A film by Michael Radford
Clever. Very clever. This movie was filmed in 1984 during the months that were specified in George Orwell s novel. It was also released in 1984. This fit perfectly with the title and gave a nice contrast between Orwell s vision of the future and what the world was like at that very time. The question, however, is: Is 1984 any good as a movie? Well, yes and no, and it has everything to do with what was included in the movie.
The year is 1984 and the setting is London. At least, the city used to be London. Now it is just a city in Oceania. Oceania is a communist style society where propaganda rules the day and history is re-written daily to reflect the views of The Party . One day Oceania may be at war with Eurasia, and the next Oceania is at war with East Asia and has always been at war with East Asia. History is changed and officially, the past never happened if The Party says that it didn t happen. Winston Smith (John Hurt) is a worker. It is his job to change history s headlines. Through Winston s eyes we see The Party outlaw personal relationships, emotional attachment, and even thought that does not mirror the party line. The latter is called thought crime .
Winston is a thought criminal. He secretly writes in a journal about the revisionist policies and he visits a store that sells (on the sly) items that are older than Oceania (one piece is said to be 100 years old). Winston is secretly seditious and he meets Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), who, like Winston, is defying Oceania as she can. Her method is sex. Sex for pleasure is highly illegal and this is the foundation of their relationship. We know that a movie set in a world with this sort of a society, they have to be caught because we have to no what the repercussions of their actions will be.
The main difference between this film and the novel is simply that in the film we are seeing what Orwell described, and in the book all we have is the words of George Orwell. The reason this is a difference is that in the movie we know what a thing looks like, but not what it is. One example of this is the two minute hate . Orwell describes several scenes in which the workers are given a forum where they must vent and scream and express their hatred for the enemies of Oceania. It is a form of social control. We get a sense of what is going on, and why. In the movie, we see what happens and how it affects the workers, but the detail which makes the scene meaningful is missing. This is fairly typical of the film and is the biggest flaw. If I hadn t read the novel, the film would be confusing and meaningless. It is only because I have read the source material that I know what these scenes are and why they are important. We do get a good sense of the type of society that Orwell envisioned as a potential future, and the visualization of the characters and the world is excellent. It is just lacking the meaning that is available in Orwell s text. Film is a different medium than a novel and a movie should not be dependant on the novel to make it comprehensible and meaningful. Unfortunately, 1984 fails in this regard. It is faithful to the source material, but the film can t succeed without the novel.