The book kept you awake late into the night because you couldn't put it down. But the movie? What a piece of crap!
Or was it?
Movie adaptations of our favorite books never live up to the magic we remember while reading. But are we just biased lovers of our favorite literary masterpiece, or is the movie really just a cinematic train wreck? Looking at movie databases (IMDB, RottenTomatoes, etc.) and film critics, here's the verdict
Today: Of Mice and Men
Itty-Bitty Book History:
John Steinbeck wrote his novella of the same name in 1937, which he quickly adapted for the stage later that year. It tells the tale of two men--George Milton and his mentally-challenged partner, Lennie Small--barely surviving the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, both of whom yearn to own their own ranch someday.
Lennie is fantastically strong and doesn't know his own strength, which leads to plenty of unpremeditated and untimely death. Cue the homicidal drama!
Early Movie History:
On December 30, 1939, Hal Roach Studios--which was best known for funding Laurel and Hardy shorts (because nothing says high comedy like
Of Mice and Men)--released the first movie adaptation with a limited run. Written by Eugene Solow and directed by Lewis Milestone, who directed
All Quiet on the Western Front in 1930 and, later, the original
Ocean's 11 in 1960, the movie was released wide on January 12, 1940.
 |
| They're shocked they even lost for Best Sound Reciording |
Starring Burgess Meredith (as George) and Lon Chaney, Jr. (as Lennie), the movie was a general, if lackluster, financial success. Neither of the actors were famous leading men. Burgess would garner fame later in his career as Rocky Balboa's corner man, Mick ("You're a tomato!"), while Chaney gained notoriety in 1941 as the original Wolf Man ("Awooo!").
Yet, the movie was a critical success for its time. At the 12th Annual Academy Awards,
Of Mice and Men was awarded a Best Picture nomination (although no nominations for acting, directing, or writing), but had the misfortune of being nominated in an absolutely stacked year for movie making. With the likes of
Gone with the Wind,
The Wizard of Oz,
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and
Stagecoach all nominated for best picture, Hal Roach's
Of Mice and Men would lose out in every category it was nominated for, including the likes of Sound Recording and Musical Score.
Later Movie History:
 |
| Lt. Dan has his legs again! |
Gary Sinise--better known as Lieutenant Dan from
Forrest Gump--was a fan of Steinbeck from his youth, and set forth to adapt his favorite book.
Released in 1992, Sinise's
Of Mice and Men was directed and produced by Sinise, in which he also starred as George, with John Malkovich as Lennie. Horton Foote adapted the novella into a screenplay, which was right in Foote's wheelhouse of expertise. In 1962, Foote adapted Harper Lee's
To Kill a Mockingbird for the screen, for which he won an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. Apparently Foote had a thing for literary characters with sketchy behavior. (Lennie = Boo Radley)
Sinise's
Of Mice and Men earned only $5.4 million at the box office, but, like its predecessor, was a critical success. At the 1992
Cannes Film Festival, Sinise was nominated for the
Palme d'Or, which is the festival's highest award honored, given to the director of the film considered best in contention. Sinise would lose to Bille August, director of a Danish movie called
The Best Intentions.
Random Fun Fact:
The 1939 movie wasn't
released in Australia until 1955.
Because Australia hates Lennie's anger issues.
IMDB thinks each adaptation was...
Better than average.
The 1939
Hal Roach production receives a 7.7/10, while the
Gary Sinise adaptation receives a 7.6--proving once and for all that older movies are just better, gumdangit!
Rotten Tomatoes thinks each adaptation was...
Pretty damned good.
Time has been very kind to the 1992 version,
which receives a 96% rating from movie reviewers, as Roger Ebert says about the movie, "I would not have thought I could believe the line about the rabbits one more time, but this movie made me do it."
Even more impressive,
the 1939 adaptation receives a perfect 100% seal of approval, with New York Times movie reviewer from back back in the day, Frank Nugent (not related to Ted), taking a slightly darker tone. "Doom takes its course and bides its moment; there is hysteria in waiting for the crisis to come," he says. "And during the waiting there is the rewarding opportunity to meet some of Steinbeck's interesting people, to listen to them talk, to be amused or moved by the things they say and do."
Verdict:
If John Steinbeck's book is considered a classic, the two movie adaptations are no slouches by comparison. Both are typical cinematic bridesmaids--always honored, never winning--yet still impressive takes on Dust Bowl desperation.
Do you hate the movies? That's your own bias talking.
