The Movie, 1984, and Our Personal Responses
Write a short personal response to viewing Michael Radford's movie version of Orwell's novel. You might want to mention what struck you as most important (shocking, interesting, relevant etc.). How did it feel to experience Orwell's world in a filmed version? Was it as you imagined as you read?
Do you agree with Roger Ebert's statement: "What is remarkable about the movie is how completely it satisfied my feelings about the book; the movie looks, feels, and almost tastes and smells like Orwell's bleak and angry vision."
Use any of the above questions to direct your thoughts. You may, however, let us know your reaction in any form you choose. No need to write more than 150 words or so (paragraph or multi-paragraph)
Link to a Word copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four
13 comments:
One thing I noticed was thinking of sexism is relevant. Sexuality is tightly controlled in Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the first “Two Minutes Hate,” I was struck by the nearly ecstatic (or dare I say, orgasmic) looks on people’s faces when Big Brother appears. The scene where a lecturer provides information on the number of women sworn to celibacy and that the family would soon be replaced by “artsem” (artificial insemination) reminded me of recent attempts to encourage young people to remain celibate until marriage. The problem is, for some, celibate means not having intercourse. Other kinds of sex activity, as it was for President Bill Clinton, is apparently okay! Winston’s visceral hatred of Julia indicates his shame, something that the movie version brings to life. He fears “the scarlet sash of the Junior Anti-Sex League,” replacing his lust with a hatred for women. The scenes of tenderness between the two lovers invoke a deep pity in me and when Winston asks if there, “could never have been a time when [lying together] seemed ordinary,” as he traces the curve of Julia’s hip, I found it heartbreaking.
I was amazed that the actors’ performance, voices and appearance in the movie, 1984, revealed the main characters’ traits and brought to life their thoughts and feelings very skilfully. Suzanna Hamilton’s gestures and movements reflected Julia’s tenderness and light graceful step that I couldn’t catch reading the book. George Orwell wrote that the ideas of the Party were to create a nation of fanatics who march forward in perfect unity, think the same thoughts, and have the same faces. Michael Radford embodied very well these ideas on the screen by means of crowd scenes, people’s manners, glances, clothing, and grey colour of surrounding ruinous city. All these things seemed to be in a real terrifying world, and you are a part of that decaying reality. The scene of torture with enormous, fierce rats in the movie proved the truthfulness of the words:” One man asserts his power over another by making him suffer” I agree with Roger Ebert that the filmed version easily and completely captures Orwell’s flavour of each disparate setting.
172 words
My Comment on the Movie
I agree with Roger Ebert's statement about Michael Radford’s movie of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR because the movie not only faithfully turns George Orwell’s book into a visual version but also creates its own powerful impacts. Foe instance, the blood-red presenting credits and the title forecasts the smell and the taste of the story; the huge screens, the fevered broadcast, and the crazy people make me suffocative; they call each other ‘brother” and “sister” instead of “comrade” that gives me a feeling that the party is a sort of religion; Winston scrapes the Big Brother’s head portrait off the gin bottle that shows his hate about Big Brother. Radford successfully presents the world of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR by means of film art. Indeed, it is much better than I can imagine.
128 words
Catherine:
Yes, it is "comrade" in the book; perhaps that was old fashioned in 1984 when the film was made!
The picture on the gin bottle is, I believe, of Rutherford, not of Big Brother. Does anyone else remember?
Valentina:
Good connections between the book and the film. The first scene is shot on the same day that Orwell named in the beginning of the book, April 4th, 1984. In fact the film shoot took place in exactly the same period as the dates named in the book!
Hi Brad,
You are right; the picture on the gin bottle is of Rutherford.I made a mistake.
Afterthoughts
Watching Michael Redford’ screen version of George Orwell’s novel “1984” was like watching slightly exaggerated scenes from my recent past. It is a well known fact that Orwell’s imaginative world has distinctive features of real totalitarians states, and particularly of the Soviet Union. Many things in the movie are painfully familiar: the decay of infrastructure, lack of food and clothes, the continuous flow of false announcements through broadcasting, fear of thinking and speaking freely and being prosecuted for this. I exited the school building while still shivering from the memories about the past and from the thoughts about the future. I think Redford did a decent job presenting Orwell’s ideas on the screen. Both the novel’s and the movie’s ultimate goal -- to urge people to think about the dangerous possibility of developing this kind of society-- was achieved. I was lucky to escape from the horror of a totalitarian state into the democratic world; however, Orwell warns us that totalitarianism can take place anywhere, if people do not guard democratic values.
