kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) (06/15/85)
_1984_
by Kelvin Thompson
_1984_ is a bad, utterly depressing, anti-humanist movie. The producer
of the movie has claimed that at its heart the movie is a love story, but
in truth it is a relentless attack on the nobility of the human
condition.
To be sure, the plot of the movie does have the broad outline of a love
story. A man, John Hurt (_The_Elephant_Man_, _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_),
meets a woman, played by an unknown British actress, and they embark on a
difficult relationship. Unfortunately, the "difficulty" in their
relationship is that they live in a futuristic, totalitarian society
which forbids love. (It is unfathomable why the movie is entitled
_1984_, when it is so obviously set in the future.)
Certainly there is nothing wrong with telling a story about forbidden
love (consider Zeffirelli's _Romeo_and_Juliet_), but _1984_ relegates the
love story to a secondary status, spending more time depicting the
dehumanizing influences of the society. The viewer can take only so many
of these scenes -- involving dingy surroundings, tired, gray workers, and
discussions of the decimation of history and language -- before he gets
bogged down in a sense of utter despair, hardly the mood a romance is
supposed to engender.
And all that is before the movie gets *really* depressing. Eventually
the lovers are caught and carted off to prison (ironically called the
"Ministry of Love"). The audience never finds out exactly what happens
to the woman, but we see all too clearly what Hurt undergoes. It turns
out that the authorities don't merely want to make Hurt pay for his "sex
crime," or to make him publicly repudiate it, they want him to actually
loathe the love he felt for the woman. This calls for especially extreme
torture, and the audience sees every second of it.
These prison scenes also give the writers a chance to really cut loose
with their anti-humanist, Skinnerian philosophy. Between tortures Hurt
and his jailer, the late Richard Burton (_The_Wild_Geese_), talk about
the society they live in, and Hurt loses every debate. Time and time
again Hurt raises a point about love or kindness or hope, Burton bats it
down, and writers choose not to have Hurt raise a counter point.
Finally, after a particularly brutal torture (which the viewer is all but
forced to look away from) Hurt gives in and truly renounces his love for
the girl.
The final scene removes any remaining doubt that this might be even a
tragic romance. The two former lovers, freed after their
"rehabilitation," meet. They are distant, indifferent to one another,
and after trading inanities they go their separate ways. Finally, in his
closing lines, Hurt proclaims that his love has shifted to Big Brother,
the leader of the entirely un-romantic society he lives in. The final
hope for tenderness has received its final kick in the face.
julian@osu-eddie.UUCP (Julian Gomez) (06/16/85)
1984 had nothing to do with romance. Read the book (in fact, read
a few of Orwell's writings, esp. Animal Farm) and the message
should be clearer.
--
Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
The Ohio State University
{ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julianck@ima.UUCP (06/16/85)
Huh? You ever been in a library? Ever take an English course? Ever hear of this guy named George Orwell? He was a little known writer, wrote a couple of books, some good, some bad. Wrote this one book called *1984*, a futuristic novel published in 1948 in England, made it to the States in 1949. About this guy named Winston and his society. Back then, you see, 1984 WAS the future. In 1956, a movie was made based upon this book. And then, in 1984, another company gathered to film a more faithful account. This time it included the ending the book had, depressing or not. I suggest you read the book. It might explain the movie a bit more. ck ihnp4!ima!ck
anton@ucbvax.ARPA (Jeff Anton) (06/16/85)
In article <2107@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes: > > _1984_ > > by Kelvin Thompson > > _1984_ is a bad, utterly depressing, anti-humanist movie. The producer > of the movie has claimed that at its heart the movie is a love story, but > in truth it is a relentless attack on the nobility of the human > condition. .... > relationship is that they live in a futuristic, totalitarian society > which forbids love. (It is unfathomable why the movie is entitled > _1984_, when it is so obviously set in the future.) This reviewer seems to have never heard of George Orwell or his *time-less* story of love destroyed by a totalitarian goverenment. I would still tend to agree with the producer that *at its heart* it's a love story. Love stories often end in a not-very-happy way because love is damaged by events. 1984 presents a case where love is outlawed and enforced by highly skilled secret police and propeganda. The flavor is not saddness toward the couple but anger at the system, a very different love story. As to the title, the book was written in 1948 and assumed a nuclear war occered in the 1960's. As a title, 1984 becomes frightening because the time span is short (from when the book was released) and if one believed that such things could happen then one would be scared of the future for oneself or one's children. My current feelings are that although we are past the year 1984, we are not past the possibility of such a world. And also, perhaps, that we have now reached the point where a nuclear war is not at all survivable; meanning the world Mr. Orwell presents can not happen because the war that would create that world would be too complete with it's destruction. Or perhaps this concept certain individuals have about a limited nuclear war will build the 1984 scenario. But at the moment I'm more concerned that Mr. Thompson's education never mentioned Mr. Orwell. For me, I have read 1984 as an assignment three times: once in 8th grade, 11th grade, and in Freshman composition. I have a difficult time believing that a person could reach grad school and not have heard about this book. But since this is net.movies I must say that I think the movie is close to what Mr. Orwell may have wanted us to visualize. Maybe the problem with the movie is that it's too harsh. As a book we can put it away for a day or not try to visualize what it happening. As a movie we have to face it and follow it. If you go to the movies to escape from your day to day life, don't see this film. You will want to stick with your own reasonably happy life. -- C knows no bounds. Jeff Anton U.C.Berkeley ucbvax!anton anton@berkeley.ARPA
terryl@tekcrl.UUCP () (06/16/85)
>_1984_ is a bad, utterly depressing, anti-humanist movie. The producer >of the movie has claimed that at its heart the movie is a love story, but >in truth it is a relentless attack on the nobility of the human >condition. >........ >which forbids love. (It is unfathomable why the movie is entitled >_1984_, when it is so obviously set in the future.) Not to be picky or anything, but didn't you read George Orwell's "1984", on which this movie is based????? Considering that the book was written in the 1940's(?), Orwell thought 1984 to be far enough in the future, thus the "obviously set in the future". You did read this in some English class didn't you?????
