1984

(UK, '84, 113 min.)

Author's Commentary: Many of my reviews will be accompanied by this additional section, which will serve as a) personal notes on my growth as a writer, b) a spot for responses to reader comments (though those may show up in the comment section as well), and c) miscellaneous musings about the accompanying review. Basically, it's the "blog" part of the blog. People who just want to read my movie review can skip the italicized parts. Also, I'm still fiddling with which details I should include in the heading; I'll use rating, country, year of release, and length for now. (Please weigh in on this!) Here we go.

We all know the lines that inevitably spew forth from the "cultured" masses every time there's a film adaptation of classic fiction. "The book was totally better." "I can't believe they left that part out!" "That was SO not the way I imagined it when I read it." I enjoyed a few of the classics I read in high school (Of Mice and Men, Lord of the Flies, To Kill A Mockingbird), but I haven't read many others, and consequently, I usually find myself on the receiving end of these indignant remarks. To be honest, I'm pretty sick of it. So much so, I consider it an asset to review an adaptation of such an influential and widely read work without having read it. Whether this naïve perspective serves me, of course, is for you to decide.

1984 recounts one man's battle against Oceania, an oppressive totalitarian state controlled by the political party INGSOC (which is Newspeak for 'English Socialism,' though the film never explains this). Winston Smith dutifully fakes allegiance to the Party by day, but secretly commits "thoughtcrime" by keeping a diary of his yearning for more than mindlessness and submission. He find a kindred spirit in Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), who accompanies him to the proletariat wastelands, where they find refuge from state surveillance, as well as remains of the same historical past Smith ashamedly rewrites as copy editor for the Oceania Times. She informs Smith of an inner Party member, O'Brien (Richard Burton), who allegedly shares their views and could lead an uprising, but O'Brien's status is more than meets the eye.

A word of warning to modern moviegoers: be aware that this would likely fall into the category of art film. The dialogue is quite dense at times, and it's often muddled by the actors' thick British accents. This viewer scrambled for the DVD subtitles several times. Also, while it's this writer's opinion that the film was engaging enough, many viewers will find its visuals stale and its pacing slow, even boring. In other words, those with T-rex vision or an affinity for the Rush Hour films, don't bother watching. That being said, the film has some outstanding qualities worth exploring further.

The Party logo. Fun Fact: There are no black people in this movie.

Transforming a long-form written work into an engaging visual story can be a daunting task, but 1984's narrative is concise and elegant, thanks to writer/director Michael Radford. The biggest challenge of the story lies in establishing the complex philosophies and concepts behind INGSOC. Big Brother, whose face and voice pump propaganda through Oceania's countless screens 24 hours a day, is an embodiment of the INGSOC philosophy. Radford takes advantage of what could have easily been vague, inconsequential background chatter, instead forming a backbone of contextual evidence throughout the film in order for viewers to familiarize themselves with INGSOC. Through the daily governance administered by these screens, the philosophy of INGSOC and the master plan for Oceania are articulated to the viewer almost subconsciously, and most importantly, without intruding on the development of the main characters.

The acting in the film is also very strong, largely due to its restraint. John Hurt is understated as Smith, and so are all the characters during most of the film. Obviously, this is to allow for the obtrusive omnipresence of Big Brother, but these muted performances also allow the sets and cinematography to shine through. Slow-moving or static camera work draws attention to the crushing, monochrome world the characters inhabit. Short splashes of green grass and blue sky cut through the grayscale to emote the joy and freedom of the couple's brief escapes from the city. In this way, Radford forces himself to tell a written story in visual language. It also attunes the viewer to subtleties, so that when the actors take charge in the final act, it makes for a more engaging climax. As an aside, the acting also underscores one particularly disturbing aspect of dystopia: that people willfully accept their plight, and in some cases, even defend it. Look for a poignant example of this in Gregor Fisher's powerful supporting role as Smith's friend, Parsons.

This film boasts the unique quality of being filmed in London in the spring of 1984, which is the actual time and place that Orwell had imagined 35 years earlier as the setting for the story. It seems apparent that those involved in making the film felt a duty to pay earnest and worthy homage to Orwell's defining work. While the film may not hold much mass market appeal, its richness and attention to detail are commendable. The film style, direction, and performances are cohesive in a way that few films manage, and despite the bleakness of the film, I found myself feeling cautiously optimistic for Smith as the credits rolled. It's difficult to say whether this glimmer of hope was intended or I simply imagined it, but it speaks to the film's portrayal of fierce resilience in the face of hopelessness. Though it's a cautionary tale at its core, 1984 is so much more.