I was actually watching the movie adaptation with Sinise and Malkovich. Unfortunately, I missed the part from the time that Malkovich killed the woman until the very end when Sinise shot him. I know, bad part to miss. Anyway, what was Sinise’s motivation to shoot Malkovich? Was he going to get killed by “the mob” anyway? Was Sinise’s character sick of dealing with him? I figured that the killing of the old man’s dog might figure as a parallel motivation but that would sort of entail Malkovich’s character suffering. Something I didn’t think very likely. So what was the deal?
Sinese killed Malkovich to save him from the brutality that he would have suffered at the hands of the mob, but I have always harbored this suspicion that Sinese’s character was getting really tired of having the same thing happen over and over.
To wit:
Sinese’s character thinking: “Christ, every f—ing time we get a halfway decent job, the big retard has to go off and f—ing “pet” something to death. It always starts out with something small like an f—ing bunny, then there’s always some floozy hanging around the barn and the retard ends up strangling here and next thing you know, we’re hopping the next train out of town an inch ahead of the mob. I’m f—ing sick of it!!!”
George (Sinise) didn’t want Lenny (Malkovich) to suffer at the hands of the mob. In the novel, there was no motive at all that George was “sick of” Lenny. The whole “We ain’t got nobody but each other, Lenny. Nobody else gives a damn,” dialogue pointed to that. In the movie, it’s harder to figure that, since there’s less obvious dialogue to prove the point. Also, the actual point where he shoots him is much more serene (from Lenny’s viewpoint) in the book than in the movie. The movie is jerky and abrupt. So in the novel, there’s no motive other than to protect Lenny from pain and suffering.
The killing of the dog was basically forshadowing the killing of Lenny. In the novel, Curley said he was going to “shoot that big (blank) in the guts!” That would most definitely be a slower and more painful death. Had they run away, they’d constantly be on the run from Curley and there’s also the possibility that George would have killed another person unintentionally.
“but that would sort of entail Malkovich’s character suffering”…uhhm no… how much humaness are you putting into the dog?
anyways, another question not answered? How devious is Sinese’s character? Did he kill only to later cover his own but? as in, yeah I found him, and done him what was comin to him! I am a hero and all that complex… or maybe did he say or think…“You angry Bastards! look what you made me do…he was my best friend!”
piratz: In the book at least, Lenny is very sorrowful that he has to kill George, and he gains little comfort from the other guy’s (forget his name) reassurances that he had to do it, he had no choice.
I think Of Mice and Men is kind of a predecessor of a range of oddball movies where the protagonist is extremely powerful and also extremely simple or childlike, and where it’s decided in the end that he must leave society for his own protection, and for society’s: E.T., Harry (the bigfoot movie), and (ugh) Powder are a few that come to mind, and I could swear that there are many more movies that follow that general plot line.
BTW, my favorite adaptation of Of Mice and Men was a 1981 TV movie starring Randy Quaid as Lenny. Lenny’s best friend George, who ends up shooting him in the head, is played by . . . Robert Blake.
What I never understood-perhaps the problem could have been solved, had George simply bought Lenny some stuffed animals?
I mean, d’uh!
Oddly enough, Lenny was reincarnated in the Himalayas. Didn’t seem to learn the error of his ways, though.
I take that back, listen to this one instead.
I swear, Warner Brothers ruined this book for me.