Page 1 of 1

1939's Of Mice and Men

Posted: April 20th, 2007, 4:30 pm
by ken123
Contains Lon Chaney Jr's finest screen performance. Burgess Meredith, Charles Bickford, Bob Steele,Roman Bohnen, and Leigh Whipper in top form, Betty Field was so - so.One of Lewis Mileston'e best dirctorial efforts, from a Steinbeck novel, an unforgettable Aaron Copland score. :wink:

Posted: April 21st, 2007, 5:48 pm
by jdb1
Abolutely agree, Ken.

There was talk in the Old City about the more recent version with Sinise and Malkovich. Sorry, I don't think there's any comparison, but that may be colored by the fact that I think Malkovich is an abomination masquerading as an "actor."

The performances in the earlier version are sublime. Chaney is heartbreaking -- it's the performance of a lifetime, and Meredith is wonderful as the guy trying to stick by his one and only, but very burdensome friend. The gritty, populist style of the film fits the story perfectly. This story doesn't really do it for me in anything but black and white.

Posted: April 24th, 2007, 2:33 pm
by mongoII
If ever there was a performance that deserved an Oscar nomination it was Long Chaney Jr. as Lenny. A terrible oversight by the Academy.
So what else is new?

Posted: April 24th, 2007, 4:08 pm
by jdb1
OMAM was shown last Saturday night on the CUNY cable station (that's the City University of New York). I caught only the first 15 minutes or so, but I was amazed at the good condition of the print (most movies shown on CUNY-TV are in deplorable condition). The principals grabbed you and drew you in right from their very first lines. Chaney is wonderful, but Meredith is quite charismatic as well. Any of the younger generation who know him only as the Penguin on Batman re-runs would be quite impressed with him, I think.

Posted: April 24th, 2007, 8:26 pm
by vallo
I agree MongoII. Between this film and 1940's "The Wolf-Man" He really lived up to the Chaney legacy.
No matter how many times they remake "Of Mice and Men". The original is still the best.

Re:

Posted: July 4th, 2010, 9:48 pm
by ken123
jdb1 wrote:Abolutely agree, Ken.

There was talk in the Old City about the more recent version with Sinise and Malkovich. Sorry, I don't think there's any comparison, but that may be colored by the fact that I think Malkovich is an abomination masquerading as an "actor."

The performances in the earlier version are sublime. Chaney is heartbreaking -- it's the performance of a lifetime, and Meredith is wonderful as the guy trying to stick by his one and only, but very burdensome friend. The gritty, populist style of the film fits the story perfectly. This story doesn't really do it for me in anything but black and white.
Judith,
Please don't hold back your opinions. I especially like your comments concerning Mr. Malkovich. :D

Re: 1939's Of Mice and Men

Posted: July 4th, 2010, 10:03 pm
by JackFavell
I quite agree with jdb about the new version. I had a very hard time with it and I still don't understand why they felt the need to change things in it, even if it was ever so slightly.

Of course, my feelings are colored by the fact that I co-directed the play - we opened about two weeks before the new film came out. To me, it was shocking, the liberties they took with the almost perfect original script. Such is Hollywood today. Fix it till it's awful.

Re: 1939's Of Mice and Men

Posted: July 4th, 2010, 10:19 pm
by ken123
JackFavell wrote:I quite agree with jdb about the new version. I had a very hard time with it and I still don't understand why they felt the need to change things in it, even if it was ever so slightly.

Of course, my feelings are colored by the fact that I co-directed the play - we opened about two weeks before the new film came out. To me, it was shocking, the liberties they took with the almost perfect original script. Such is Hollywood today. Fix it till it's awful.
Jack Favell you bad girl. By that I mean that you hit the nail on the head. 8)

Re: 1939's Of Mice and Men

Posted: July 30th, 2011, 3:39 pm
by RedRiver
Love this movie. Love this book. Chaney is not my favorite actor. But he's so good in this it's remarkable. (In fact, I seem to be remarking on it!) Everybody is good in it. At least good enough to serve the story and not be a distraction.

I recently watched the movie after not seeing it for many years. Ok. Maybe, MAYBE there's an awkward air about it. As if the director didn't always get exactly what he was going for. Some moments are overstated. But with a story like this, you can't wrong. An able team need only respect the material and make an honest effort. This company did just that and it paid handsomely.

I kind of wanted Meredith to say, "Try and stop me, Batman! WAH! WAH! WAH!" But you can't have everything.

Re: 1939's Of Mice and Men

Posted: July 31st, 2011, 1:18 am
by Gary J.
ken123 wrote:Contains Lon Chaney Jr's finest screen performance.
I always assumed that his finest performance was considered to be in MY FAVORITE BRUNETTE (47), where he plays a simple-minded half-wit who doesn't know his own strength and keeps crushing Bob Hope....

Re: 1939's Of Mice and Men

Posted: July 31st, 2011, 2:14 pm
by charliechaplinfan
I saw the more recent film of Of Mice and Men after reading the book many years ago, I cried my heart out, it's so sad. I did find the Sinise version more heartrending than the book, I felt perhaps it pushed too hard for the tears. Great book, not sure I could stand another screen version but I'm kind of curious after what has been said here.