From: leeper@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (mark.r.leeper)
Subject: OF MICE AND MEN
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:41:28 GMT

                              OF MICE AND MEN
                      A film review by 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
					Copyright 1992 Mark R. Leeper