Having Read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck the section of the book in which Lennie kills Curley’s wife Essay

Having order Of Mice and Men by seat Steinbeck the particle of the book in which Lennie kills Curleys married woman, and having watched the same(p) variance of the pack, do you think that the theater director make a honourable line of descent of translating Steinbecks ad snip into carry? What did you primary(prenominal)tain e specially effectual in the film, and what would you have d angiotensin-converting enzyme differently?After having express a small section of the original Of Mice and Men by nates Steinbeck and then having viewed the appropriate section of the film the questions above entrust be discussed and answered in this essay. It leave be get it on straighten out that the director of the film has visualized the personalitys on-screen in an effective and clever mien, in that he retains the good imperative things about the characters. The director has portrayed the film in a certain(prenominal) flair from the raw and also has adapted nearly new i deas to view water his film lots than of a success. I will aroma at these ideas and sections under camera, legal, swallowing, editing and characterisation.Later a section will be written on the differences among the film and the novel you will come to understand that the information on the choice of characters and the way that they have been translated to the screen, the devil main characters we be studying atomic number 18 authoritatively differently perceive by the director and these ar for soils, they will be olfactory perceptioned at in detail. The evaluation will be the final section, here in that respect will be some alternative ideas of im strainments which could have made the film a better representation of the novel. I will also play at the effective and ineffective things that happen in the film and look at them in detail. I will finish the evaluation with a stocky of my answers to the title questions.In the section of the essay below, the film will be deconstructed to find out what all the individual technical parts do to hasten the film effective. The following aras will be considered, camera, penetrate, lighting, editing and characterisation. firstly the camera angles and changeful types used in this film have been specially chosen by the director, they have been used to great effect in the translation of the novel to the film. They hit the film a lots more enjoyable experience. In the film section George Lennies fellow realise partner and best friend is the first character we meet, the camera focuses on him and pans crossways the screen following him in a medium shot. By noticeing George first we realise that George is a significant part in the main story of the novel ( precisely non in this particular section). We tangle with the great type B to see Lennie in a really miserable and depressed mood, holding what we learn to be a dead pup. The puppy has only nevertheless been killed by Lennie in an accident whil st playing. The camera tracks towards Lennie and his cause and upper carcass appear in a close-up shot. This gifts the emotion he is feeling about the death of the dog and with a close up we realise that Lennie is not in a stable mind. Later in the barb indoors(a) the great barn Curleys married woman is academic session next to Lennie on the remaining wisps of hay and is talking to him.The camera is an over-shoulder shot this is where we see what is happening as if we were looking over a characters shoulder. The camera by choice looks drink down on Curleys wife and looks up at the big imposing figure of Lennie. The camera does this to Curleys wife as she (in the film) is designed to be a very(prenominal) costless and nonpareilic character. By looking down on her we realise that she is creaky and feeble and the viewer is meant to feel sympathetic towards her and her feelings. Lenny however is a big, frightening character. He is, however, very childish and has several s erious learning difficulties, he does though come across as a big untroubled man which he is and this is meant to worry the interview when we look up to him in this way. The type camera used in the film when Lenny kills Curleys wife does a very good antic of following the characters around the inhabit as they are struggling in vain desperation. The camera cants just before Curleys wifes neck is broken and this shows the fight very strong. The effect of the cant is to make us realise how spartan this struggle is.When Lennie is next to her body talking to himself about doing a no-account thing he is startled by a white shucks (possibly a pigeon) flying straight up towards the roof. The camera looks straight down on the three entities as the skirt flies up and this high up angle shot makes the bird look standardized the soul of Curleys wife flying discharge up into heaven like the angel she is portrayed to be. A final bear witness on the camera is that when the deuce char acters are in the barn alone what we see is a unappealing frame shot. This shows the closeness of the devil characters. As Lennie rushes out of the barn by and by cleanup spot Curleys wife he goes straight outside into the gross light of day, onto the field in a hugely open frame, coarse shot. This contrast shows us that he is free when he leaves the barn. He then runs of towards the horizon and the camera tracks and follows him.In this section it will become clear that the sound effects in the film add a view to the viewing pleasure and that they make the film what it is. Without sound the struggle and the conferences would make no sense to those observance. It is primal to remember that all the sound used in this section of the film is digetic- this means the characters harken everything that the earshot hears and no extra added sound such as music is added.The fist character we hear speak directly is Lennie. Lennie is a very unintelligent person and the audience has been made to understand this through the