I'm really surprised to be the only person noting how far this film strays from the novel. Has anyone on here read the novel or seen the 1963 film adaptation?
The 1990 interpretation is so far off that it misses the main theme of the novel. Do yourselves a favor and watch the 1963 version, it is SO much better, and is essentially true to the Golding novel.
(Please excuse the length of this message. I dare hope I've made it one well worth reading.)
Chas347, you're not the only one noting that this film strays from the novel. You're the only one in the last few years who's taken so much offense at it, to anywhere near the same degree as you have.
I've studied both versions pretty extensively. I would be more inclined to agree with you if the 1963 version had never been done. But since there already is a movie that follows the plot of the novel almost slavishly, why make another one? I am of the school of thought that states "a movie is a movie, a novel is a novel, and a movie based on a novel isn't necessarily obliged to follow the novel slavishly," with the addendum of "especially if a slavishly faithful adaptation has already been done."
Somewhat paradoxically, I would also be more inclined to agree if the 1963 version had been more faithful to the spirit of the novel in certain key respects:
(a) The single biggest disappointment I had with both versions is that Simon's internal conversation with "the Beast," while he's meditating on the pig's head, is missing from both versions. I can barely see any sense in it for the 1990 version, but for the 1963 version to follow the novel so closely, and then leave out that critical scene for no apparent reason, seems outright absurd.
(b) As I wrote in another thread, I just don't see Tom Chapin's "cold fish" portrayal of Jack as being the kind of leader I would follow even halfway across the street, let alone to the degree these boys follow Jack.
But then, I'm an American, and don't have the experience of the stereotypically authoritarian, often outright sadomasochistic British boarding schools that no doubt spawned the castaway boys of Golding's novel, and that's part of the point of my objection; more on that below. But I still have a hard time believing that even British boarding school boys would take to following Tom Chapin's Jack as readily as they do.
In addition, I would note that:
(c) Though I do often like Black & White movies that could've been filmed in color, but weren't for artistic reasons-- David Lynch's "The Elephant Man" is one top-notch example-- the 1963 version's use of B&W was no doubt for budgetary reasons, the 1963 film having been made on a shoestring budget, and considering Peter Brook's amateurish cinematography, I can't help but wish he could have afforded to film in color. Golding's novel seems to almost demand the kind of lush, colorful, emotionally vivid cinematography that we see in the 1990 version. Brook's use of B&W makes his film, unfortunately, look a bit more like a stale intellectual exercise.
(d) Some other character portrayals in the 1990 version that I rather like:
-- The 1990 Piggie isn't a very sympathetic character, and he didn't come across to me as all that sympathetic a character in Golding's novel, either;
-- Balthazar Getty's Ralph is earnest, hardworking, and he just plain fails to inspire the boys because they're just plain more inclined to follow a leader who promises them fun and games, whereas James Aubrey's Ralph seems rather clueless and uninspiring in himself (notice, please, how the 1990 Ralph's failure fortifies the theme of the novel);
-- Lastly, I really like the subtle homoeroticism between Roger and Jack as it's shown in the 1990 film, as well as the way Jack uses various forms of "fag-baiting" to reinforce his public image, e.g. "See you tonight, girls." In the 1963 version, the closest thing to homoeroticism/homophobia as a thematic element is when Jack sadomasochistically punishes the "little'uns" with some hard bare-bottom spankings, scenes that were legal to film using child actors in 1963, whereas the same scenes would have been illegal in 1990, even for showing in the USA, let alone filming. (That's also why there's no outright nudity in the 1990 version.)
(e) To the degree we can separate the acting from the characterizations as they're written in the respective scripts, I think Harry Hook did a rather better job of getting top-notch performances out of his young actors than Peter Brook did. Chris Furrh especially, but also Balthazar Getty and Daniel Pipoly. Hook got some really strong performances from all three. The only key performances for which I'd say Brook got better work from his actors were for Simon and the twins, and maybe Roger. None of these are as important as the three top principals. (And yes, now that you mention, maybe I am a bit biased by virtue of my being American. I don't really think so, but maybe...)
(f) for Finally, I can't tell you how much I disagree with your contention that the 1990 film "glosses over" or "misses" the main theme of the novel. In my opinion, the fact that the 1990 film is both updated and Americanized serves to reinforce the theme, not to contradict it. The point of Golding's novel isn't just that traditionally British boys have something powerfully reminiscent of "the Beast" inside them, it's that all people in all times do.
