MovieChat Forums > Nineteen Eighty-Four (1985) Discussion > Comparing the adaptations of 1984

Comparing the adaptations of 1984


I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has seen either or both of the earlier adaptations of 1984. I have only seen this film. My opinion is that it is heavily flawed but does get some things right, notably the stark grey production design and the excellent performances of John Hurt and Richard Burton.

I have not seen the TV film with Peter Cushing - who I can imagine making a fine Winston Smith -or the 1956 movie with Edmond O'Brien (on paper a more questionable casting choice) and Michael Redgrave (who I can only imagine is a splendid O'Brien). Are they well worth seeking out?

reply

I didn’t even know other adaptations existed. Will need to check them out.

I quite liked this movie.

reply

Yes -- it was filmed twice in the 1950s. Clearly, due to censorship restrictions at the time some of the novel's themes and events were, presumably, softened or removed. But I am certainly interested in taking a look at them.

reply

I just watched the 1956 film. It has its moments - the production design is good, it's surprisingly faithful to the novel within the limits of the time and Michael Redgrave is good as O'Brien (renamed O'Connor for no explicable reason... was it so as not to confuse the primary antagonist with the real-life name of the leading actor? Bizarre...). But it cannot overcome the central miscasting of Edmond O'Brien, a good actor but NOT Winston Smith.

Worth a look for the last twenty minutes or so, though.

Now I look forward to seeking out the earlier Peter Cushing TV film!

reply

I've not seen the older (black and white) version but have seen the 1984 version with John Hurt and found it to be remarkably accurate to the book, which I've read at least three times. It was a startling movie! You felt the sense of aloneness that gripped Winston Smith, seemingly by himself in thinking the way he did and afraid of being branded a "thought criminal" if someone suspected him. And the Oceania they created in that movie was true to the way I envisioned it. Everything was crumbling except the large, monolithic party buildings that stood above all other dwellings, like citadels watching over the citizens. It was monstrous, bleak and the ONLY thing that mattered was making sure that citizens were sufficiently "patriotic" and committed to the party and Big Brother. The "two minutes hate" was very similar to Cold War era Soviet movies and propaganda, the kind used by Stalin and Mao.
Someone on this board mentioned HBO turning it into a series and I guess that would be OK but only if they hire writers who don't put their personal politics into the stories (please no more asinine Trump references, that's so old and nothing feels any different from when Bush or Obama was in office, so give that shit a rest).

reply

George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (1956/1984) side-by-side visual comparison:
https://youtu.be/f5Q6j18bkyc

reply

> I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has seen either or both of the earlier adaptations of 1984.

There's a third one -- a 1953 episode of Studio One in which Eddie Albert played Winston Smith.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0712166

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM5Us7z16dg

reply

I was not aware! Thanks for drawing that to my attention.

reply

You're quite welcome! I had seen this one quite a while ago, but before this particular video was put on Youtube. It looks like they did a fine job restoring it to high quality. And it's fun that they left the commercials intact.

Did you ever see the 1954 (Cushing) version? One small but significant difference is that the overalls Julia wears aren't as loose as in the 1984 version, and Yvonne Mitchell had a curvier figure that Suzanna Hamilton. The result is that the Anti-Sex League sash around her waist accentuates her hips and bosom, making her more sexually desirable, not less; and the same would be true for many other women in such a world. I don't think this is what Orwell had in mind -- to the extent he describes Julia, her uniform, etc, Suzanna Hamilton and her costume are more faithful to the book. But it does seem to be in line with Ingsoc, for two reasons. One is Julia's insight (in the book) about "sex gone sour," that the political hysteria is achieved by denying outlets for the sexual instinct then redirecting that energy into "marching up and down and cheering and waving flags." The other is O'Brien's boast that the Party seeks power for its own sake and exercises that power by making its subjects suffer. In a world where people are forbidden from enjoying sexual pleasure, just being around sexually attractive people would be suffering, and would whip up more frustrated sexual energy.

Funny, I doubt the 1954 filmmakers intended this at all. They probably did it just because of the accepted practice at that time that the leading lady should be attractive and desirable. And I'm not knocking Hamilton at all, she's attractive without being glamorous (exactly right for Julia). But her uniform doesn't flatter her in any way; and the 1954 movie's choice here makes sense even if accidentally.

I'm rewatching and rereading "1984" and Zamyatin's "We" while waiting for Peacock TV's "Brave New World" miniseries to air -- have you seen or read those?

reply

Well George Orwell's wife hated the 1956 version, which is why she was reluctant to give the film rights for this one. However this is the definitive version. You're not alone in not liking it, but I love it. Guess it's a matter of taste.

reply

Oh, I do like this one a lot - more and more on reflection, for all its flaws. I think it’s as good an adaptation of a very difficult and complex novel as we are ever likely to see.

I didn’t know that about Mrs Orwell - thanks for the interesting tidbit!

reply