The best thing about Peter Brook's film adaption of William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" is that it does remain essentially faithful to its literary source. Golding's acknowledged masterpiece is not the sort of material that is open to a "loose" cinematic interpretation. This was the fatal flaw in the 1990 movie version. That being said, it is fair to then suggest that this 1963 budget adaption, is by no means the definitive rendering of the story that many, including on this site, claim it is.
The collective acting for a start is woeful. I mean really, much of it is on a par with that seen in a pretty ordinary school play. Raymond Leppard's not infrequent school band-sounding musical interludes underline these over-theatrical impressions. Yes, I know the boys were amateurs and guess what? It really and truly shows. The result is that there is little sense of the dramatic, no heightened suspense. The supposedly villainous characters always appear as caricatures just being played by kids, almost for the fun of it. It is therefore difficult to accept that what we see is real; civilisation undergoing an almost unhinged throwback to more primitive times.
The film, even back in 1963, was filmed on a budget and this too really shows. I've got no objection at all to black and white cinematography, but the work done by Tom Hollyman in Lord of the Flies is distinctly downmarket. Quite a bit of the action occurring at night is really difficult to see and this is where knowledge of the book, becomes almost a pre-requisite. It shouldn't be so. Jerky edit cutaways frequently stand out, as a means to avoid using any real special effects to depict certain actions. All it does is accentuate the cheapness of this production.
Whilst keeping faithful to Goldman's tome, Brooks avoids making any changes that would have provided a more convincing narrative environment. The boys have survived an airline crash. Do any of them seem really disturbed by the experience? No! Do any of them appear battered and bruised coming through a disaster in which all their adult supervisors (amazingly) perished? No! In fact the height of absurdity is reached early on, when Jack's choral group rock up on the beach in their costumed finery, singing Kyrie Eleison in melodious unison , seemingly without a care in the world. Within a few minutes of onscreen time, they're all running around in a hunting pack. The transformative process occurs way too rapidly to be in any way plausible.
Lord of the Flies strikes me as being ripe for remake; one that does align itself strongly with Goldman's evocation. But also one that is unafraid to present the story in a far more cogent, persuasive, cinematic style. I'm giving Brooks version a 6, only because in almost 60 years, his picture has been the only genuine filmed adaption of Goldman's novel. I guess it has to count for something.
The collective acting for a start is woeful. I mean really, much of it is on a par with that seen in a pretty ordinary school play. Raymond Leppard's not infrequent school band-sounding musical interludes underline these over-theatrical impressions. Yes, I know the boys were amateurs and guess what? It really and truly shows. The result is that there is little sense of the dramatic, no heightened suspense. The supposedly villainous characters always appear as caricatures just being played by kids, almost for the fun of it. It is therefore difficult to accept that what we see is real; civilisation undergoing an almost unhinged throwback to more primitive times.
The film, even back in 1963, was filmed on a budget and this too really shows. I've got no objection at all to black and white cinematography, but the work done by Tom Hollyman in Lord of the Flies is distinctly downmarket. Quite a bit of the action occurring at night is really difficult to see and this is where knowledge of the book, becomes almost a pre-requisite. It shouldn't be so. Jerky edit cutaways frequently stand out, as a means to avoid using any real special effects to depict certain actions. All it does is accentuate the cheapness of this production.
Whilst keeping faithful to Goldman's tome, Brooks avoids making any changes that would have provided a more convincing narrative environment. The boys have survived an airline crash. Do any of them seem really disturbed by the experience? No! Do any of them appear battered and bruised coming through a disaster in which all their adult supervisors (amazingly) perished? No! In fact the height of absurdity is reached early on, when Jack's choral group rock up on the beach in their costumed finery, singing Kyrie Eleison in melodious unison , seemingly without a care in the world. Within a few minutes of onscreen time, they're all running around in a hunting pack. The transformative process occurs way too rapidly to be in any way plausible.
Lord of the Flies strikes me as being ripe for remake; one that does align itself strongly with Goldman's evocation. But also one that is unafraid to present the story in a far more cogent, persuasive, cinematic style. I'm giving Brooks version a 6, only because in almost 60 years, his picture has been the only genuine filmed adaption of Goldman's novel. I guess it has to count for something.