In the book Of Mice and Men, Steinbeck depicts the character George as a quick-witted, crusty guy with a one of a kind friendship with Lennie. Gary Sinise turned this book into a movie. I felt his portrayal of George was off. At the beginning of the movie, George and Lennie are walking down the road to the ranch, George stood only slightly smaller then Lennie did. My impression from the book was that George was significantly smaller then Lennie. Also, in the movie, I thought George was too clean and his friendship with Lennie was not developed enough. I pictured George as being a rough little guy with some signs of hard times in the past upon him, but instead we get a clean shaven man that looks like he has no place on a farm. Lastly, I thought that the relationship that George and Lennie wasn't right. It seemed that George showed little optimism when reciting their "dream" by the riverside for the first time. Also, when George talked of their past, he sowed more frustration than forgiveness. When the time came that they were sitting at the riverside for the final time, George just pulled the trigger on Lennie with no hesitation. I believe it was the book's dramatic build up to that shot, that reinforced their friendship throughout the entire story. Besides, what is Gary Sinise doing shooting people like that, I thought he only dealt with people that had already been shot. (CSI NY)
hmm well i see your point but i don't think i agree. actually i think i do agree about the rough part, i can go with that. as for the size, malkovich is actually much smaller than he appeared in the film, he was bulked up with heels and padding and sinise made a conscious decision to cast only actors under 5'10" in the other roles, himself included. i think the reality is that super tall/big actors are just kind of rare so they did what they could.
ReplyDeletefor me the fact that sinise and malkovich had done omam on stage (as well as other productions) and knew the material incredibly well, and had a great working rapport basically trumps the logistical issue of size, i'd rather have two great actors that know what they're doing and have to allow some artistic licence on physical issues than have a much bigger guy as lennie but with less chemistry and acting skill.
as for the lack of optimism by the river, i agree that he wasn't optimistic but i think that was the point - because ultimately, in the book as well, george is a realist, he knows damn well that this dream is just that, a dream. and as much as he's lennie's friend, he's also someone who gets very frustrated with lennie. in fact i tihnk they toned down the frustration for the film - in the book george is frequently downright mean to lennie.
as for the shot, i don't think there was no hesitation - i thought he got it spot on, george was obviously struggling with the shooting and you could tell, i thought. ok, so he didn't hesitate at the last minute but that's because in both the book and the film george is a guy who when he says he's gonna do something, he does it (for instance when candy offers the money for the house, and this idea that's always been a pipe dream becomes more tangible, he makes decisions very quickly and just gets on with it) - and i think it was probably one of those things "if i don't do it now i never will, it's the only chance" so he had to do it and he had to be ruthless, which is the tragedy of the book. and the film.
i'm a huge steinbeck fan and a huge sinise fan and frankly if sinise had messed up this film i think i'd have renounced my fan-ship! but i don't think he did. horton foote is a great screenwriter, and between them i think they really did it justice. of course concessions were made because the book is not cinema-friendly (for instance very little actually happens in the book, it's all just discussed in the bunkhouse), and some things were altered (like the role of curley's wife, which i think they did better than steinbeck!). elaine steinbeck said she loved this version and if it's good enough for her as john steinbeck's "voice" then i think it's good enough for me :)
Good effort, Stu. The review could be a bit more creative. Dialogue is very well done. Overall, good attention to detail in your writing. 5+ 42/48
ReplyDeleteSomeone has too much time on their hands... :)
ReplyDeletetalking to cactus... i understand you feel very strongly about this subject buuuuttttt...... you need a life.... have fun creepy my blog cause its super interesting =) have fun with your life and i hope you enjoyed the glass box in chicago=) as i happened to be at the same box with you on that day aswell
ReplyDelete