mff@wuphys.UUCP (Mark Flynn) (06/17/85)
> > > _1984_ > > by Kelvin Thompson > > _1984_ is a bad, utterly depressing, anti-humanist movie. The producer > of the movie has claimed that at its heart the movie is a love story, but > in truth it is a relentless attack on the nobility of the human > condition. Perhaps you didn't know, but there is a book by the same name. Written by some Orwell guy. Anyways, that was utterly depressing as well. In fact, I believe it was intended to be. As far as it being anit-humanist, I believe that you're confusing the description of an anti-humanist state with the advocation of it. Mark F. Flynn Department of Physics Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130 ihnp4!wuphys!mff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark." P. Floyd
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/17/85)
_1984_
The book vs. the film
The film _1984_ has an unfortunate difference in emphasis from the book.
Orwell stressed the intellectual brutality of IngSoc and its language,
how the main character fought that brutality by simply (and illegally) main-
taining his diary, and through that diary the integrity of his own mind.
There are strong hints throughout the book that the affair with the girl
was set up merely to destroy his capacity to figure out when he was being
lied to. (It worked.)
The film, on the other hand, stresses the physical and psychological
brutality of of the system. They won't let him shave or make love. They
torture him because he asks questions and thinks for himself. The film is
very true to the book in many details, but what's left out is Orwell's
story of a man struggling to articulate his own ideas while being bombarded
with flashy rhetoric intended to dupe him otherwise.
I came away from the book convinced that Madison Avenue was just a
candy-coated version of IngSoc. I came away from the movie relieved that
I'd never been tortured here in wonderful democratic America.
Has anyone else noticed this difference?
Cheryl Stewart
--
There's one kind of favor I'll ask of you:
Just see that my grave is kept clean.nunes@utai.UUCP (Joe Nunes) (06/18/85)
Before anyone gets too carried away, it is just possible that the original posting was an elaborate joke.
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (csdf) (06/19/85)
In article <799@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: > _1984_ > > The book vs. the film > The film _1984_ has an unfortunate difference in emphasis from the book. I didn't find it unfortunate. The movie was great. >There are strong hints throughout the book that the affair with the girl >was set up merely to destroy his capacity to figure out when he was being >lied to. (It worked.) Maybe I should read it again, but I didn't perceive these "strong hints" in that way, the film seemed accurate. >left out is Orwell's >story of a man struggling to articulate his own ideas while being bombarded >with flashy rhetoric intended to dupe him otherwise. > I came away from the book convinced that Madison Avenue was just a >candy-coated version of IngSoc. I came away from the movie relieved that >I'd never been tortured here in wonderful democratic America. > Has anyone else noticed this difference? > Cheryl Stewart I don't think this is left out at all. The scenes in the Ministry of Love contain a lot of dialogue that brings this subjecct to the forefront. Also, you should consider that a movie is an interpretation of a book, not a copy of it. I didn't notice the difference you mention. (also, I think you are putting a little too much faith in the American Government, but that's another flame :-) -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (06/20/85)
> > _1984_ > > by Kelvin Thompson > > _1984_ is a bad, utterly depressing, anti-humanist movie. The producer > of the movie has claimed that at its heart the movie is a love story, but > in truth it is a relentless attack on the nobility of the human > condition. > This review makes me wonder whether Mr. Thompson ever read the book "1984" by George Orwell. "1984" is one of the most important books of this century, and from everything I have heard, the latest movie version of it is pretty true to the book. The book "1984" is definitely pro-humanist. George Orwell intended it as a satire of the trend toward totalitarianism that existed in the year he wrote it, 1948, and still exists today. The point is that totaliarianism destroys love and everything else that is noble about humanity. The depressing tone of the book and the movie, and the fact that Winston Smith completely loses his humanity in the end, are intended to make you feel the hopelessness that living under totalitarianism must bring. I'm really surprised that someone posted a "spoiler" of 1984. I thought just about everyone had read the book. I was required to read it in High School English. If the review to which I am responding was a joke, sorry for boring you by not getting it. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
sas@leadsv.UUCP (Scott Stewart) (06/24/85)
