Of Mice and Men
Blog Homework
We just finished reading and watching Steinbeck’s novel Of Mice and Men. Some people prefer to read the novel, while others will always choose the movie. Which did you enjoy and why? Log onto our class blog and write a 2-3 paragraph response. I want to know why you liked/disliked the novel, and why you liked/disliked the movie. Did the movie meet your expectations? If you had the chance to direct or produce the film how would you bring “Of Mice and Men” to the big screen? Have fun with this, be creative, but also inform the reader.
Due Date: FRIDAY October 28th
In my opinion i think the movie was more interesting. The reason why i say this is because i like watching stuff instead of reading it. It has more action and picture added to it. A novel goes into detail but if you cant really visualize it then whats the whole point. A novel it good for details but a movie is what people want to see.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Cuzco
What i liked was the fight between Lennie and Curely and how these people talk. It sounds really interesting how they use to talk back then. Also in the movie we actually can kind of see how every character looks and acts like. This movie really surprized it was really good and it did meet my expectations but the only thing i didnt like was that it was in black and white. Other then that i liked the movie and i hope it got lots of views
Honestly, I must say that the movie was pretty accurate on the setting and plot. The characters could’ve been better like Lennie should have been a really tall, big guy that was incredibly strong. The lines the actors had to say was accurate as well. I was pretty impressed. There were parts that I didn’t really like. Curley’s wife to me was too normal. To me in the story Curley’s wife was outrageously flirty and she’s not really like that in the movie. Also it might have been better if it wasn’t the black and white version, but there was no helping that. I think the fight scene between Lennie and Curley could have so much better.
ReplyDeleteThe book Of Mice and Men was truly a great book. In my opinion I would not read it for fun because it’s not to my liking but for those that enjoy realistic fiction its perfect. The author wrote the book very well, comparing it with the time period. The way they talked, the work they did, the themes, it all fit and created a well-rounded story that made sense. That was the biggest reason I liked the book in general. What I didn’t like about the book was that it was kind of boring in many parts. The boring parts weren’t really the author’s fault; it was just due to my lack of enthusiasm for the book itself.
If I had the chance to direct or produce the film of this book I would start by getting accurate characters. The characters to me, is what creates the story. If the characters don’t match it destroys the movie completely. After getting the characters, I would find places to shoot for the setting. I would go to Ireland or Texas. They have great plains, fields and plantations. After the setting, the plot takes place and the actors get their job done. They act accurately and make it a great film!
Kimberly Medina
ReplyDeleteThe book and the novel are quiet the same, in most parts of the movie the scenes are as if the book was the script. I enjoyed the novel a little more than how much I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed the book because it had a nice description and I like the overall idea. Another reason why I like the novel is because of the way the author writes it is interesting because he writes the way a book would be written back then. Something that I disliked from the novel is that it had bad words it’s not something I use on a daily basis so that would be the only reason why I didn’t enjoy the book one hundred percent.
I liked the movie because it was pretty accurate with the way it was arranged. As an example something I like is the fact that they had actually, in a lot of parts of the movie, used direct lines from the book that’s what makes the movie pretty accurate. To be a black and white movie it was pretty good, they had accuracy of the time zone they were in because they actually talked like the way others talked back then. What I did not like from the movie was that the characters from the movie did not meet my imagination; the directors of the movie weren’t as creative as they could have been. For instance, Curley’s wife didn’t look as flirtatious as described in the book. Besides this a reason why I like the book more is because the book shows words, not images, I can imagine what I want when I read because I make the characters my way. To me it is like directing a movie in my head.
If I had the chance to direct, I would put “Of Mice and Men” on the big screen by being as creative as possible. Lennie would be played by someone who has a deep voice, they have to be tall and look strong. George would be played by someone very small compared to Lennie his voice would not be so deep t would be normal. Curly would be played by an actor a little tan and with golden curly hair as said in the novel. Curly’s wife would be played by someone with a lot of woman traits, she would have soft shiny hair and her thing would be to wear red lipstick. Those would be the main characters for me, everything in the movie would be like what is in the book, in this movie the script is accessible to everyone because that’s what the book would be.