175 words.
The Response for the Movie
I was shocked at the sight of “two minutes hate” in the beginning of the movie version, which was more attractive as the beginning than the book. The uncontrollable exclamations bursting forth as hatred from people who were soaking in a frenzy of rage recalled the dim memories of the Great Cultural Revolution of China in my childhood to me. The scenes astonishingly resembled each other, which were violent and savage, and even the word of curse was same: “Traitor!” The following projection of Big Brother’s portrait and the appearance of “INGSOC” diffused a strong idolatry smell. The delirium for Big Brother uttered by crossing hands and chanting of “big-big” dropped a hint to audiences that adoration was another outlet for people’s oppressed emotions and even sexuality. Moreover, as a member of the Junior Anti-Sex League, Julia’s appearance and mien was vivid and seemed more sexy and enticing in the movie than the description in the book hovering in audiences’ mind. The relationship between Winston and Julia was a revolt to the autocracy, which offered some fresh air and set audiences free from dreary and stifling feeling.
I thought the movie1984 was an intelligent and thought-provoking film. The state of poverty, fear and oppression in the movie reminded me of the Taliban Government in Afghanistan prier to September 11th attack in the United States. They really controlled people like the big brother in the movie. Sexuality, freedom of speech and freedom of movement was completely restricted by law. I believe the movie 1984 could serve as a good example for some of today’s Governments in our society. I believe George Orwell must have been a true believer of freedom and democracy with a creative mind to write such a novel. I was extremely impressed and happy to see work of artists and actors in the movie express the theme of the novel as it was intended to be according to the author. I think it was a movie well done.
What I felt about the film is sad. When we live in a condition where we have nobody can trust.
When Parson is still proud of his daughter, I know he is really an idiot, and the country has no hope anymore. In the past I don’t care about our government. I think it is reasonable to hold an election to vote our favorite candidate. But now I realize how important it is. We can’t let our government takes too much of power. If the government takes too much of power, that means our power is decreasing.
Roger Ebert is absolutely correct in his statement about the movie version of the novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” by George Orwell, “It completely satisfied my feelings about the book”. The movie illustrates what the dark picture I created in my mind. I especially enjoyed seeing faces of characters which I think were brilliantly chosen for the roles. The contrast of Winston’s frail body and much older appearance to Julia’s youthful beauty were very unique. Their differences were also shown by his intense hatred of Big Brother, while she also disliked them the emotion wasn’t as strong, she cared more for Winston. It’s very scary to imagine a place where thoughts are criminal, punishable by death.
word count:114
Was it as you imagined as you read?
While I was watching the movie, I wasn’t surprised, because it wasn’t as I imagined. I was shocked very strongly when I read the book. The Party controls language, and they create new language called Newspeak. Newspeak doesn’t allow the possibility of rebellious thoughts. The loss of language means the loss of culture and past. Furthermore, Newspeak prohibits emotional thoughts. I was really surprised the author’s systemically language creation. The other one that I was amazed is “doublethink”. How can he describe such a detail? How can he create the thoughts? However, In the movie, the derector didn't mention about the above example detailly.So, when I watched the movie, I couldn’t feel surprising and shocking as much as when I read the book.
Comment from Tien:
After viewing Michael Radford's movie version of Orwell' novel, I felt impressive but also shocking,
sad, and angry. The loud badgering voice from the telesceen that pouring out day and night really struck me. Despite the movie only two hours, the shouting of controling order and propaganda could not be endured. If I was one of them, I would be insane quickly. The movie could offer us the scene with audio-visual
screen of the shocking torture that the book couldn't.In addition, I was very frightened when hearing "I sold you." "You sold me." and "Big brother always
watching you." There were no ndividal but only "a party". It was a successful movie, however, I was disappointed at not finding any hope at the end. Orwell does not show the force of the people. why? The reality is quite different. Totalitarianism and
socialism continuously vanish one after another.
What i thought of the movie 1984.
I thought the movie was an excellent potrail of the book. i think they picked the actors to play the characters perfectly to. The movie was well put together and stuck with the book. "The two minute hate,"in the movie had a way more powerful effected then the book. The movie was also good because we can see the emotion that Orwell was trying to get across in his book rather then read it. There are a lot of points in the book that id rather watch then read like when Winston gets captured and tortured or when he goes back and remembers his mom. I don't know if this is true for anyone else but watching the book helped me understand what was going on and appriacate the book more. For the first 100 pages of the novel i found it hard to concentrate on it because i found it boring.
Post a Comment