1984 (1984) User Reviews

Faithful adaptation - maybe too much?

[mr composer · 7/10 · 22 June 2005]

George Orwell's literary masterpiece "1984" is presented with amazing accuracy and detail in this version filmed during the very months of the author's vision. The casting, set design, and atmosphere are all right on the mark for how I envisioned them during reading the book. This film is dark and uncompromising, and follows many of the dialogs verbatim from the book.

The flaw in the film, for me, is that I felt like I only enjoyed and understood this movie BECAUSE I had read the book already. There is a theory I once heard and agree with: the closer an adaptation is to the source, the more necessary it is to read the source. A good adaptation is faithful to the essentials of a story but makes necessary changes so that it not only becomes cinematic, yet also becomes something that a viewer unfamiliar with the source material can understand. I think if I were ignorant of the story, there are too many things that would confuse me in this film which the book seems to go out of its way to explain.

For example: Who/Where exactly is Oceania? How did the countries go from their current political state to the envisioned one? Why do the people gather in mass and scream passionate hateful exclamations at the screen? What exactly does Winston actually do? Who are the proles? I praise movies that can effectively tell a story without means of voice-over, a much overused device in films. In this case though, I think a little may have helped, not necessarily wall-to-wall, but sparingly used. The movie is effective by being more ambiguous than the book, but I tend to think maybe it is too ambiguous.

In summary, read the book if you haven't (either before or after seeing the film) to get a complete overview of the author's vision. With that as a foundation, this really is a good cinematic portrayal, and of a story that is still relevant and not impossible to come to pass. Obviously 1984 is long since gone bye-bye, but 2084 or 2054? Oppression can always come as long as people desire self-centered power and the masses don't pay close attention.

chillingly brutal in its depiction of a disturbing dystopia

[framptonhollis · 8/10 · 3 June 2017]

This brilliant adaptation of George Orwell's immoral classic of the same name nearly matches its source material in terms of quality (which is quite the achievement, considering the fact that "1984" is by far one of the greatest novels I have ever read). The chilling direction and pitch perfect performances help make this disturbing vision all the more of a truthful gut punch. The fact that such a hard hitting and seemingly over the top story remains entirely relevant in today's chaotic political climate is both a disgrace and a testament to Orwell's genius, and the cinematic capturing of Orwell's classic is one of practically unbeatable quality. While little to nothing is added to the plot, the visual accompaniment of the story enhances its impact. The cinematography is fittingly dull, soaked entirely of the joys o color. The performances are simply perfect, making this one of the few novel adaptations I have seen in which I felt that the actors absolutely nailed their performing of the original work's dialogue. At the center of this terrifying satire is the performance of Richard Burton who is both subtle and mind blowingly horrifying in his indescribably villainous role, while John Hurt provides a sometimes timid, sometimes paranoid, and other times absolutely petrified protagonist that attempts to escape from the norms of the totalitarian society he is forced to live in.

While not necessarily a "horror" movie, there is no doubt that "1984" is among the most genuinely SCARY films that I have ever seen. Both the book and film have succeeded in making me shake like drug addicted pepper and salt shakers. The dystopia depicted here accurately displays the horror of an overly controlling and oppressive government system forcing its propaganda upon those below, and outwardly embracing anti-free speech and pro-war beliefs. I must restate how sadly relevant this work remains.

A Forecast of the Past, Present & Future...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 13 November 2022]

Winston Smith is bound inside a cage, he's upset all of the folks that pay his wage, by not dancing to the tune, of the Oceania goon, and ignoring all his righteous propaganda. To begin with, he's not thinking as he should, his maths is very poor, and that's not good, plus he's finding lots of time, to commit a sexual crime, by taking his young love into the woods. But Big Brother has a way that he can smother, and O'Brien is a rather vengeful mother, observation sets the trap, then you're caught like a starved rat, and there's nowhere you can run, or look for cover. Just imagine if your world was always seen, there were cameras to report where you had been, a device always recording, what you say, knows what you're hoarding, you spend your time with it just looking at its screen.

God forbid!

A labor of love

[hojoe · 25 December 1998]

I am frankly mystified by the comments of those who seem to find this film disappointing or inadequate, and even more by those who claim to prefer the 1956 version, which I consider to be inferior in every respect to the later version, except for some top quality performances by Donald Pleasence and Michael Redgrave in supporting roles. In my opinion, this later version of "Nineteen Eighty Four" is one of the best literary adaptations I've seen.

The film was obviously a labor of love for director Michael Radford, who also co-wrote the screenplay. As noted in the end credits, the film "was photographed in and around London during the period April-June 1984, the exact time and setting imagined by the author". If this were a big-budget Hollywood bomb, I might consider that a publicity stunt, but in the case of this little-known, little-seen British film, it's fairly obviously a form of homage.

The look of the film is extraordinary in its evocation of the world Orwell created, down to the tiniest detail. Although that world was obviously very different from the real world of 1984, a deliberate choice was made to stick with the Orwellian vision in every way, anachronistic technology and all, and I firmly believe it was the right choice, as opposed to the "updating" we sometimes see in adaptations of classic "futuristic" stories. Thus, we are treated to the baroque and slightly disorienting sight of black rotary-dial telephones, pneumatic document-delivery systems, old-fashioned "safety razors", tube radios, etc., all of which were already obsolete at the time of filming. And of course, the omnipresent black-and-white "telescreens" with rounded picture tubes.