Although the "Of Mice And Men" movie was very well displayed, I honestly thought that it lacked the feeling of surprise and shock value that the novel had to offer. Certain details of the book led you to imagine beyond limits. However when you see some of the scenes acted out, it doesn't turn out to be as dramatic and wild as your mind could picture it to be when reading the novel.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I prefer the novel over the movie because the movie did not bring the same feeling as the novel did to me, but the picture retains all of the forceful and keen drama of John Steinbeck's original play and novel. The 1939 motion picture did meet my expectations with the presentation of the strange palship and eventual tragedy of the two California ranch brothers, Lennie and George. I could have not directed the movie any better, but if this film was in my hands, I'd have one of the greatest sex symbols out there to display the flirtatious "Mae" aka Curley's wife. Any tall western-style actor to portray the clueless giant Lennie, a short but tough gentleman for George, and the rest of the characters with matching actors. My setting would be taken place in the plains and fields of Southern California to bring the whole summary of the book to life. It wouldn't be an easy job to do no, but I would have to make sure it would be a movie with positive criteria that would give the total feeling of the novel away to the audience as I wouldn't manage to eliminate all the censoring and cursing in the 1939 film.
To begin with, I believed there wasn't going to be modications to Steinbeck's novel in the 1939 motion picture. I was wrong, and the movie didn't feel like the novel. Sure they both brought me a feel laughs, but the book made my imagination give birth to the scene, while I laughed to the funny looking characters in the motion picture. In the other hand though, as a critic, the movie was okay to its decade. Now, you can't compare the setting to today's filmaking because we've all witnessed matrix tricks and guys shooting firballs out of their nostrils.. To summarize, even though it wasn't as good as the book in my opinion, the motion picture Of Mice and Men was acceptable to its viwers at that time.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really felt was missing, was the music. I felt like the movie was too mude, and when it did have music it didn't fit in with the scene. I know for a fact every little detail can help boost dramatic scenes, and that's why the directors should've added that to when Lennie was doing misfortune things like talking to Curly's wife in the story's climax. Also, when I read the book, I pictured the rive scene to be spectacular- for God's sake it's California! Instead, there was harshly any nature or pretty trees and details to the movie. IN MY MOST HONEST REVIEW, the novel by Steinbeck was far superior to the movie.
Yours in eternity,
Renan 's.' Freitas
in my opinion the movie is more interesting than the book. in the movie you can see what happened while in the book you just read. in the book you have to read the details and imagine the scene.while in the movie you see the scene. a novel is for details and visualizing but the movie is what you actually see.
ReplyDeletewhat i liked about the movie was the language. i find it interesting how people talked and the way they talked back then. i learned how people acted back hen. i also like the viloence like when lennie and curley fought! this movie did meet all my expectations. if i could bring this to the big screen it will be the same except the movie would be in colors and hae different actors. steinbeck did a great job in maken the book but it came out better in the movie
sincerly,
Bryan Baculima
Yasmin Silva
ReplyDeleteDespite the movie and the book being very similar, there are some differences. There always are differences between novels and their cinematic reinterpretations. However, to me, the book was much more interesting than the movie. The book has richer depth to it's setting and the descriptions of the characters. It is through the book that a reader, such as myself, can really get to know and connect to each character. That is something you cant really do when it comes to movies because the actors usually fail to fully portray their corresponding characters in the books. I understand that many people lack the ability to visualize, but for those who have it, a movie ruins the feeling they get from reading a book.
As far as the movie is concerned I cant really say I enjoyed it as much as the book. I felt some of the characters were not played by the right actors. For example, Curley's wife in the book was a flirtatious woman, whereas in the movie she came off as quite normal. Sadly this is the case in most movies that are based off of books. Some details get lost in translation. The movie in general was ok though.
