages.
One thing that can make a book good is characters. In the book, there were many more animals in the farm. The movie did not show many animals except for the main animals. Even thought this is a small difference, it can be noticeable. In the book, Mollie was a character.
The connection between George and Lennie illustrates the adversity during their course towards achieving the American dream. Things Lennie did, either on accident or purpose, foreshadowed what was going to happen in the book and the way people acted impacted this. Like millions of other people, George and Lennie were affected during the great depression heavily, and dreamt of owning land of their own. They worked from place to place making barely any money, and didn’t have a real home. To add to this, Lennie got in trouble a lot and in the end George had to make the crucial decision to shoot Lennie so he wouldn’t have to deal with any more difficulty. George knew he had to do what was best for Lennie and himself.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.