As Winston Smith, the story's protagonist, John Hurt is an inspired piece of casting; absolutely the perfect choice. Not only does he fit the author's description of Smith to a "T", but with the haircut he's given, he even bears a striking resemblance to Orwell himself. And there is no actor alive better than Hurt at evoking victimization in all its infinite gradations and variations. Suzanna Hamilton, relatively little-known here in the US, also does a fine job as Julia. The film also contains the final film appearance of Richard Burton, in one of his most fascinating and disturbing performances as O'Brien. And the great Cyril Cusack does a classic turn as Charrington, the pawnshop proprietor.

Right from the opening scene, in which we look in on a screening of a short propaganda film, brilliantly conceived and executed by Radford, during the daily "two minutes hate", climaxing in Dominic Muldowney's memorable, genuinely stirring national anthem of Oceania played behind the gigantic image of Big Brother, we are catapulted headlong into Orwell's nightmare vision. While not a particularly long novel (my copy is 256 pages), it is nevertheless dense with ideas, and it would be impossible for a standard-length film to include them all, even if the audience could stand all the endless talking heads it would require. Given the inherent limitations, I think the film largely succeeds in preserving a good portion of the ideological "meat" of the novel. It is certainly extremely faithful in the material it does include. Even the incidental music by Eurythmics feels entirely appropriate, and doesn't in any way break the mood. In fact, it even enhances it.

While I thought the 1956 version did a fairly good job for the time, it had a number of flaws in my estimation that made it far less successful an adaptation. For one thing, although the world it portrays is grim, it's not nearly grim enough. Also, Edmond O'Brien may have done a creditable job as Smith, but physically he's all wrong for the part. The portly, even chubby O'Brien bears little resemblance to the slight, emaciated, chronically exhausted, varicose-ulcerated Smith described in the novel. Neither is the 1956 version as faithful to the book; some of the material is softened, and there are odd, unexplainable alterations: O'Brien becomes O'Connor, and I don't think that Goldstein, the possibly imaginary leader of the possibly fictitious "Resistance", is even mentioned. At 90 minutes, it runs a good 23 minutes shorter than the later version, which necessitates the trimming of even more of the novel, for all you literary purists. In all, for me, the 1984 version of "Nineteen Eighty Four" is the definitive version; a remarkably vivid and memorable film.

A Directorial Success But Not A Narrative One

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 29 July 2010]

George Orwell's 1984 is one of the most celebrated novels of the 20th Century . We have words like " Orwellian " that have come in to everyday modern usage . Indeed there's at least two television shows BIG BROTHER and ROOM 101 who take their concepts from 1984 . It seems logical that if someone was going to make a film adaptation of the novel then 1984 would be the perfect year to release it . Unfortunately Michael Radford's interpretation of Orwell is an irritating clash between the good and the bad

Radford's visuals are superb and the tone sets the dark , gloomy , downbeat feel of the novel perfectly . Orwell used Stalin's Soviet Union for much of the novel's inspiration as well as 1940s Britain . The film's set design is drab and retro and full of urban decay and squalor that Ingsoc has brought to Airstrip One , you can almost smell the rats and rubble and exploding rocket bombs . All this is helped in no small part by Roger Deakins bleak cinematography . Radford also makes good use of the newscreens giving war reports on the crusade against Eurasia . Even the much criticised soundtrack by the Eurythmics seem perfectly suited to the film . John Hurt seems born to play the role of Winston Smith the middle aged hero of the novel . Unfortunately Hurt isn't given enough material to make the role as memorable as the one played by Peter Cushing in the 1954 BBC version because Radford the screenwriter is no Nigel Kneale . The problem with the film is the storytelling

Many people would consider the novel unfilmable . Nigel Kneale managed to carry it off 30 years earlier but Kneale was something of a genius where scriptwriting was concerned . Radford isn't . From the opening scene we see Winston , Julia and O'Brien at the public hate meeting . However both Julie and O'Brien are then quickly forgotten until much later in the film . The screenplay really does meander greatly at some points giving us flashbacks to Winston visiting a prostitute and Winston as a child . What's to do with the plot ? Nothing absolutely nothing but seem to be included for some reason known only to he editor . Likewise Winston proclaims to Julia that he loves corruption and wants the whole world to be corrupt . What's his motivation for this ? he's done nothing on screen that suggests he believes this . Perhaps the editor has taken out an important scene whilst keeping meaningless ones ? Strangely for a film containing so much full frontal nudity it seems strange that the classic line " You're only a rebel from the waist down " is missing

Certainly the scenes in Room 101 could have done with a bit of trimming . Unfortunately those of us who saw the 1954 BBC version will be disappointed by it . The scene with Andre Morrell as O Brien giving a soliloquy on the aims and method of the party is a piece of unforgettable television . There's nothing really wrong with Richard Burton in the same role as such but probably needed a proper introductory scene in order to make the character work properly . If you've no knowledge of the novel you might have a problem knowing who his character is supposed to be

In short this is a slightly disappointing film version of a legendary novel written by one of the 20th Century's most important figures . Certainly it can't be faulted by the visual look which is highly impressive but unless you've read the book you'll probably be confused and bored long before the final scene . Despite the very low production values I was utterly transfixed by Rudolph Cartier/ Nigel Kneale's BBC version which sadly wasn't the case here

Comments on Comments

[eadaoin7 · 9/10 · 9 March 2004]

I really have only one thing to comment on. Most of the other reviewers have stated just about everything about this wonderfully gritty, dark, foreboding movie that still remains an eerie parallel to our lives today, especially in the last 2 years...