If I were given the chance to direct a movie for this book the very first place I would start is with the details on the actors. I would try to by as exact as I could in bringing the characters of the book to life through their actors. For example, Curley's wife would have to be someone with a somewhat voluptuous figure and a flirty attitude. Lennie would have to be played by a tall, burly, powerful man with a deep voice but a soft nature. Curly would have to be a much shorter man with a fiery aggressive temper. And george would have to be a normal sized man, not as tall as Lennie and of course, not as deep voiced either. After that I would have them using lines directly from the book to keep the authenticity.
Jennifer Jimenez
ReplyDeleteBlock 1 Miss. Rubinetti
In my perspective, I believe the book Of Mice and Men was interesting rather than the movie because of the description, imagination the reader can create reading of Mice and Men. However, when I saw the movie I noticed there were some events missing. For example, in the beginning of the story George doesn’t allow Lennie to bring a dead bird with them. In the book Of Mice and Men Lennie pets a dead mouse and George snatches the mouse and deprives Lennie to hold the dead mouse. Also, in the novel of Mice and Men they mentioned Curley’s Wife was offering herself to the workers at the bunkhouse. On the contrary, the movie displayed a sorrowful young lady who wanted someone to communicate with because her husband spends occupied of his workers rather than his wife. As any women she wanted attention because she was tired of being isolated.
I enjoyed the novel because it provided abundant information to understand what the character was like without having to watch the movie. Also, I disliked the ending since it left me puzzled. At the end, George kills Lennie and he accepts the invitation to occupy his mind with a drink. Not when, I was hoping George kills Lennie but then runs away from the ranch to work someplace else because he couldn’t stand living with people who consider having someone was out of the ordinary. I enjoyed the scene where Curley’s wife tries to talk to Slim but Slim rejects to communicate with her because he doesn’t want to lose his job. She starts crying and Slim feels hopeless for Curley’s Wife. I disliked from the movie, Curley because I was expecting an ugly, shapeless man. The movie met my expectations because it related most of the scenes from the book Of Mice and Men and gave me most of the image towards the characters.
If I had to direct the film “Of Mice and Men” to the big screen I would’ve placed a seductive women or Mila Kunis. Also, Lennie would’ve been a muscular, strong, tall man. George would look like Orlando Bloom who was smart, active and smaller than Lennie. Other than those few changes the movie was relative to the novel Of Mice and Men. I would suggest if your interest in using your imagination flow as a presentation, read the book. However, if you dislike reading books watch the movie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUpon finishing the novel and watching the Of Mice and Men movie, I enjoyed both allot. Even though the movie was very exciting and had many scenes full of action, I would have to say that the book was better. The novel described every scene in detail and never at one point while reading did I not understand what was going on. When watching the movie, the director Lewis Milestone added and changed many scenes in the novel that was needed in order to make it a good movie. Adding all of the extra scenes sort of took away from the themes that were placed in the novel by John Steinbeck. The reason that I like the novel also is because we read the novel before the movie. I already had a clue of how everything was supposed to be from reading the novel, so when I seen the movie and things were not fully like the book I felt the novel was better.
ReplyDeleteIf I ever had the chance to direct a film, I would make sure a novel like Of Mice and Men would be the best movie to ever go on the big screen. I would do this task by taking my time and writing out a plot diagram of all of the major scenes that occurred in the novel. After this I would distinguish out of all of the important scenes can I change around and add other events that will still embody the theme within it. All of the characters in the novel will still do everything that John Steinbeck had them do in the novel. The actors have to be in way more character than the ones in this novel and add more drama to the scenes. Once this is complete the recreation of the movie Of Mice and Men directed by me, will be way better than the one directed by Lewis Milestone.
Ansha'At Rivera-Farid
ReplyDeleteI really liked the novel version Of Mice and Men. It was humorous in many ways. One thing was Lennie, I loved the way he was like a little kid! What i did dislike however was the killing of Candy's dog. Carlson was super mean to him, pressuring him to have the dog shot at. I feel so bad at how no one was there to back him up when he really needed at least one opinion. I would've have completely been there for him like "NO! I say we let the dog 'live and let die'." I was super upset, I believe a dog has just as much rights as a human (also considering i have a dog).
