Lord of the Flies is a modern remake of the William Golding classic that was written, produced, performed and edited completely by me, my brothers, and other children aged 7 to 17 during ... See full summary »
A group of young boys are stranded alone on an island. Left to fend for themselves, they must take on the responsibilities of adults, even if they are not ready to do so. Inevitably, two factions form: one group (lead by Ralph) want to build shelters and collect food, whereas Jack's group would rather have fun and HUNT; illustrating the difference between civilization and savagery.Written by
Murray Chapman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
During the first week of film shooting on the Island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, the Bay of Pigs Invasion began. This impacted filming because the wounded were evacuated to the U.S. naval hospital on Vieques. See more »
As Piggy is near-sighted, his spectacles could not be used as a "magnifying glass" to light a bonfire: lenses for near-sightedness would scatter, not focus, the sun's rays. (This error occurs in the original novel and was perpetuated in the 1990 remake of the film.) See more »
This is one of those rarest of rare birds: a film that is totally faithful to the novel upon which it is based.
During his lifetime, William Golding was ever protective of his greatest creation. When it came to making a film of 'Lord of the Flies' some of the greatest screen writers and playwrights of the day had a go at producing a script for it - all of them being turned down by Golding himself. Finally, it was decided to attempt the film as a sort of Drama Workshop. Thus it was that 30+ boys, plus director Peter Brook, a film crew and the regulation chaperones found themselves living in a bunk house, which had been an old canning factory, on the island of Vieques off Puerto Rico, with little more than copies of the novel and an outline of the idea and the limitation of the school holidays in which to make the film.
The result defies belief. This is a masterpiece of Youth Drama, years ahead of its time. Even today, 40 years on, it is still staggering in its truth and clarity. The powerful imagery, chilling in its simplicity, far transcends anything which could be achieved with present day digital trickery. Not for this film the obvious blood and guts of action horror; here we have the most unspeakable acts made far more terrifying by their very understatement. (Simon's death must be one of the foulest acts ever filmed - but then, in reality, it was not - it is all in the imagination of the viewer and becomes far more terrible than any actual depiction of the act of ritualistic murder could ever be!).
When the great day of reckoning comes, this film will stand head and shoulders above all other film adaptations of novels.
71 of 92 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this