But I'm confused by the number of people who have commented that claim to be put off by "the gratuitous nudity" by the two characters of Winston and Julia. Given the fact that everything in this society--waking up, food, habits, desires, work, workers, even the underwear and overalls--is so uniform, has it occurred to viewers that being nude was the only link to identity that these characters had? Everything in their world depends, thrives on sameness. Without clothes, everyone is unique. The two lovers were already in dire conditions by committing the sin of feeling for another human being, let alone carnally but in the heart. And they had to deceive and pretend and go through the motions of the dutiful cogs in the Big Brother wheel. But their only shared peace and comfort was their sacred time alone, and in love. They had finally found their own identities through loving each other. Their nudity was merely symbolic of that. In that sense, their union and expressions of that union only becomes more fragile, beautiful and honest, in such a heartless, cold, indifferent world.

May that be truly said of us, and all of us...

OK, that out of the way...one of the most gritty, realistic, honest translations ever to grace the screen. Wouldn't have changed a thing. Highly, highly recommended, along with the original 1955 version of "Animal Farm". Perfect double-feature for a somber, thoughtful evening's viewing.

Understands Human Nature

[frankiemerc · 7/10 · 22 October 2021]

You can see the ideas of this property coming to life each day. Not the dictatorship but the revisionism of the past we do to fit narratives. Hopefully we are not screwed like Winston is.

2021

[rolltide-13419 · 10/10 · 14 January 2021]

Orwell was a prophet. You could change the name to 2021 and just turn on the tv now to witness this live.

A well made tip of the hat to those who read the book

[aggelos-76652 · 7/10 · 3 May 2023]

This is a very well made movie the acting and atmosphere especially. This film is also very loyal to the book. The thing is it felt like you have had to read the book in order to get much needed context. The book put much much effort in world building as well as Winston's thoughts. In large both are missing here (partially limited by a movies run time I suppose), so many of the scenes greatly lose impact or straight up leave many questions to the viewer who hasn't read the book.

Also, to me at least the missing information made the story feel like it is moving in fast forward. So the pacing felt a bit weird to me.

Personally I enjoyed the film because it put the world and story outside my head. Making me visually look at this twisted world and also experience it from a perspective that's not mine. Which was really interesting.

For these reasons I would recommend all people who read the book watch this movie but definitely not to people who haven't read the book.

George Orwell's novel of a totalitarian future society in which a man whose daily work is rewriting history tries to rebel by falling in love.

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 13 August 2013]

Michael Radford's film adaptation of classic dystopian novel. George Orwell's terrifying vision comes to life . Exciting rendition that picks up every mote of bleak despair George Orwell's novel of a totalitarian future society in which a man whose daily work is rewriting history tries to rebel by falling in love . The film's opening prologue states: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past" . In a futuristic, state-run society controlled by "Big Brother" in which love is outlawed, employee of the state Winston Smith (John Hurt) falls for Julia (Suzanne Hamilton) , and is tortured and brainwashed for his crime . As a man who works for 'The Party' , an all powerful empire led by a man known only as 'Big Brother', begins to have thoughts of rebellion and love for a fellow member . Together they look to help bring down the party .

Dystopian polemic story which contain a polemic denounce to totalitarianism. "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is a workmanlike rendition of notorious novel that captures the desolation and misery found within those pages , though some liberties have been taken with the script . The film was made and released about thirty-five years after its source novel of the same name by George Orwell had been first published in 1948. Orwell chose the title of his magnum opus "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by inverting the last two digits of the year he completed the manuscript (1948). George also wrote ¨Animal Farm¨ , a barely-disguised metaphor for Stalin's propaganda-laced Soviet Russia, as well as his later novel 1984. This is one of a number of dystopian, Orwellian and Kafaesque films made during the early to mid 1980s , the pictures include 1984, Terry Gilliam's Brazil, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner , Pink Floyd The Wall , Season of the Witch and Giorgio Moroder version of Fritz Lang's Metrópolis .

Very acting by John Hurt as the tragic figure who dares to fall in love within a totalitarian society where emotions are outlawed and Suzanne Hamilton ,she was perfectly cast as Julia , her uncommonly bold, affecting performance, earned her some notoriety and a bit of a minor cult and she is frequently seen in full-frontal nudity . And , of course , Richard Burton , in his last film role makes a grand torturer : cold , shrewd and stiff , in fact the picture is dedicated to actor Richard Burton ; the dedication during the closing credits states: "With love and admiration, Richard Burton 1925-1984" . Director Michael Radford and cinematographer Roger Deakins originally wanted to shoot the film in black and white, but the financial backers of the production, Virgin Films, opposed this idea. Instead Deakins used a film processing technique called bleach bypass to create the distinctive washed-out look of the film's color visuals . Impressive as well as evocative production design has been rendered with meticulous attention to period detail . The picture won the "Best British Film of the Year" award at the Evening Standard British Film Awards in 1984. However , the movie achieved mediocre box office , but following over the years as the film's reputation has steadily grown.

Other adaptations about this classic novel are the followings : ¨1984¨ (1956) by Michael Anderson with Edmond O'Brien as Winston Smith , Michael Redgrave as O'Connor of the Inner Party , Jan Sterling as Julia of the Inner Party , Mervyn Johns as Jones and Donald Pleasence as R. Parsons . And for TV ¨1984¨(1954) by by Rudolph Cartier with Peter Cushing as Winston Smith , André Morell as O'Brien as Yvonne Mitchell as Julia and again Donald Pleasence as Syme . Furthermore, an American version , Studio one . ¨1984¨ , (1953) with Eddie Albert as Winston Smith , Lorne Greene as O'Brien and Norma Crane as Julia .

Brilliant adaption of a classic novel.

