For example, in the beginning of the book George and Lennie are walking not worrying about the people from the town. The movie shows them running away from town trying to escape from the farmers. I also notice that the director added somethings to the story. What I found surprising was the alteration of some scenes, like the one when Curley's Wife imposed herself on George in the barnyard. This wasn't in the novel and doesn't build on the development of the characters I believe. Curley’s wife is presented by the author as a provocative woman. Every time she is trying to flirt with whoever is around. The book makes her seen as a woman that goes around causing trouble for others. Vincent Canby an important movie critic for the New York times mentioned something that supports my statement towards Curley’s wife. He says “The character of Curley's wife has been toned down into a lonely cipher. She's no longer the heavily made-up plot function she is in the book. She's sort of sweet and none too bright, which is politically correct”. Changing an important character like this one is not good for the story. By changing the attitude of this character your opinion towards her character changes radically. Instead of feeling sad for a woman that in the book feels lonely now, you feel kind of angry at her for been so provocative with Lennie an innocent guy. The change of Curley’s wife character is not justifiable. I don’t see the reason for the scene to have been created for the film. The movie did a great job when Candy’s dog is killed. I pictured the scene differently in the book than the movie. The director did an awesome job in this scene. Desson Howe an important critic for the Washington post said, “the best scene of the movie, a ranch worker demands that old-timer Candy (Ray Walston) kill his smelly, aging dog”. I agree with his thought about this
For example, in the beginning of the book George and Lennie are walking not worrying about the people from the town. The movie shows them running away from town trying to escape from the farmers. I also notice that the director added somethings to the story. What I found surprising was the alteration of some scenes, like the one when Curley's Wife imposed herself on George in the barnyard. This wasn't in the novel and doesn't build on the development of the characters I believe. Curley’s wife is presented by the author as a provocative woman. Every time she is trying to flirt with whoever is around. The book makes her seen as a woman that goes around causing trouble for others. Vincent Canby an important movie critic for the New York times mentioned something that supports my statement towards Curley’s wife. He says “The character of Curley's wife has been toned down into a lonely cipher. She's no longer the heavily made-up plot function she is in the book. She's sort of sweet and none too bright, which is politically correct”. Changing an important character like this one is not good for the story. By changing the attitude of this character your opinion towards her character changes radically. Instead of feeling sad for a woman that in the book feels lonely now, you feel kind of angry at her for been so provocative with Lennie an innocent guy. The change of Curley’s wife character is not justifiable. I don’t see the reason for the scene to have been created for the film. The movie did a great job when Candy’s dog is killed. I pictured the scene differently in the book than the movie. The director did an awesome job in this scene. Desson Howe an important critic for the Washington post said, “the best scene of the movie, a ranch worker demands that old-timer Candy (Ray Walston) kill his smelly, aging dog”. I agree with his thought about this