What Do U Think Of The 1992 Version
Fans of the 1939 move, what did u think of the 1992 version?
'Keep Your Friends Close, But Your Enemies Closer'
I've never seen it and don't plan on seeing it. The original is on my top 10 list. The acting of Meredith and Chaney, superb. I can't help but think that I would be disappointed by the remake. You may think I'm crawling into a cave to avoid this remake. So be it. I'll stick with the original.
shareJust so you know, I've seen both versionsand as per usual, the original is better, but not by a long shot. The really fantastic stand out in the 1992 version was John alkovich playing Lennie. That was awesome.
shareAfter viewing the 1939 version many times, the 92 version seems to me as if they were just going through the motions. Chaney's Lenny was far superior. He portrayed Lenny as a simple minded Giant, instead of over acting like Malk and appearing to be Retarded. Crooks 1992 sucked and curly as well. Why remake unless you are going to blow the original away. They just copied the original, and did a half azz job of it IMO.
I have seen many times the original '39 version (having taped it) and did see the '92 version with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich..No comparisons..
You want to stick with the original '39 version.. The entire cast was outstanding..especially, Lon Chaney Jr's interpretation of Lennie.
No one can even go near his superb performance.
"He portrayed Lenny as a simple minded Giant, instead of over acting like Malk and appearing to be Retarded"
Lennie WAS retarded, and autistic.
Lenny wasn't retarded and/or autistic. The book, the play, and the film all make quite clear that he was kicked in the head by a horse as a child. Neither mental retardation nor autism had anything to do with it.
shareI hate to break it to you, but receiving a head injury that alters one's mental capacity (limiting one's IQ to 70 or below) before the age of 18 puts one into the category of mental retardation.
shareMy point was that his incapacity was not developmental but as a result of injury. There are clear distinctions between the two insofar as understanding the morbidity of the patient.
sharePlease explain what you mean.
shareIf you want to fully understand a patient with cognitive or other mental incapacity, it is most helpful to know whether the condition stems from a problem with the brain's development (Down's syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, fragile X syndrome, natal oxygen deprivation, exposure to measles, whooping cough, meningitis, or lead, iodine deficiency, or absence of the arcuate fasciculus; these factors are commonly referred to as causes of mental retardation or developmental disability), or as a result of physical injury (injury, by the way, is *not* commonly included among the causes of developmental disability or mental retardation, at least not in medical circles). In the case of Lenny, the text tells us he was kicked by a horse. It would be helpful in understanding such a patient and effectively prescribing treatment for him to know the difference between developmental disability and physical injury and which one was at play in the case of this specific patient. To lump it all together under the (inaccurate) category of "mental retardation" would be to ignore factors that might aid in treatment.
Of course, Lenny wasn't in a position to seek or obtain treatment, so *in the aftermath* it's acceptable, I suppose, to lump his injured brain in with developmentally stunted brains and call it all mental retardation. But to the clinician, this is faulty reasoning and bad medicine.
Jim, I understand that it is helpful to know the cause of the developmental disability when working with someone in the clinical aspect. You sound very knowledgable in this area, and perhaps you're even in the medical field. So, I may be speaking from my perspective as someone who has worked in the pre-vocational and group living setting with developmentally disabled individuals to someone who has worked with these individuals in a medical setting. And that may contribute to our diffferent statements. To that end, in my field of work, the description of a person receiving an injury (or even experiencing an illness) before the age of 18 that causes the intelligence quotient to be lower than 70, paired with the individual displaying deficits in at least two of a host of adaptive functioning abilities, qualifies them as being in the category of mental retardation. Using DSM criteria for MR diagnosis, there is no difference in how the deficit occurred, but rather when.
Also, it should be noted that my original comment was made with the assumption that I was speaking to a member of the general public who doesn't fully understand mental retardation. So often when people hear the term mentally retarded, they automatically think Down Syndrome and/or profound mental retardation. Many people don't realize that there are different levels and causes of mental disability. I was trying to do my part to enlighten the world! :)
I don't expect a response considering the length of time since this post, but on what do you base the premise that he was autistic?
share[deleted]
I actually think both versions are terrific, but for me the 1939 version can't be topped. Chaney IS Lennie, and the fact that he wasn't nominated for an Oscar, even in as competitive a year as 1939, will never make sense to me. It's one of the best performances I've ever seen.
shareIMO, the 1939 films is far superior in every way. I agree 100% with cynical_lefty, Chaney is Lennie! And as a big fan of both Gary Sinise and John Malkovich, I found their portrayals to be off. Malkovich is not believable to me, he looks like he's doing a bad mental retarded person. And Sinise just doesn't wax poetic the way Burgess Meredith does when he tells Lennie, "How it's gonna be." Give me the 1939 film any day, it's a classic!
shareI prefer the 1939 version but to me the remake's depiction of the fight between Lenny & Curly was more effective. Other than that I agree with the other poster...give me the 1939 film any day!
share