[Skeptic459 · 10/10 · 30 December 2003]

Despite what one reviewer states here, 1984 is an extremely important literary work. It explains to the reader what the ultimate facist state would be like. This story is never more important than now, with the world in crisis. It is an absolute must that people read or see 1984. Other films have been made about fascism. One of the most notable examples being Pier Pasolini's Salo. But the problem is hardly anyone is going to see that except for weirdo's or film buffs. This is because of the graphic nature of the film. Besides, Salo was explaining the inherently depraved, decadent nature of fascism. Orwell's 1984 explains the mechanisms that invoke totalitarianism.

John Hurt is excellent as the main character. I am quite a fan. The film is also very well made. The bleakness of the book is perfectly captured by the director. You feel sympathy for the characters even though they seem far away because they appear so weary, yet willing to hope. Transcendence is hinted at when there is a scene where Hurt looks out and sees a wilderness instead of a prison. Hurt's character, Winston looks like he is about half dead! You really hope that Winston and Julia can pull off a passionate love affair. Although you know that it is doomed and is more of an act of rebellion against big brother than anything else. The setting is a land that is half destroyed because of the constant wars. The wars being yet another method of control. They tell us in psychology that in war, depression and other similar disorders actually go down! Interesting eh? The start where everyone sits watching the screens and begins to scream at images of the enemy. This is a great moment in the film that shows a kind of utter conformity through extreme social norms. The most effective form of brainwashing.

The problem with the film, like the book, is that people will find it too bleak and horrific to really appreciate it. It is depressing but this is the horror of totalitarianism. The material is not intended to be a walk in the park. One of the most striking and horrific instances of 1984 is the 2+2 does not equal 4 scene. The torture and brainwashing too achieve utter obedience. Richard 'my voice competes with Orson Welles' Burton, who normally pontificates and chews up the scenery is remarkably restrained here. This restraint is the key to a very good performance. These torture scenes are horrific and Hurt really shines. This guy should have got an Oscar! The scenes had me gasping...When I originally read the book it took a while for me to get over the rats. EWWWWWWW!

Looking at the overall rating of 1984 I am just totally surprised that this film has such a low rating. Maybe people would rate the novel exactly the same way because of the material. This brings me too my other quibble. The film does not TOTALLY cover all of the novels themes. In fact, although Suzanna Hamilton puts on a good performance, her character is not completely captured. Viewers must remember that literature and cinema are two completely different mediums. There is no such thing as a 100 percent adaption. Therefore you must rate the film on the usual cinematic features. But the main thing is how well the overall message of the story was transmitted. This film powerfully demonstrates Orwell's message!

What is weird is one of the reviewers here states that they did not like the nudity. Well, I'm guessing the director was going for a Adam and Eve state with their being naked out in the woods. This is obviously the complete opposite of the unnatural state they have to live in. It does not cheapen the film and points more to the reviewers own repressed desires. Reaction formation perhaps? Besides no one is going to get this for naked bodies when porn is so freely available from your local video store!

Consider how relevant this story is. How propaganda and public relations has never been more prevalent. How public relations has overtaken journalism, causing journalism to become more and more watered down. How the political economy of the media is now being hugely influenced by being based in a monopoly economy. A few now control the flow of information for the general population in western nations. This is not conspiracy theory, this is fact. True investigative journalism is at an all time low and the media itself is in a shocking state of affairs. Like everything in our capitalist system, it is controlled by money. Ever read Michel Foucault? Dominant hegemonies, discourse analysis, bla bla bla. I don't want to get all crusty and academic here. But Rupert Murdoch is rubbing his hands together. Time and time again, the United States has been shown to be patently false about why they engaged in conflict with Iraq. Just read John Pilger! Yet many Americans supported the conflict. Even believing chemical weapons were used on American troops, when no such event took place! Why? Because they were manipulated by a sophisticated propaganda machine.

Knowledge is power. That is why in 1984 language is being systematically destroyed. This denial of language is the denial of thought itself. Reality is then more easily shaped by the oppressor. Remember dictators, such as Pol Pot destroy the educated first. This is why the film and book are so important, they are still very RELEVANT! In fact I think the progression of western society will become a mixture of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and 1984. Either way we are being manipulated and controlled and these books show you how. America has the 'Patriot Act' that was rushed through congress although human rights groups had many serious doubts about the act. In New Zealand we have a Government that is similary becoming too involved in the regulation of peoples lives. BIG BROTHER IS STILL ALIVE!

I give this film a 10 and think the last scene with Hurt looking so haunted in the bar/coffee place was awesome! GREAT, GREAT BOOK! GREAT, GREAT FILM!

I have had a bit of a rant here...But hey I really like the book and this version of the film! So why not? This is a film for rebels!

Disturbing, to say the last

[jeffmills-56581 · 7/10 · 19 April 2022]

Yes it is very disturbing. But the filmmakers did a great job of showing the eerieness of a nightmarish dystopian future. John hurt and Richard burton give very good performances.

The book is much, much better.

[grandfunkfan · 4/10 · 16 July 2005]

I had high hopes for this movie, because I enjoyed the book so much. However, I don't think I would have understood the premise of the movie if I hadn't already read the book. The movie is a noble attempt to show the despair of people trying to break the bonds of overpowering government rule, but the book portrays the suffering much more thoroughly. The corrupt government officials have comfortable, almost luxurious lives, while the common people struggle to obtain the bare necessities for survival. Perhaps most people feel this way toward their leaders and rulers regardless of whether or not they are actually oppressed or repressed. Orwell's dystopia seems as if it could exist in many places in our modern world. It has been several years since I've read the book, but one hears references to Big Brother, the Thought Police, and Newspeak frequently in the media and casual conversation. Probably many people using these terms don't realize where the terms came from. I strongly recommend that you read the book.

