The little glimpses of the deeper workings of this reality can somewhat be seen when Winston writes in his secret notebook, or discusses Ingsoc’s social structure with colleagues. A few examples of this are the class divisions, position stigmatizations, and how the Telescreens function. However, the systems of this world, many aspects of which were important to how Ingsoc keeps its subjects in line, are quickly mentioned once and never incorporated into the film again, almost as if the film forgot to. With a runtime under two hours, it is understandable that some corners needed to be cut for the sake of pacing and compactness. While the first sequences are good for establishing the world and tone, the remaining time before the halfway mark draws little from the details and world-building the original novel was known for. This boring piece of the film, the majority of the runtime, is found in the film’s literal first half.
1984 john hurt full movie movie#
One embraces much more of Orwell’s dark concepts, and the other feels like a generic dystopia movie people have seen a million times before. The defining halves of this film vary greatly in quality.
As a result, his constant search for his true identity outside the walls of the oppressive regime leads him on a collision course with the members of Ingsoc, and their goal to rewrite the very nature of their subjects’ personalities to remain in power. Eventually, he secretly develops an intimate relationship with a woman named Julia (Suzanna Hamilton). Despite the looming presence of the Thought Police, a group that apprehends people who commit “thoughtcrime,” Winston still has desires for a world better than the one he is trapped in. Around every single corner, in every room, on every desk, sits or hangs an Ingsoc Telescreen, which constantly projects pro-Ingsoc propaganda and manufactured updates on Oceania’s war against its supposed enemy, Eurasia. Winston goes about his day-to-day life, with the job of rewriting history from old newspapers, while secretly keeping his critical thoughts about Ingsoc and “Big Brother” to himself in a hidden journal. The film follows Winston Smith (John Hurt), who lives under a totalitarian political party named Ingsoc, which rules over the fictional superstate of Oceania. As a result, the film’s adaptation of the award-winning cautionary tale presents, from a qualitative perspective, only half of the book’s sharp writings, while the rest feels generally underwhelming. However, after having viewed the film, I did not see a world that served as a dark warning about a party’s control over the populace, but rather a world populated by whittled-down concepts and missed opportunities. As someone who has not yet read the novel, I hoped my fresh eyes could see positive and redeeming qualities that many past viewers had overlooked. Even upon its release, the film’s depiction of the book’s dystopian reality drew criticism for not diving enough into the original’s thought-provoking messages. This is where the film adaptation, 1984 (Michael Radford, 1984), returns to the spotlight. Given the age in which we live, its prominence in current culture has grown larger, with many of the social and political woes of today often compared to the work by Orwell. Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel (George Orwell, 1949) has remained in the public consciousness for decades. 1984 (Umbrella-Rosenblum Films Production/The Criterion Collection, 1984).
0 kommentar(er)
