Skip to main content

Doubleplusgood, eh?

Nineteen Eighty-Four
(1984)

(SPOILERS) Basil Radford finally delivered the Orwell adaptation we all deserved. But was it, perhaps, just a little too reverential? It’s no coincidence that Terry Gilliam’s Brazil (1984 ½), released the following year, entirely eclipsed Nineteen Eighty-Four while dealing with many of the same themes (albeit taking its swipes more satirically by way of an attack on the suffocating bureaucratic state). Radford’s film deliberately delivers an Orwellian future as seen from the era of the novel’s release, give or take the odd helicopter, and is visually striking in its desaturated lack of glory (courtesy of ace DP Roger Deakins) as well as nigh-on perfect in its casting, but the take away is that it’s all a little dry and sterile.

There’s a solid argument to be made that this is in the nature of the cold, harsh, grim regimentation of the text itself, but I do wonder if Radford, who would go on to be both derided (for White Mischief) and praised (for Il Postino) might have been better cast as one of ad auteurs then making their mark on the era (perhaps even Ridders, who had so impacted with his Apple ad a year before). As it is, Nineteen Eighty-Four rather comes across as an ideal accompaniment to a school set text. It’s only real nod to its era of production are the ill-fitting and at odds with the director’s intent Eurythmics interludes on the soundtrack (their Sex Crime has not aged well, as ill-conceived as envisaging a tie-in single to, say, Platoon or The Pianist). David Bowie did meet with Radford and backer Virgin, apparently, but it seems his ideas weren’t considered commercial enough by Branson (or by another report, he wanted too much money).

Winston: (Reading from Goldstein’s book) The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous.

David Ehrenstein in The Film Yearbook Volume 4 felt the period flavour was essential to understanding Winston, to “cut through decades of social absorption and return to the work at its root”. He considered the use of real locations gave the adaptation the flavour of an alt-universe depiction of that year, while keen to draw attention to instances of hate speech and rewriting of national friends and foes that give it topicality at the time of its release. The periodicity may have been a consequence of the straightjacketing decreed upon any interpretation (according to Dorian Lynskey, this prohibited the “Star Wars or 2001: A Space Odyssey genre of science-fiction”). Hence, in Radford’s words “a parallel universe: a 1984 envisaged in 1948”.

Parsons: Thoughtcrime is so insidious. It just creeps up on you.

I’ll freely admit that reading the novel after the fact of this film, I instantly imagine Hurt as Winston. The picture scrupulously translates the page in terms of surroundings: the post-war dilapidation and decay, slag, ash and clinker, with a dose of Nazi propaganda reels and some neat logos (not a million miles from Doctor Who’s dystopian riff the following year, Vengeance on Varos). The inclusion of a voiceover allows a degree of retention of the novel’s interiority and access to Winston, although Hurt’s presence instantly adds a layer of poetic futility (on top of which, the actor could have been anywhere from forty to sixty, and looks every stage of that span at various points – and occasionally, at his worst and under most duress, like Ren Hoek).

Winston: Do you think the resistance is real?
Julia: No. None of it’s real.

There’s never any doubt that Smith will capitulate, or that O’Brien (Richard Burton, in his last role) will be unbending in his resolve to break him. And yet Burton simultaneously carries perfectly the character’s perverse air of kindness. He is marvellously subdued, measured, and immaculate in a tailored boiler suit from Savile Row. Suzanna Hamilton is similarly strong as Julia. Also notable are Cyril Cusack as Mr Charrington (unlike the novel, he is not a younger man playing old), Gregor Fisher as Parsons, Roger Lloyd Pack as a waiter and Hugh Walters as a lecturer (Bob Flagg is an imposing Big Brother, and definitely the most iconic).

O’Brien: You do not exist.

While Radford is studious in documenting Winston’s grubby mental breakdown, I can’t help feel he stints on the novel’s philosophical core. O’Brien rebukes Winston with “You do not exist” but the novel’s engrossing treatise on that, how “We control life at all levels” isn’t sufficiently relayed. True, we have seen Winston editing the past – this is an environment where this a constant, ongoing reset, where the facts of yesterday, such as who Oceania are at war with, will not be true today, and yet today’s truth always have been so – and Julia expressing her view that the hope Winston invests in is a fake. But the underpinnings, the explanation given by O’Brien that the Inner Party and Big Brother control reality because they control the mind (and by extension, the stars in the sky) is sadly absent. (It’s also curious that Winston doesn’t bring Julia to see O’Brien, and so the crucial exchange regarding what they would be willing to do in the name of resistance is absent; no acid in children’s faces here).

O’Brien: There are thoughtcriminals who maintain that the resistance is not real. Believe me, Winston. It is very real.

David Icke has it that Orwell, rather like Huxley, was privy to the plans of the elite, but that he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four as an exposé rather than a piece of predictive programming (in contrast to Fabian Society member Huxley). That may be the case. There are also various pieces out there arguing Orwell was a freemason and Nineteen Eighty-Four amounted to a text on the masonic plan (complete with a pyramidal organisation of society).

I did idly wonder if, given the oddity and illogic of an envisaged totalitarian regime that leaves eighty percent of the population free(-ish) to roam, if the Inner and Outer Parties might not also be reflections of secret societies or masonic hierarchy rather than just a literal warning (which does not necessarily place the Inner Party the top of the triangle). Hence Winston, a lower-tier individual, must pass through initiation (face death/his greatest fear and be reborn) as an Inner Party test. He fails, of course, and is left passive and obedient, uselessly indoctrinated. Like the proles, who are too stupid to ever rise up in revolt. Alternatively, Nineteen Eighty-Four as a piece of predictive programming would merely reflect the words of O’Brien, that everything placed before the individual has been allowed by the Inner Party (elite), and that opposition is either created, controlled, or doesn’t even exist at all.

There’s a degree of emphasis on Orwell’s invented language here, in contrast to earlier versions, but it’s rather as if it doesn’t stick, namechecked but lacking consistent application throughout. Radford makes effective use of Smith’s dreamscape, via the door opening onto verdant countryside (a similar motif would also be utilised for Sam Lowry’s flights of fantasy in Brazil).

One might argue, ironically considering its aesthetic harshness and close-quartered rats, that Radford allows for more hope here than in previous versions. He holds off on Winston completing his 2+2= (also unfinished in various published editions of the novel), suggesting a glimmer of hope for Winston’s mind – including the 5 would have been “too dark. It doesn’t speak to the human spirit anymore”. There’s also the ambiguity of Smith’s voice saying “I love you” that leads him to well up with tears; it might be interpreted as feeling for Big Brother, following the broadcast, but it could equally be his realisation of the loss of Julia.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.