Accurate and powerful rendering of a timely piece of work

[alainenglish · 18 September 2002]

From the opening shot of "Nineteen Eighty Four" the viewer is plunged right into the hellhole of Oceania and the ultimate totalitarian nightmare. Whilst the year 1984 may be long past us, the essential themes of George Orwell's best known work still remain as timely and as relevant as ever.

Winston Smith (John Hurt) is a drone worker in the Bureau of Information, and his job is to edit the news in accordance with the needs of the governing Party (which is in continual, seemingly endless war with Eurasia and other opposing states). He must also refer to the dictionary of Newsspeak, which is the government's language for the distribution of information.

He lives in a world where there is no escape from the authority of the government who regiment the every thought and deed of their subjects. The Party is steadily working on a way to outlaw the concept of the family and the idea of conception. This is done to eradicate Thoughtcrime and guarantee the worker's total devotion to the Party and its leader, Big Brother.

Winston abides by this (recording his increasingly ambiguous thoughts about society in a hidden, handwritten diary) until he encounters Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), a strange young women with rebellious ideas, to whom he develops a powerful attraction. But their passionate, forbidden relationship cannot escape the all-seeing eyes of Big Brother.....

Screenwriter Jonathan Gems has a done a terrific job with the script. He successfully translates Orwell's ideas to the screen with great clarity. Micheal Radford directs with subtlety around the greasy sets and crumbling locations (the picture was filmed in and around the very area in which Orwell set his novel).

The performances from the chief principals are very strong. John Hurt is excellent as Winston, bringing a subtle and considerate approach to the character. Particularly disturbing is his final scenes, as he becomes gaunt and disfigured through government torture. Suzanna Hamilton is gentle and quirky as Julia and "Rab C Nesbitt" actor Gregor Fisher appears as Winston's ill-fated friend, Parsons.

Veteran actor Richard Burton lends a cold charisma to government enforcer O'Brien and he too excels in the film's final moments, as he coolly and sadistically tortures Winston, subjecting him to severe physical pain to subdue him, casually pulling a tooth out of his rotting mouth, then exposing him to the horrors of Room 101, all the while exhorting obedience to the Party and love to Big Brother.

The strong relevance of the concepts of "Nineteen Eighty Four" should not be underestimated. Whilst the term "Big Brother" is now synonymous with the ridiculous "reality" TV shows of the same name, others like the Two Minutes Hate (in which the workers are coerced, through a two-minute broadcast, into hating the enemies of the state); the idea of a government waging a perpetual war to advocate "peace" (especially relevant in the aftermath of September 11) as well as the editing of news and the abuse of language in order to suit the needs of government and disguise its true agendas are ideas that are chillingly present in today's society.

All of this is powerful and thought-provoking stuff, and helps to make "Nineteen Eighty Four" an accurate and powerful rendering of a still very timely piece of work.

Simply doesn't have the impact of the book

[davidallenxyz · 6/10 · 6 September 2023]

Orwell's 1984 is a stunning novel. Radford's 1984 is a rather average film.

There are a few successes.

Visually, it manages to capture a run-down nation that has barely progressed for decades, with well chosen locations, and cinematography that succeeds in being washed-out without resorting to darkness (modern filmmakers take note).

Later scenes between Hurt and Burton are taut and powerful. Even though you get the feeling that Burton had done very little to learn his lines, his presence and delivery more than compensate - he is well cast as O'Brien.

But Hurt is not a great Winston Smith. Smith is a dreamer, but Hurt doesn't capture that. His relationship with Suzanna Hamilton's Julia doesn't convince as a result.

The pacing of the first two acts is slow. And I do wonder whether someone who hasn't already read the book would find it had to engage with the film at all. It's just a bit flat.

You never know who's watching.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 8 July 2023]

'Looks like meat, tastes like meat, isn't meat at all.'

In a dystopian future, in which the authorities have total control of every aspect of human life, Winston Smith begins to document his thoughts, and starts to fall in love, his obsession forces him to take risks, risks that endanger both him and Julia.

Such a faithful adaptation, I am in the middle of reading the book again, and I am staggered by just how accurate this excellent film is.

Intensely bleak, it is a nightmare scenario to imagine, sadly though after the last few years, it almost feels like a prophecy, with people's freedoms and civil liberties being diminished. I'm not a cynic, but I see glimpses of the novel in day to day life.

I must admit, the relatively good, but average score surprises me, I thought this would have a much greater rating.

The visuals are perfect, again it is just what I see in my mind's Wye when I read the book, the greyness and squalor, the production is on point.

What the book does alarmingly well, is create a world, it has ideas, rules, a culture, ideals and opinions, it almost has a smell and touch, this film manages to capture those elements.

The propaganda element works very well, the posters, screens, the voices, you almost imagine someone to shout out 'you've never had it so good.'

John Hurt is extraordinary here, it's a captivating sincere performance. Suzanne Hamilton is excellent, as is Richard Burton, it's well documented that he had problems with the script, but there's no denying his incredible presence, and that terrific voice.

This still gives me the chills.

9/10.

