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.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

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.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

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.

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.

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.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

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