1984

14-02-2005 4:11pm #1

I watched this film last night after just re-reading the book. I remember watching it when I was around 12 and it disturbed me, but after re-reading the book and watching the film so soon together, I am of the opinion that the film doesn't do the book justice whatsoever.
When reading the book, you get a sense of isolation amid community (albeit an unimaginable community to us) The feeling you get about the spy children when reading, tbh doesn't render itself in the film at all.
The acting in the film is still great (weird watching Rab C.Nesbitt though

)

What is your opinion on the film vs. book? I don't want to start a debate on the entire book vs. film thing, just 1984. Would Orwell have been proud? Is 1984 happening as we speak, with the dumbing down of language etc? The world constantly at war with one nation then against another, that were allies?

The floor is open Gentlemen/Ladies...

Pigman II · 15-02-2005 2:17pm

It could never live up to the book but that said Richard Burtons performance as O'Brien is spellbinding.

Captain Trips · 15-02-2005 6:27pm

Papa Smut wrote:

Is 1984 happening as we speak, with the dumbing down of language etc? The world constantly at war with one nation then against another, that were allies?

The most hilarious part is Rumsfeld's recent analogy: comparing Al Queda to the Orwellian totalitatian vision

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7609705

Rumsfeld Stresses Need for Allies in War on Terror
Sat Feb 12, 2005 08:11 AM ET

MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Saturday that one nation alone could not defeat radical Islamists and their "totalitarian" aims.

In a speech in Germany, which strongly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld went out of his way to stress the value of the NATO alliance and the efforts of many countries working alongside the United States in the war on terror.

"Radical Islamists do not seek an armistice with the civilized world. They will not negotiate a separate peace. Rather they seek to impose the totalitarian rule George Orwell described as 'a boot stomping on a human face -- forever'," Rumsfeld said.

"By now it must be clear that one nation cannot defeat the extremists alone. Neither can any one nation successfully combat the asymmetric threats of this new era."

He said military and intelligence cooperation had led to the killing or capture of some three-quarters of known al Qaeda leaders.

But he added: "It will take many nations to help Afghans and Iraqis succeed in bringing democracy to places where tyrants once ruled and terrorists once trained."

Rumsfeld was speaking at the Munich Security Conference, the same forum where he memorably clashed two years ago with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer over Iraq.

Rumsfeld, who upset France and Germany in the run-up to the Iraq war by questioning the relevance of "old Europe," raised laughter when he referred to his past as "old Rumsfeld."

Recalling a series of crises within NATO from the 1960s onwards, he said the differences over Iraq were nothing new.

"Our Atlantic Alliance relationship has navigated through some choppy seas over the years. But we have always been able to resolve the toughest issues," he said.

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

This is pure comedy - who said that Americans don't have a sense of irony. After all, Rumsfeld was debating only the week before whether to even go to Germany due the possibility of him being arrested for war crimes in Iraq http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7533075[/quote]
.

The irony continues (they must be rolling around in tears of laughter at this one): Gonzales is being sworn in as Attorney General as Bush says "We must not allow the passage of time or the illusion of safety to weaken our resolve in this new war" on terrorism, Bush told about 300 Justice Department officials attending the ceremony.. Here's an article on the Patriot Act http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/justice_blasted.html

Illusions of safety? THat just cracks me up.

In summary:
1.Create a world of Orwellian ultra-surveillance and propose needs of biometric scanning
- then say it's Bin Laden who is the Orwellian nightmare. It's important to invoke the very images you can be compared to and use them in reverse.
2. Create an illusion of safety by those same methods in 1 and
- say it's not good enough so people need to listen to you even more
3. Waste time fighting in Iraq and allow the assosicates of Bin BoogeyLaden to leave the US unhindered after 9/11 and
i blame lack of resources - NB distract everyone by "holding an election" (works in the western countries, e.g., UK this summer, US a few months ago)

The only reason the world is currently the way it is, is because of television. Still though, the Americans beat the British in irony with Rumsfeld and that Orwell comment hands down. I am waiting for Tony Blair to accuse the Canadians of being too arrogant and eurocentric and the Australians for beign too conservative.

bombidol · 15-02-2005 8:40pm

watch equilbrium instead

Lex_Diamonds · 16-02-2005 1:25pm

The book and film were identical as far as I could make out. Scene for scene that is, not sure about the dialog.

16-02-2005 1:29pm

They were, sort of, but I felt that it was lacking in the mood. The air of paranoia seemed to be completely lost in the film.

Drag00n79 · 16-02-2005 1:44pm

I love the movie. I know it's very bleak and that but it's one of my all-time favourites despite most people not liking it. When looking for the DVD a few years back, I had to get it R1 as it didn't have a R2 release at the time.

mycroft · 16-02-2005 1:52pm

Papa Smut wrote:

They were, sort of, but I felt that it was lacking in the mood. The air of paranoia seemed to be completely lost in the film.

Well one of the problems is the book is pretty much internal monologue, it's Smith talking to himself and his fears, not to mention the fact that a sizable chunk of the finale is Winston and the girl reading the manual.

That sort of novel is difficult to carry off, because since so much of the dialogue is internal you can either of an long drawn out voice over which always gets tedious, or try and evoke the mood and dramatised the internal voice as scenes actions and conversation.

I don't think the film is that successful, partially because I think it doesn't take any dramatical or narrative chances (for example the best bit in a similarly structure book to film adaption is Depp's monologue in the middle of fear and loathing in las vegas "in the right light and with the right kind of eyes you can climb those hills and see where the high watermark rose to" using flashback, dream sequences and voice over to dramatise what is essentially a speech on paper) so the plodding style is technically faithful to the book while at the same time failing to capture it's voice.

I think the film is a good companion to the book, but for example if I was teaching it to a group of leaving cert students I wouldn't show it to them as I don't think it adds anything to the book.

Made me want to watch Brazil again, though.

Manchegan · 19-02-2005 5:21am

Originally posted by mycroft
Made me want to watch Brazil again, though.

... a film, released at the same time as the adaptation, that was more in keeping with the spirit of the novel, although Gilliam claims not to have read it beforehand.

mycroft · 19-02-2005 6:12pm

1984 lacks the surreal touchs of Gilliam's Brazil (though it's original title was 1984 1/4, a tribute to fellini and Orwell) I have a copy of the first draft of brazil and it is a much more black comedy look at a future totaitarian state. Theres not many chuckles in 1984

1984

Comments