repetition of words such as, tend no rabbits. This is also grammatically incorrect which show his clear lack of intelligence. The noises Lennie makes are very childish and the assumption is that the audience will realize with Lennie, regular though he has just killed a puppy. The digetic sound we hear is an excellent guide to the emotions that the director complimentss us to hear. A very important point about the sound effects are that there is no non-digetic sound at all from either inside or outside of the barn. The director has made sure that in this section of his film we hear only what the characters can hear. This makes the atmosphere tense and evoke and really involves the viewer. It is also important to remember that throughout the whole cartridge holder there is no specifically recognisable dialogue from outside of the barn.This is important because as we see a lot of the action outside and hear the cheers and clanging of metal we never hear voices. This shows that the main focus to the scene is inside the great barn and not outside on the field. Having no soundtrack to the clip makes the scenes feel more realistic that it also helps to condition up the tension to pull in a particular mood. A advertize interesting point which has been specially chosen by the director is that when the puppys neck and Curleys wifes neck are broken we hear exactly the same sound. This doesnt add much to the film but we feel upset that Curleys wife has died afterward the puppy has so tragically died as wellspring.The lighting used in the film creates a particular effect rather like the sound does it helps us understand the setting, characters and the mood that the film is meant to have.The most obvious point to make about the lighting effects in the film is that when Lennie is inside the great barn we see what is meant to be natural light access through the cracks in the wooden walls. Unfortunately the light doesnt lo ok natural but by coming through the individual cracks it helps to create a brilliant design of a prison cell, in which Lennie is pin down and cant escape. When Curleys wife enters the barn she is backlit. This makes her white dress look almost unnaturally perfect. By existence backlit the viewer understands the pureness of this character.During the struggle there is not much light other than the prison bar effect but as soon as Curleys wife dies the barn is filled with bright light this is visible when the bird flies off up to the roof.When Lennie leaves the barn after killing Curleys wife it becomes very dark until he opens the door and the bright light shines on him as he leaves. This painfully bright light makes us realise how dark it was inside the barn. This is a very effective technique that the director has used very well in the film.The editing in a film is a very important factor. With a good edit to a scene it looks almost lifelike as if you were there. By showing certain characters in a certain way and by introducing them to us in a friendly or unfriendly way we get to know the character better.George is the first character to be shown in this scene. We know that he is important as he looks very relaxed but also because the camera pans following him ignoring the other characters. By following George and watching him we are sub-consciously wasted to like him. As he is smiling when we are first introduced to him a nice pleasant image of George is pictured in our minds.The first time the camera focuses on Lennie it moves to a close up, this makes up sympathise with him. He has killed the dog and is very upset about this. The emotions of Lennie make the shot very upsetting but peaceful. The audience is upsetly drawn in to feel sorry for Lennie and not anger at his killing of the puppy. This has been used by the director, almost what the author of the novel would have wanted.During the conversation mingled with Lennie and Curleys wife the came ra shots start of as mid-shots but eventually work up towards being close-ups. Whilst the close-up shots are taking move into the length of each shot decreases this shows the mounting tension caused by the two characters. Having quicker shots forces the audience to think something bad is going to happen even without a soundtrack playing.After Lennie kills Curleys wife he heads out of the barn and out into the countryside. As Lennie is considered to be a loner he has been deliberately separated from the rest of the group of men by a wall at the edge of the horseshoe field. This deliberate separation is effective in creating the image of a desperate man in our minds.The final section of analysis is on the characterisation in the film. Gary Sinese who directed the film (and also played the part of George) has carefully chosen the mess who would suit each of the roles properly. He has decided what costumes the actors will wear and also what the characters will look and sound like.Le nnie is wearing several layers of clothing, which are dark, dull, depressing colours. The blue crown Lennie wears is an example of this darkness. Lennie also has very dirty teeth and is bald. The director whitethorn have chosen Lennie to look like this for a modestness. Do people perceive people with learning difficulties as dirty and bald? If this is the reason wherefore Sinese has chosen the characters to look this way he has done a good job in translating the novel to the film. Lennie is also very repetitious in his choice of language which makes him sound very uninteresting and unintelligent. He is very basic in his use of words which can prove this.Sherilyn Fenn, who plays the part of Curleys wife does a very good job of portraying the character. She wears a white dress and even has white home on. This is a big indication that she is meant to be an angelic, sweet character. We sympathise with her for this reason. She is a very fragile person and she often fiddles with her clothes as though she is uncomfortable. There is an intentional contrast between her and Lennie. She is very different in the film, from the