George Orwell's 1984 novel was published on June 8th, 1949

[PCC0921 · 7/10 · 3 May 2022]

It is no wonder, that this film is required viewing in film schools everywhere. When you look at the original source material, based off of George Orwell's 1949 novel, the time the film was released and the way the production was assembled, there are many different, intriguing things going on here. The novel came out only four years after the end of World War II. Fresh on the minds of the general public, the book utilized the totalitarian ideals of Nazi Germany. With the Cold War just starting as well, the book also highlighted the misguided concepts of Stalin's Russia too. George Orwell modeled his book with something people could identify with in real-life. It is a basic principal found in all story-telling. Take something that happened in our real-world history and modify it, so that it fits into your story. Being that it was 1949, the book is a story about our future-Earth, in this case 1984. This creates a whole new set of interesting thoughts to consider, being that we can now look at this film from a 21st century point of view. So, instead of being terrified by a possible future, we can now go back and ponder, what those from the past, imagined what world we could be living in today and the relief, that they were way off.

I saw this film for the first time in film-school back in 1991 and haven't had the chance to catch it again, until recently, just a mere 30 years later. It does have a different feeling to it today then it did back in 1991. Seeing it the first time, just seven years after its initial release was more of a study in film theory, but today it has more of a feeling of history to it, albeit a history that never happened. The totalitarian, repressive government, that the people in this film have to face, is definitely something we don't want to ever see happen. The government's main goal is to suppress free thought, sexual freedoms and surveillance is everywhere. There is no freedom or privacy in this world of 1984. You actually could be executed for thought crimes or sexual/breeding crimes. If they tell you the sky is pink, you better believe it. They don't even subscribe to the Law of Gravity. Ok, maybe there are some things we can relate to today, that are found in this story.

This brings me to the cast of characters found in the film. This is a meticulously made film, that moves at the pace of a book. It needs to be careful not to miss important details, so that the film ends up being successful. What the film does, in order to keep the slow pace working, are the performances by the excellent cast. This is a British production, so some of the best actors from the UK show up in this film. Taking the lead is John Hurt as Winston Smith. In his attempt to avoid getting in trouble with the "Thought Police", Winston keeps a job at the Ministry of Truth. Yep! He's rewriting history. He meets a woman named Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), who is a free thinker and after an interesting courtship, they fall in love. We learn that those not totally with the government are part of the Outer Party. Those in the government are the Inner Party. Eventually, with all the craziness going on in this world, Winston and Julia find, that their very existence is in jeopardy, just because they want to be together, living their lives. That is not what the government wants from its citizens. They want total rule.

On the other side of the equation is another acting great, Mr. Elizabeth Taylor himself, Richard Burton, who plays O'Brien. O'Brien works for the Thought Police, who Winston realizes is not a person like himself, but actually is a high ranking officer of the Inner Party. O'Brien is the instrument of Winston and Julia's worst fears, even though he too once was like them, but as he says to Winston, "they caught me a long time ago". Also on the bad guys side, channeling the same totalitarian energy he generates in the film Fahrenheit 451 (1966), is Cyril Cusack as Mr. Charrington. Charrington is an undercover agent of the Thought Police, who uses a pawn shop as his cover. He pops in every now-and-then to spy on those who go against the government. Cusack brings that excellent quality of acting, that shows us what a weaselly, scum would be like in a dystopian future.

Finally, the historical impact of this film, either in the real-world or film history, is something to understand when watching this film. The principle photography was done in London, during the same months of 1984, that the film takes place. Releasing the film in 1984 was an interesting play, because it creates this linear mood, mirroring the current day concept of multiple time-lines. It is, kind of, a dark London universe if you will and works even better today in the 21st century. Tragedy would strike shortly after filming was complete when Richard Burton died prematurely, at the age of 56, two months before the release of this film. Director, Michael Radford, creates this grim, dirty, horrifyingly tasty adaptation of a novel, that has ingrained itself into the pop-culture lexicon. The book and the film gave us the concept ideas of Big Brother is watching you, so behave yourself. One other added delight to this film, is the fact that, the Eurythmics do the soundtrack. Instead of worrying about pacing and time, just sit back and try to digest the visuals coming at you from the big screen.

7.5 (C+ MyGrade) = 7 IMDB.

Who Controls the Past Controls the Future, Who Controls the Present Controls the Past

[claudio_carvalho · 10/10 · 24 November 2010]

In 1984, Oceania is an omnipresent state ruled by the Big Brother with a totalitarian society and in permanent war, presently against Eurasia, with intention of keeping the proletariat without education and without possibility of capital accumulation. People from the upper classes follow the "Ingsoc" philosophy and are under permanent surveillance of Big Brother through the "telescreen" – a monitor that is television and also spies the life of each individual. However, the proletariat is free of the control of the state. The Party has just released the 10th edition of the Newspeak Dictionary, with the intention of reducing the words to make people limited to express any feeling against the Party.

In the "Minitrue" (Ministry of Truth in Newspeak), the bureaucrat Winston Smith (John Hurt) rewrites history to permit the party to control the future and is quite indifferent to his society. Winston is approached by the party member O'Brien (Richard Burton) that gives a copy of the new released dictionary to him. When Winston meets the brother Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), they commit "sexcrime" and fall in love for each other. But they are captured by the fearful Thought Police and Winston is interrogated and brainwashed by O'Brien that explains the logic of the party to keep the power. But in the end, the human spirit of Winston prevails.

When I was a teenager, George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and "Animal Farm" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" were my favorite novels. George Orwell wrote this novel in 1948, inverting the last two digits in the title, and the novel was released on 8 June 1949. The story takes place between April and June 1984. I read the book in Portuguese, where the new words of the Newspeak were perfectly translated.

