dce@tekecs.UUCP (David Elliott) (08/22/83)
I was just about ready to resign my recollection of hearing about the movie "1984" until I saw it in the contest list. I was sure I had seen a clip from it on some TV show a few years ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the movie was in black and white and starred Gregory Peck. Is the home video version available? Or are the owners of the film waiting to re-release it in December? David
witters@fluke.UUCP (John Witters) (08/23/83)
I saw the movie many years ago on TV. The movie must have been made during the McCarthy era. At the end a narrator said something about being vigilant against subversion from totalitarian governments. I thought this was kind of ironic since the book didn't look favorably upon people who ratted on their neighbors, yet this was what the narrator seemed to be urging the audience to do. My memory of this movie is pretty dim. I'd like to see it again just to see if it's as bad as I remember it.
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (09/24/84)
Has anybody heard anything about the impending new movie version of "1984"?
I have heard only a few things here and there, and I'm not sure if they're
true:
1) The late Richard Burton is in it.
2) The Eurythmics are working on the soundtrack.
3) It will hit the theatres some time this year. (There isn't much time
left this year. I think it would have made more sense to release it at
the beginning of 1984 or the end of 1983 because that would have made it
seem more like a prophecy.)
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeffjimc@haddock.UUCP (10/13/84)
No, I haven't heard a thing -- but I find it strange that any producer
would have thought it a good idea to use a soundtrack by Eurythmics.
1984 is too powerful a story to include silly popular music.
A trivia question: who played Winston Smith in the first film version
of 1984?ecl@ahuta.UUCP (ecl) (01/28/85)
1984
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
It usually is not a very good idea to try to remake a classic film.
Remaking is all too often trying to capitalize on reflected glory. Whatever
the spark is that makes a film great, it is almost impossible to recapture.
Even if a filmmaker can recapture that spark, he will only be praised for
making a good imitation. Few producers ever improve on a classic in a
redux. After seeing retreads of THE THING, CAT PEOPLE, INVASION OF THE BODY
SNATCHERs, and a number of other classic fantasy films, I predicted years
ago that someone would make a new 1984 and release it in the year of the
title. And right on schedule--or perhaps a little behind--we have a 1984
1984.
So does the new version compare well to the 1956 version (directed by
Michael Anderson and starring Edmond O'Brien)? First of all, the Fifties'
version is not the best possible adaptation of Orwell's novel. It very much
simplifies the story. The degree of responsibility to accuracy that the
filmmakers felt in making the film can best be demonstrated by the fact that
two endings were shot. One was a happy ending with Winston and Julia
getting back together in spite of the system. The new version is, to the
best of my memory, entirely faithful to the book. That is not easy to do
with a book as cerebral as 1984. The acting on the newer version is more
gutsy, less Hollywood than in the original. John Hurt really changes in the
course of the film. He goes from being an officious mouse of a man to a
young lover to and old and agonized man in the hands of his captors.
Richard Burton very accommodatingly underplays his part. Reportedly,
director Michael Radford wanted Burton's part understated. When Burton was
corrected for verging on being more dramatic than the director wanted, he
would apologize for what he called "pulling a Burton." His quiet, menacing
acting makes his last role one of his better ones.
Visually, the film is quite impressive. Radford originally wanted to
do the film in black and white but the financial backers balked. Instead,
Radford used a photographic process which intentionally subdued the colors.
Radford also wanted to do the film from what he imagined was Orwell's point
of view. The offices at INGSOC look like a 1948 author's view of the
future, much as Orwell might have pictured the offices of INGSOC. The
film's biggest flaws are where it varies most from what might have been
Orwell's vision. That is where it plays the musical score by the
Eurythmics. Rock music is wrong for the film and Radford complains bitterly
about his financial backers' insistence on the inclusion of rock music in
the score. The non-rock music in the film was written by Dominic Muldowney
and is actually quite good. The few pieces of rock score by the Eurythmics
are out of place, and Radford had to fight a legal battle to keep their
presence and effect in the film to a minimum. (The rock score,
incidentally, is present only because the backers wanted to sell a rock
soundtrack record, much as was done profitably with METROPOLIS.)
Radford has done a stunning job of adapting Orwell's novel to the
screen. Conditions that he complains were forced on him by his backers are
precisely the biggest faults the film has. I cannot fault him for a single
artistic decision he made on the film, and that is very rare. Of the three
adaptations of science fiction novels we have seen this winter, 1984 is as
much better than 2010 as 2010 was better than DUNE. Rate 1984 a solids
thumbs up and +3 (on a scale of -4 to +4).
(Some of the factual material in this review is from an interview with
Michael Radford aired on WBAI radio on January 27, 1985.)
(Evelyn C. Leeper for)
Mark R. Leeper
...ihnp4!lznv!mrl