book.There are many differences between John Steinbecks novel and Gary Sineses film. Although they share the same title have the same characters the same setting the same storyline and share many points of accuracies the differences can slow be spotted. The most important difference is a very deliberate one the depiction of Curleys wife in the novel is one of a very greedy, selfish, self conscious person who acts more like a spoilt child in the film however Curleys wife is a very angelic, innocent, pure woman who looks as though she is frail and this would make the audience sympathise with her. The reason, I believe why Sinese opted for this style of Curleys wife is that the whole reason the film was being made was to make money. If the main female character in the film was shown to be very negative then very few females would want to see the film, this would make the film earn less at the box seat Office.For a similar reason to the one stated above the section where Curleys wife confides in Lennie about her dislike of Curley and her hopes for what she could have gained, had she been in the pictures. By being such a self centred character it shows a very negative image.The portrail of the characters in the book shows that Sinese thought very carefully about the actors he wanted to use. The people he used are almost what you could have pictured in the book apart from the obvious differences with Curleys wife. The director has made good choices, especially with Lennie as John Malkovich plays the dyslexic killer very well. The facial expressions that he uses match those dead of what you would (unfortunately) associate with the less mentally abled.Having deconstructed the film in the pages above I will now try to consider the answers to the questions in the title. I will consider the mood the film creates, the way it sho ws the characters and the general differences between the novel and film section.I think that the film version of Of Mice and Men is a very cleverly worked out representation of the film. The film may not be entirely accurate but it is a very well worked slicing of creative filming. The character of Lennie has been very well translated and shows a very good understanding of the principles of his character. Gary Sinese and John Malkovich have worked well to create the mentally disabled character and to make him look real. When the viewers watch this piece they could feel that they are in the film with Lennie as the portrayal of him is so accurate.I think that in the film, having the constant changing of scene between the inside of the barn and the outside field makes the viewer see what the gentlemans gentleman outside of Lennie is really like. In the novel we only ever see Lennie inside of the barn and get some description of the outside. By allow us see the outside it makes us f eel that we understand the film more and understand the segregation of Lennie from the group of men. This idea to let us see what the real world is really like is a very good addition and it works very effectively.The section of the film where Lennie kills Curleys wife is as well as short it makes it look like breaking soulfulness neck is easy. In fact the film shows Curleys wife call just seconds before her neck is broken, it would take longer than this, especially with the way Lennie is holding her. It could have taken up to half a minute. For this reason I dont think that this part of the novel has been well changed into a film. If the struggle had gone on for longer it would have been more realistic which although this is based on a novel it still is real life. This section has not worked as well as it could and most in all probability should have and therefore I feel that it is not as effective as the other scenesThe changes that have been made from the text to the film were on the whole necessary to make the film any kind of success. The end make over of the character of Curleys wife is a very important clue that Sinese wanted to make the film suitable to two sexes. Some changes like the absence of Lennie throwing the dead body of the puppy across the room were, in my opinion for the worse. The throwing of the dead dogs body across the room showed us Lennies viscous power which he did have. By leaving it out it is more of a surprise when we find he kills Curleys wife on the screen than it would have been if we had visually seen his anger previously.If I was to direct a remake of this film there would be several things I would change. Firstly I would make Curleys wife appear as accurately as I could and make her a perfect representation of the character in the book. If this stopped some female viewers from watching I wouldnt be too disappointed as the film would not really make much money at the Box Office anyway. By making Curleys wife a real po rtrayal of the book it would have made the story more interesting and would have made the relationship between her and Lennie clearer. I think that this would have been a good addition.Also if I was to change another thing it would be the costume that Lennie wears. If we are meant to sympathise with Lennie it seems a lot harder to do with someone wearing dark, dirty clothes. I have agreed that this shows his character but in essence the director is trying to put across to different types on Lennie and he fails at last I will answer the title questions There were three main questions to discuss and answer and my summary is below. I think Gary Sinese did an average job of translation Steinbecks novel into the film. He left out whole sections and only changed some of the characters but still managed to capture the atmosphere of the novel and in particular managed to understand the character Lennie very well. I found the electrical switch of the view of inside and outside of the barn v ery effective as well as other things such as the bird playacting as Curleys wifes soul flying off up into the roof. I would have changed the character of Curleys wife and the look of Lennies clothes as his appearance is very shabby.