The film "1984" is a magnificent transposition of the novel to the cinema, with a remarkable screenplay by Michael Radford and top-notches performances of John Hurt and Richard Burton in his last work. The awesome direction of Michael Radford gives a perfect idea of this novel about a dystopian society and the political theories of this society subdue by the powerful, feared and omnipresent Big Brother and is so careful that "1984" was filmed between April and June 1984 in London, in the same period and location George Orwell wrote in his novel. I saw this depressing film in the movie theater for the first time in 1984, and since then, I have seen at least three times on VHS (last time on 24 April 2003) and now I have just watched on DVD. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "1984"

A bit too "bookish"

[Jexxon · 6/10 · 11 January 2005]

Very faithful adaptation of George Orwell's dystopian vision of the "future" world of 1984 - perhaps closer to reality today than ever before.

The sets and cinematography are minimalistic and sufficiently bleak and gritty, which really evokes the hopelessness found in the novel. The acting is also good (especially Burton), although I felt that Hurt's Winston got a bit too whiny at times.

The biggest problem, however, is that the success of the film relies too heavily on the having read the book. There are events and nuances in the performances that are lost compared to the subject matter. In other words, the book is obviously much richer in details and such, and it can't be expected that it's all properly transferred to the screen, but the film doesn't manage to stand on its own. Things from the book could have been added or removed in order to shape it into a better film.

As it is now, it never rises above being a visual companion to the novel, rather than being a really good film. The same problem is evident in, for example, the Harry Potter films, that also suffer from this problem. So, in the end it's certainly worth watching, but it's not the wow-experience it could have been. [6/10]

"We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness..."

[jawills · 10/10 · 23 May 2000]

Michael Radford's utterly superlative film of Orwell's famed novel may well be the greatest cinematic adaptation of a major literary source ever -- and it stands out as one of the most memorable British films of the past thirty years. Full credit is due to cinematographer Roger Deakins who shoots everything in grainy, washed-out, desaturated colors adding to the picture's atmosphere of wistful yet austere, dream-like strangeness. The modern London settings -- with their cobblestone streets, shabby, dilapidated buildings, desolate fields, rubble-strewn alleyways, and forbidding, blackened Gothic-Victorian façades and hints of minimalist fascist architecture -- resemble a Depression-era housing project after the Luftwaffe. And Dominic Muldowney's score, with its martial clarion calls, bombastic church-organ blasts, and swelling choral leitmotiv of `Oceania, 'tis for thee,' has a mixture of Wagnerian grandeur and Bach-like religiosity about it. All the while, the bizarre, mantra-like drones of the much-maligned Eurythmics soundtrack rises and falls, weaving in and out of the narrative like so many subconscious banshee wails.

Radford treats the book's premise not as a sci-fi flight of fantasy or grim prophecy but rather as the world of 1948 seen through a glass darkly -- a kind of medieval morality play for the post-totalitarian age. There is less emphasis on the novel's musty, well-worn-and-endlessly-picked-over polemical import and more focus on the stark human element, and indeed, the actors bear such uncanny resemblance to Orwell's descriptions they practically seem born for their roles.

With his quiet, brooding eloquence and haunted eyes peeking out of a gaunt, cadaverous frame like a tubercular, ashen-faced Egon Schiele figure, John Hurt is ideally cast as Winston Smith. As Julia, Suzanna Hamilton (first seen as a lovelorn dairymaid in Polanski's TESS and as the paralyzed daughter in BRIMSTONE AND TREACLE) has a serene, arresting presence – and she appears as mysteriously stirring and beguiling to us as she does to Hurt. She brings a captivating freshness and warmth to her role, a little reminiscent of a young Harriet Andersson. Her pale, wiry, broad-hipped body has a simple, unaffected, almost archetypal beauty, and in the film's more intimate moments, she radiates all the tactile sensual grace of a Munch or Degas nude.

As O'Brien, the Jesuitical inquisitor of infinite patience, Richard Burton delivers a superbly perspicacious swan-song performance – he becomes almost a kind of an oracular Thanatos to Hamilton's Eros. In an exquisite, maliciously Swiftian twist of irony, Burton's famous voice, with its rich, mellifluous Welsh inflections and descending cadences of Shakespearean sonnets and Dylan Thomas poetry, becomes a cruel herald of the willful, systematic destruction of the human spirit -- of `the worst thing in the world' that waits in Room 101… in the fated `place where there is no darkness.' When O'Brien tells Winston, `you are thinking that my face is old and tired…and that while I talk of power I am unable to prevent the decay of my own body,' Burton's sagging, weary face speaks volumes.

In the lesser roles, Gregor Fisher's Parsons literally resembles a sweaty frog, James Walker's Syme is the classic image of a squirrelly, mealy-mouthed hack-intellectual, while Andrew Wilde cuts the most chilling figure as the bespectacled, unblinking ‘company man,' Tillotson. The late Cyril Cusack plays Mr. Charrington, the kindly Cockney landlord who is not all that he appears to be, with an understated sentimental charm punctuated by slight flickers of calculating menace (watch closely for the way Cusack's facial expression changes whenever Hurt is not looking at him). Phyllis Logan (the star of Radford's début feature, ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE, and a supporting player in Mike Leigh's SECRETS AND LIES) provides one of the film's most clever unacknowledged ironies: as the Telescreen Announcer, her strident, hectoring voice suggests a more shrill caricature of Margaret Thatcher.

If anything, this film makes a unique and compelling case for some of the oldest cinematic devices in the book that nearly all contemporary filmmakers have since abandoned: slow dissolves, fades, blackouts, shock-cuts, slow motion, flashbacks, montage. The high-contrast photography, alternately harsh and low-key lighting, and iconic close-up shots evoke the abstract, transcendental purity of Bresson or Dreyer. There is even one extraordinary sequence when Winston, bruised and battered, is seen having his head shorn in a holding cell that is clearly meant to recall Falconetti's famous haircutting scene in Dreyer's LA PASSION DE JEANNE D'ARC (1928). Similarly, Burton is filmed in oppressive, looming low-angle with Expressionist shadows defining the lines of his craggy visage à la Eugène Silvain's Bishop Cauchon sans the warts. And the idyllic barley fields of the ‘Golden Country,' where Winston and Julia have their first tryst is a possible homage to the titular peasant paradise of Dovzhenko's EARTH (1926).