The movie was a whole different story. Even though i only saw about half an hour or so worth of parts, I loved it! Seeing the characters come to life (even in black and white) was awesome! The characters the picked were perfect, well some of them. George and Lennie's actors were right on the money. Candy was good, but i felt Curley should have been muscular. The same with Slim, that and height. I'm not 100% on Carlson since he wasn't a very well developed character in the novel (which is another thing I disliked about the novel) but still, i guess his character had a good actor. I only got a quick glimpse at Crooks but he was completely different from what I had in mind. I wish Curley's Wife's hair was longer, but what are you going to do. All in all, the characters were not just thrown together, they were obviously well thought of, and it went beyond my expectations including that the movie was made all those years ago.
If I had to bring Of Mice and Men to the big screen , I would use the book as a script. I adore the sensory details and imagery that Steinbeck used to bring a picture into the reader's mind. The organization is very poised too, so to shift anything or try to mix two events into one would seem to bring everything down. I want the story to come to life, so someone would be able to read the book and have the book come exactly to life right there in their eyes. Actors likewise, I'm not 100% since I don't even know that many actors, but in the end, I want every detail, that means every word, movement, tone, mood, ect. has to be showed in the movie if I was directing it.
I absolutely loved the novel better than the movie. There were many things the movie missed that the novel gave to you. The novel gave you more of a suspense and caption of what was happening while in the movie everything seemed to go too fast. The novel I liked because when I was reading I liked the suspense and I could bring the characters to life the way I would want to in my own head. The novel gave me that freedom to express it better than the movie. The novel also gave me more suspense. For example when it was the fight scene between Curley and Lennie, in the novel it sounded more interesting than actually watching it in the movie. The only thing I disliked of the novel was when Candy had to kill his dog because it sadenned me a bit. In the movie I can't argue with the scene of the dog's death because it made me as emotional as I was when I was reading the scene.The movie
ReplyDeleteThe movie did meet my expectation because if you picture it, the book was written to have a 1930 look so the movie should as well. The only thing I disliked was the black and white but I guess we cant change that. The movie was good and had many great scenes plus little ones that were never in the book. Though sometimes I wouldn't know what scene we were in because as I said before it went to fast. Other than that the movie was a great film to watch and I enjoyed it very much.
If I had a chance to direct or produce the film I would have picked better characters that would make the movie pop! For example, for Lennie I imagined a large muscalur man, but when I saw the movie he looked very flabby. I would have gotten a stronger looking person that was huge. Another thing I would change would be Curley's wife. In the novel I imagined a women with a lot of women features, but in the movie she looked like she was 16. Another thing would be no adding new scenes to the movie because I felt that it took away what the book had to offer. You want a movie that people love better than the book and that's the kind of movie I would make.
Krystal Marie Nieves ♥
ReplyDeleteDuring class we had watched and read the novel ‘of Mice and Men’ and some people do in fact have a preference for the book over the movie and vice versa. But to me, I accept as true that the movie was in fact much better than the novel. The movie had exceeded my expectations and had me fascinated on every scene. The scene of the two men, Lennie and George, when there by the river and George talks about what they have to look further to, was in reality one of the scenes I can be aware of the most. If I had the chance to direct the novel myself I would do something comparable yet diverse in some aspects. What I would do is keep the message yet make the movie more modern to draw a crowd of younger children, so they can learn the message hidden in the scenes. With a younger crowd the children can learn how to accept the mentally disabled and the different races and sex, as they would treat themselves. We’re all created the same, so why do we treat other people in a different way?
The novel was regrettably a let down in my very own outlook. It did in fact have vivid words that described the setting and the characters very well but I couldn’t feel anything that was happening. But in movies I can see the feeling in the actor’s eyes. There was one thing that I did like about the novel a little bit better than the movie, and that was the lenience about the language. I could comprehend it clearly but the movie I did if truth be told didn’t quite be aware of what the characters were saying. But in my opinion the movie was ten times superior hands down.