As far as an adaption of George Orwell's novel is concerned, I think Michael Radford's 1984 film nailed it.
It was needed to dull the memory of the strident, 1956 version with Edmund Obrien, which mouthed many of the words, but missed the ambience of Orwell's work. Mind you the credits for that earlier film did state that it was freely adapted from the novel, but Orwell had died by then, and couldn't sue the filmmakers.
Apart from the look and the visual approach, a lot of the power of Radford's 1984 version is in the casting. After seeing John Hurt in the role, with that weary look, smoking the stubs of his Victory cigarettes despite a hacking cough, it's hard to envisage Winston Smith any other way.
Susanna Hamilton as Julia with those amazing features that hold the shadows in deep-set eyes and prominent cheekbones gave a startling performance that helped make the film so confronting. But she also seems the only adjusted character. Other than during "The Two-Minutes Hate", nearly everyone else seems low-key and depressed.
Then there is Richard Burton as O'Brien, Winston's nemesis, torturer, mentor and saviour all in one. It was his last movie. He wasn't the first choice. He had recently been named Hollywood's worst actor in "The Golden Turkey Awards", but this performance was way above all that. He died not long after; it was a good one to go out on.
George Orwell could have written a work of non-fiction espousing his philosophies on the manipulation of language and history, and how society can be controlled; it may have gained an audience. Instead he wove his ideas through this amazing futuristic story where his vivid characters bring his words to life in a totalitarian nightmare. Seven decades later, the book has never been out of print. It's hard to overestimate its impact. "Orwellian" has only meant one thing since.
Those on the Left think he was warning about the extreme Right, those on the Right think the warning was about the hard Left, but he was warning about both; totalitarianism pure and simple.
The two-way TV screens that may not have been possible when the book was written or even when Radford's film was made are more than possible now. Mind you, if George had got a whiff of the control the digital world would be capable of in the future, he may have been moved to write a sequel.
George had experienced colonialism, he had seen war and been wounded, and he knew how power can corrupt, He also knew poverty. His experiences went into 1984, and his writing is absolutely compelling. The passage where Winston Smith steals the food from his mother is harrowing, and who could stop reading as O'Brien clicks open the first door on the rat cage.
The novel has a unique place in world literature, and Radford's film with its muted colours, contrasting Dominic Muldowney and Eurythmics' soundtracks along with that inspired cast did it justice.
It was needed to dull the memory of the strident, 1956 version with Edmund Obrien, which mouthed many of the words, but missed the ambience of Orwell's work. Mind you the credits for that earlier film did state that it was freely adapted from the novel, but Orwell had died by then, and couldn't sue the filmmakers.
Apart from the look and the visual approach, a lot of the power of Radford's 1984 version is in the casting. After seeing John Hurt in the role, with that weary look, smoking the stubs of his Victory cigarettes despite a hacking cough, it's hard to envisage Winston Smith any other way.
Susanna Hamilton as Julia with those amazing features that hold the shadows in deep-set eyes and prominent cheekbones gave a startling performance that helped make the film so confronting. But she also seems the only adjusted character. Other than during "The Two-Minutes Hate", nearly everyone else seems low-key and depressed.
Then there is Richard Burton as O'Brien, Winston's nemesis, torturer, mentor and saviour all in one. It was his last movie. He wasn't the first choice. He had recently been named Hollywood's worst actor in "The Golden Turkey Awards", but this performance was way above all that. He died not long after; it was a good one to go out on.
George Orwell could have written a work of non-fiction espousing his philosophies on the manipulation of language and history, and how society can be controlled; it may have gained an audience. Instead he wove his ideas through this amazing futuristic story where his vivid characters bring his words to life in a totalitarian nightmare. Seven decades later, the book has never been out of print. It's hard to overestimate its impact. "Orwellian" has only meant one thing since.
Those on the Left think he was warning about the extreme Right, those on the Right think the warning was about the hard Left, but he was warning about both; totalitarianism pure and simple.
The two-way TV screens that may not have been possible when the book was written or even when Radford's film was made are more than possible now. Mind you, if George had got a whiff of the control the digital world would be capable of in the future, he may have been moved to write a sequel.
George had experienced colonialism, he had seen war and been wounded, and he knew how power can corrupt, He also knew poverty. His experiences went into 1984, and his writing is absolutely compelling. The passage where Winston Smith steals the food from his mother is harrowing, and who could stop reading as O'Brien clicks open the first door on the rat cage.
The novel has a unique place in world literature, and Radford's film with its muted colours, contrasting Dominic Muldowney and Eurythmics' soundtracks along with that inspired cast did it justice.