In article <2107@ut-sally.UUCP>, kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes: > > > _1984_ > > by Kelvin Thompson > Having not seen the movie, I will not argue you opinion of it. But, from those comments I've extracted below and capitalized, I get the feeling you don't even know the literary source of thsi movie. If you don't, I'll kindly inform you that it is George Orwell's classic novel "1984", written in 1948 (last two digits of the year the story was written were reversed to arrive at the title of the book). > To be sure, the plot of the movie does have the broad outline of a love > story. A man, John Hurt (_The_Elephant_Man_, _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_), > meets a woman, played by an unknown British actress, and they embark on a > difficult relationship. Unfortunately, the "difficulty" in their > relationship is that they live in a futuristic, totalitarian society > which forbids love. (IT IS UNFATHOMABLE WHY THE MOVIE IS ENTITLED > _1984_, WHEN IT IS SO OBVIOUSLY SET IN THE FUTURE.) > > > THESE PRISON SCENES ALSO GIVE THE WRITERS A CHANCE TO REALLY CUT LOOSE > WITH THEIR ANTI-HUMANIST, SKINNERIAN PHILOSOPHY. Between tortures Hurt > and his jailer, the late Richard Burton (_The_Wild_Geese_), talk about > the society they live in, and Hurt loses every debate. Time and time > again Hurt raises a point about love or kindness or hope, Burton bats it > down, AND WRITERS CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE HURT RAISE A COUNTER POINT. > Finally, after a particularly brutal torture (which the viewer is all but > forced to look away from) Hurt gives in and truly renounces his love for > the girl. > You are correct in feeling that the movie shouldn't be billed as a love story, it's not. It's a story about a society and the love story is used as a foil to fully illustrate the societies evil, by our standards. As mentioned above, Richard Burton's character manages to defend every evil of the society as being the good of the society. It depends on your point of view and personal morals. What's so depressing about the scene above is that, as a reader, you find it hard to battle the arguments also. You don't want to believe any thing the "Torturer" tells you, but you are unable to not believe it. The novel is a very depressing and frightening story, and this is what makes it endure so well. It captures much truth of social systems and their capabilities and possibilities. (An aside, I heard that the U.S.S.R. has finally recognized this book, stating that it is a statement against the evils of Capitalim. ) Your review makes it appear that the movie follows the book very well, conveying much of the same emotions the book expresses. "1984" is a classic novel, and very depressing and frightening view of our possible future. It is book based much on ideas, and because of this, I don't feel any movie could do it real justice. But, please, when you criticize any movie, get your information straight and assign your criticism to those wh deserve it, whether good or bad. Scott A. Stewart LMSC
wendt@bocklin.UUCP (06/25/85)
> Finally, after a particularly brutal torture (which the viewer is all but > forced to look away from) Hurt gives in and truly renounces his love for > the girl. Hurt gives in *during* the torture. arizona!wendt
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/29/85)
> > > _1984_ > > The book vs. the film > > > > The film _1984_ has an unfortunate difference in emphasis from the book. > Orwell stressed the intellectual brutality of IngSoc and its language, > how the main character fought that brutality by simply (and illegally) main- > taining his diary, and through that diary the integrity of his own mind. > There are strong hints throughout the book that the affair with the girl > was set up merely to destroy his capacity to figure out when he was being > lied to. (It worked.) > The film, on the other hand, stresses the physical and psychological > brutality of of the system. They won't let him shave or make love. They > torture him because he asks questions and thinks for himself. The film is > very true to the book in many details, but what's left out is Orwell's > story of a man struggling to articulate his own ideas while being bombarded > with flashy rhetoric intended to dupe him otherwise. I agree there is a difference in emphasis between book and movie --- I think because it is much easier to show physical and psychological brutality in film than to explore the intellectual destruction. > I came away from the book convinced that Madison Avenue was just a > candy-coated version of IngSoc. I came away from the movie relieved that > I'd never been tortured here in wonderful democratic America. > I think you trivialize the nature of Newspeak when you compare it to advertising. If the only relief you felt after the movie was that you'd never been tortued, I think you may have missed something in the depiction of how boring and dull life under IngSoc was. And your apparent sarcasm "wonderful democratic America" suggests that you need to spend more time studying totalitarian regiemes around the world. > Cheryl Stewart
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (07/01/85)
In article <485@leadsv.UUCP> sas@leadsv.UUCP (Scott Stewart) writes: > > Your review makes it appear that the movie follows the book very well, > conveying much of the same emotions the book expresses. "1984" is a classic > novel, and very depressing and frightening view of our possible future. > It is book based much on ideas, and because of this, I don't feel any > movie could do it real justice. But, please, when you criticize any I thought that this was an OUTSTANDING movie which really did justice to the novel. -- Joe Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla