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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.