It's interesting, but when watching an adaptation of a novel I do not often come to the conclusion that the adaptation is a good "homage." By the very nature of adaptation it would seem the filmmaker has to pay homage to the book, but 1984 seems to be the singular film to have that distinction.
Orwell's 1984 needs little introduction--in a world where not many people read more than a book a year, most people still acknowledge the references and understand the general gist of 1984, even if their pop-culture induced intertextuality or straight-up Cliff's Note night-before-the-high-school-5-paragraph-essay-is-due reading is the closest they've gotten. It is a shame because of course like Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, Orwell's 1984 is significantly text-based in a way somewhat under-evaluated. Orwell's books are by and large about the politics of language, and the famed Newspeak of the novel is dripping with irony and anger in a way that doesn't get translated to screen--there, it just sounds like a typical futurism lingo.
So here's the problem: 1984 is pretty much evenly divided into two parts, the first part following Winston's exploration of his thought crime evolving toward a real desire for resistance, the second half a protracted sociophilosophical discussion as Winston's entire psychology is broken down bit by bit. The first half is the easier to adapt into film--it results in what this movie is, a gritty gray-scaled urban nightmare. The second half is a little more difficult, and this movie lived up to the challenge as best it could. I believe it is the second half why Gilliam's Brazil ended up the way it did and Lucas' THX 1138 decided to just go for a chase scene--these are visual, exciting motifs. The end of 1984 is a multiday discussion on politics, power, language, truth, and everything connected to crushing all of same. Radford helps keep the story going visually by focusing on the torture aspect of it, while also slipping occasionally into Winston's mind for brief countryside interludes. It helps keep the tension going while a summary of the high points of the book's discussion get covered. It shows more the fascination and fear the book invokes, than develops its own fear and fascination itself.
Which is a not ungood choice (sorry, just had to make Orwell's corpse twitch just once). There are certain scenes of this movie that do not really follow but do create a strong tone that pretty much fits the feel of the novel perfectly. It is easy to point to Roger Deakins' cinematography, but it is weirder to mention that the Eurythmics add a lot of their own to the chill. The way that this movie was shot during the timeline the book took place certainly really helps the acknowledgment that the people involved in this teleplay were not just in it for a paycheck, but also had the book squarely in mind. The production design itself looks like they just pulled into some really bad neighborhoods and started filming, though there was obviously a lot more work done than that.
So really, I am glad that this movie is the adaptation of 1984 and I would not recommend another filmmaker try to do this one one better. This movie gets about as close to the text as cinema can, without starting to alter some very important aspects that might as well just make it 1984-inspired than 1984-adapted. However, as fond as I was watching this movie, in this case it is still significantly important that the viewer read the book as well, as the politics of language are harder to follow when spoken in muted, grungy dialog rather than read at your own pace.
--PolarisDiB
Orwell's 1984 needs little introduction--in a world where not many people read more than a book a year, most people still acknowledge the references and understand the general gist of 1984, even if their pop-culture induced intertextuality or straight-up Cliff's Note night-before-the-high-school-5-paragraph-essay-is-due reading is the closest they've gotten. It is a shame because of course like Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, Orwell's 1984 is significantly text-based in a way somewhat under-evaluated. Orwell's books are by and large about the politics of language, and the famed Newspeak of the novel is dripping with irony and anger in a way that doesn't get translated to screen--there, it just sounds like a typical futurism lingo.
So here's the problem: 1984 is pretty much evenly divided into two parts, the first part following Winston's exploration of his thought crime evolving toward a real desire for resistance, the second half a protracted sociophilosophical discussion as Winston's entire psychology is broken down bit by bit. The first half is the easier to adapt into film--it results in what this movie is, a gritty gray-scaled urban nightmare. The second half is a little more difficult, and this movie lived up to the challenge as best it could. I believe it is the second half why Gilliam's Brazil ended up the way it did and Lucas' THX 1138 decided to just go for a chase scene--these are visual, exciting motifs. The end of 1984 is a multiday discussion on politics, power, language, truth, and everything connected to crushing all of same. Radford helps keep the story going visually by focusing on the torture aspect of it, while also slipping occasionally into Winston's mind for brief countryside interludes. It helps keep the tension going while a summary of the high points of the book's discussion get covered. It shows more the fascination and fear the book invokes, than develops its own fear and fascination itself.
Which is a not ungood choice (sorry, just had to make Orwell's corpse twitch just once). There are certain scenes of this movie that do not really follow but do create a strong tone that pretty much fits the feel of the novel perfectly. It is easy to point to Roger Deakins' cinematography, but it is weirder to mention that the Eurythmics add a lot of their own to the chill. The way that this movie was shot during the timeline the book took place certainly really helps the acknowledgment that the people involved in this teleplay were not just in it for a paycheck, but also had the book squarely in mind. The production design itself looks like they just pulled into some really bad neighborhoods and started filming, though there was obviously a lot more work done than that.
So really, I am glad that this movie is the adaptation of 1984 and I would not recommend another filmmaker try to do this one one better. This movie gets about as close to the text as cinema can, without starting to alter some very important aspects that might as well just make it 1984-inspired than 1984-adapted. However, as fond as I was watching this movie, in this case it is still significantly important that the viewer read the book as well, as the politics of language are harder to follow when spoken in muted, grungy dialog rather than read at your own pace.
--PolarisDiB