Skip to main content

Nothing is ever hidden from the Thought Police.

1984
(1956)

(SPOILERS) Michael Anderson’s 1984 was released in the same year as his big shot at Oscar glory, Around the World in 80 Days (it won Best Picture, but Anderson, never exactly an auteur, missed out). It’s a close-run thing as to which adaptation is more lightweight. Anderson’s dystopian vision, “freely adapted from the novel by George Orwell” by William Templeton (he also wrote the Studio One teleplay three years earlier) and Ralph Gilbert Bettison, tends to the dreary rather than the terrifying, and its impact is further diminished by a couple of sore thumb leads.

Narration: This is a story of the future – not the future of spaceships and men from other planets – but the immediate future.

Well, Jan Sterling is “okay” as Julia but much too striking to bear any resemblance to her novel counterpart. Edmond O’Brien is particularly unsuitable as Winston Smith, though. Dorian Lynskey comment of the “two badly miscast (and inexplicably American) leads” and in O’ Brien’s case, more than half a decade on from D.O.A., this extremely well-nourished Outer Party member isn’t really sending the right signals about this oppressive society. In appearance, he’s more an American Tony Hancock than the borderline-malnourished figure conjured by John Hurt.

While the picture admits to its free adaptation, the issues are more those of tone than specific content. There’s a constantly-observing eye (that Smith frequently converses with when asked what he’s up to), quite memorably visualised as an alien kind of apparatus, but Anderson’s regime lacks the necessary intimidating air, claustrophobia and tension. That said, when it comes to sending the now captured Smith to the Ministry of Love, the sequence is reasonably well conveyed, with the 2+2=5 logic retained and thought having gone into the depiction of his processing (Smith is shown on a large screen, Michael Redgrave’s O’Connor in the foreground, with the choice to have the latter uncomfortable, sweaty, popping pills). True, there’s no sign of emaciation in Smith, and he still has his hair, teeth and quantitative girth – when he can’t recognise himself in a mirror it appears to be more because of a show of stubble than the deleterious effects of torture – but on the other hand, there is something effective about the Hollywood guy being left bereft.

Lynskey reports how Anderson shot two different endings, and that “British viewers were surprised to see Winston and Julia defiantly crying ‘Down with Big Brother!’ before being gunned down”. It was a mark of its “uncommon bleakness” that this was seen as a happy ending; the version I saw on YouTube was the American one, which retains the gist of Orwell, his reunion with Julia coming to nothing as he is distracted by the news screen and joins in the rallying cries of “Long live Big Brother!

More damaging is the trad-romance between Smith and Julia (“We can even touch each other if we want to”) as they indulge in Post-coital (but fully clothed) countryside cigarettes. Generally, it’s just interesting to see what has been preserved and omitted. There’s little clarification of proles/people, which is probably for the best. Winston still finds poetry in the washerwoman, but now it comes with Julia announcing “I’d like to have a child”. Which may go some way to explain the truncated conversation with O’Connor (changed from O’Brien because of the leading man) concerning what they would be willing to do. There’s no mention of throwing acid in a child’s face. And in a sign of the lack of nuance, the toast is simply “Down with Big Brother” (rather than “To the past”). There’s also specificity rather than murk in the history: in 1965, three police states rose to divide the world (and the picture opens with the recognisable signifier of a gloomy future that is the atom bomb).

Big Brother: Party members will always identify badges when going in public places.

Generally, I think Redgrave, as composed as he is, lacks the necessary steel once O’Brien shows his true colours (he also has a much too luxuriant gaffe; generally, there are signs of futurism here, such as pine cone buildings, that are absent from the novel). There’s clearly intention to make him less resolved than his counterpart on the page (the aforementioned interrogation), but the result adds to the feeling that all of this is rather tepid.

For every nicely translated element (“I revise history” states Smith unsubtly; he is informed that “rectify” is a more suitable term) there’s another that blunders (“It’s the thing I really hate! The one thing I’m really afraid of!” he screams of a rat, telegraphing his future Room 101 encounter). Donald Pleasance returns to 1984, but this time as Parsons (shopped by his daughter). Although, he’s something of an amalgam, since Syme is entirely absent. An uncredited Pat Troughton appears briefly on a giant TV screen.

Narration: It could be the story of our children, if we fail to preserve the heritage of our freedom. This then is a story of the future.

Lynskey refers to the advice given for the making of the movie by Sol Stein of the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, that “this presents a situation without hope when, in actuality, there is some hope… that human nature cannot be changed by totalitarianism and that both love and nature can survive even the horrendous encroachments of Big Brother”.

In actuality, Big Brother may simply have found less overt methods to placate its subjects with a view to horrendous encroachments on liberty of thought and deed. Certainly, the “portentous voiceover” Lynskey mocked a few years ago in The Ministry of Truth currently seems entirely reasonable. 1984 didn’t do very well (Sonia Orwell disowned it, or at least the British version, but what did she really expect?) and probably isn’t on most people’s radar as adaptations of the novel go. It isn’t a disaster, but too it frequently tends to the compromised and enfeebled. A good adaptation should at least unsettle the viewer. This one resolutely fails to do that.




Popular posts from this blog

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

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.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

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

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was