What makes the film so powerful is not merely its fidelity to its source but its vivid sense of realism. NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR is such an impassioned and richly textured work that the visuals almost seem to seep into the pores of your skin, intoxicating you with dread and longing. And Radford is so adept at obscuring the boundaries that separate the ameliorative persistence of reverie from the glaring harshness of waking reality, that the film's seamless perfection becomes almost frightening.

Cold and lifeless vision of the future

[The_Void · 6/10 · 27 July 2008]

I have to admit that I've not read George Orwell's original novel '1984'; but everyone knows the story and many elements of it have made their way into popular culture. Since I've not read the book; I can't comment on whether or not this film version is faithful to the literature, but apparently this is one of the more faithful movie versions. Director Michael Radford takes the subject material and uses it to paint an incredibly bleak vision of the future; one so bleak that all the warmth of the movie is thoroughly drained from it and we are left with is incredibly lifeless and hard to get on with. Our main character is a man named Smith. Smith works in a people intensive environment where he is charged with the task of rewriting history. This future society has been divided into three parts; and we focus on Oceania, of which London is the capital. The state is ruled over by 'Big Brother' and thinking outside of the box is against the law. Smith falls in love with a woman named Julia; which is of course against the rules of the totalitarian society.

The movie takes more time instilling the situation of the future than it does on the actual characters; so while we get a chilling portrait of how this modern society is ran and the rules that govern it; we are unfortunately not given much in the way of reasons to care about our main characters' plights. The story itself has some very interesting points to make, however; and depending on your stance, you may well believe that modern society is moving ever closer to the 'Big Brother' of this film; here in the UK we are already being threatened with the prospect of ID cards, security cameras and ISP's spying on our internet connections, so maybe Orwell's vision is not such a distant possibility. Going back to the film; it does have to be said that it is well made. The acting is generally very good and the cinematography very much fits the style and atmosphere that the story demands. Some say that this film is terrifying; though the disengagement from the lead characters made it less so for me, and this is definitely the main problem. I haven't seen any other versions of this story, however (unless Brazil counts) and while I'm not overly fussed with this film; it is at least worth a look.

Not really Sci-Fi

[gedonkone · 10/10 · 25 July 2020]

How did we let this happen. As Orwell tried to tell us ..... wake up.

Big Brotherly Love and Hate

[Lejink · 7/10 · 23 December 2023]

Michael Radford, reportedly on the instructions of George Orwell's widow, presents here a grim, stark dramatisation of the famous old book. There are no futuristic special effects on show here, in fact, apart from the dream-sequence scenes set in the countryside, there seem to be only fifty shades of grey in the director's colour palette.

This and the grindingly slow pace throughout can make it a somewhat tortuous watch, especially when I imagine everyone knows the ending in advance and therefore has nothing positive or uplifting to look forward to. There are minimal sets, minimal use of any musical soundtrack apart from the ubiquitous "Hail Oceania" anthem and the acting too is similarly, sometimes literally, certainly in Suzanna Hamilton's case as Julia, stripped down to the bone.

All of which is I suppose as it should be. Orwell wrote his book as a warning against totalitarianism and despite Winston's feeble protestations before his free will finally gives way under O'Brien's metaphorical boot-stamping, rat-running torture, there really is no hope for the future. The future's not orange, it's grey.

The aptly named John Hurt suffered for his art in more than one role in his long career and he is suitably grim and stoical here as the luckless Smith. Richard Burton in his final role before he died not long after shooting the movie, subtly underplays the part of the sadistic interrogator O'Brien. I'd go so far as to say that it must be the first time I've not been aware of stopping to admire his modulated tones while watching him act, which has to be a good thing.

Many times over since Orwell completed his novel in 1948, we've seen and continue to see the prescience in his writing, indeed I was surprised not to hear the phrase "fake news" come up in the dialogue.

While at times tough to watch, I felt that this movie, deliberately shot and released in the actual year of its title, was admirably true to the text, for which I commend it. 1984's ultimate fate it seems is to be forever contemporary.

Pointless

[ChaGuana · 1/10 · 14 October 2001]

I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.

Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.

The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.

Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.

And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.

But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.

If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.

Two stars out of ten

One of the great screen adaptations

[quixoboy · 31 October 2003]

Merely a few days after finishing my read of George Orwell's fantastic 1948 novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four", I was immediately keen on looking to rent the modern film version, "1984" - filmed, appropriately enough, not only during the actual YEAR of 1984, but also during the exact same short span of months that the story took place in. This, to me, is a prime example of perfect, and unbelievably well-timed, brilliance. A picture based on such complex, prophetic, and well-known material could have turned out to be a complete disaster (which it certainly had potential for, judging from the horrendous-looking DVD cover); thankfully, however, I was not disappointed.

"1984" is probably one of the most, if not THE most, masterful transitions from book to movie I have ever seen. Easily, its most impressive aspect was its phenomenal accuracy, attention to detail, etc. In other words, this film was FAITHFUL, in every sense of the word, to its source material. One can't give such a statement about films these days.

Amazing casting, terrific musical score, and mind-blowing sets, cinematography, and direction, "1984" is surely a unique treasure, and one that still retains the same timeless messages even decades since its release.