In the 90s, the Cold War, and the potential for nuclear holocaust between the Soviets on the one hand and the USA, UK, and France on the other, was finally over. But we're still left with "the Beast" inside of each of us. But now instead of worrying that the next "Jack" might be incarnated in Nikita Khrushchev, we're concerned that he might appear in Iran, North Korea... or maybe in the form of a President of the US.
However, the real-life prospect of a bunch of boarding school boys becoming stranded on a desert island in the middle of a truly global war, as in the novel, that's not very plausible any more. But still, "the Beast" endures. So setting a retelling of the tale among specifically American schoolboys seems like a great idea to me, and I'm generally pleased with the way it was done in this film.
Of course, the specific ways in which the central thematic elements would play out would be somewhat different among boys from an American military school, instead of its nearest British equivalent, not a military school really, but a heavily Christianized boarding school of the 1950s: Anglican, probably, and probably government-subsidized. So, changing the setting to this extent pretty much requires monkeying with the plot a bit here and there. For my own part, I don't really believe they monkeyed with the plot too much, and I think they did manage to honor the spirit of Golding's novel fairly well.
So, I like both versions about equally, all in all. If you've only seen one, I recommend seeing the other as well. I will always regret that neither version uses the scene from the novel with Simon imagining(or is it more than just his imagination?) he is talking with "the Beast." But that omission sticks out like a sore thumb more from the earlier version, than it does from the later.
"I don't deduce, I observe."
All I can say that is the 1990 (not 1999) version shouldn't have been made at all. Its not necessary to remake a classic. Many, myself included consider the 1963 adaptation brilliant. To capture Simon's stream of consciousness on film, is very difficult. That process is one of the most difficult things to do for a screen writer. For me, the kids in the 1963 version came of as much more realistic.
So kids need color, special effects and Americanization to grasp a classic piece of literature? Yeah, that's about what the American educational system has come to.
As an English teacher with a Master's degree in English lit, I REALLY bothers me when some no name screen writer and director butcher a classic piece of literature. What was the main theme of the novel? As I interpret it and teach it, it has a lot to do with the concept of the "Beast"(Satan) in the minds of the children and how it eventually manifests itself in their actions. Its really not a novel for kids, but kids are directed to read it because its about children of their age group. The term "Beast" is never mentioned in the 1990 version. So, I'll agree with you the main theme wasn't "glossed over", it was completely ignored. I'm just not really interested in some screen writer's attempt to reinterpret great literature.
First of all, you've made much too much about the word "Beast" not being used. The word "Monster" is used instead, as befits an Americanized version. And rather than claiming that his hunters will protect the younger children from the whatever-it-is, Jack flatly claims the monster doesn't exist. As also befits an Americanized version, keeping the same theme and adjusting the plot to compensate for cultural differences.
Secondly: For heaven's sake, please, don't pull that "I have a degree" stuff on me. I happen to have an MA in English just the same as you. But even if I didn't, it wouldn't necessarily keep you from looking at things from my point of view, and shouldn't. Or, for that matter, from showing more respect for the other poster whom you casually dismiss as a "moron."
Viewed through a certain interpretive lens, the title does refer only to the pig's head. It depends on whether you view the world from an atheistic/agnostic perspective, because if you do, then Beast, Monster, Lord of the Flies is just that: a pig's head on a stick that people for some mysterious reason use as a symbol for the evil within themselves that they seek to project outside themselves.
Thirdly: At what point did I ever say "kids need" a version like this to grasp the meaning or importance of the novel? Rather, I maintain that anybody who can read, basically doesn't need any movie at all. Maybe I shouldn't hope for somebody to understand that, who apparently doesn't understand why the use of vivid color is one of this version's key virtues, but there it is: a film is a film is a film. A book is a book is a book. Each medium has its own artistic advantages and disadvantages, its own requirements as well as its own "thou shalt nots." It's not just that film is allowed to have a somewhat different aesthetic than text, it's that neither film nor text can help but have their own aesthetics.
(The "Lord of the Flies" film that I made up in my mind when I read this book as a teenager is still a better film, and more faithful adaptation, than either of the two versions created so far. That ought to say something about the power of the written word, and the futility of expecting what you seem to expect from film.)
In my aesthetic, film adaptations serve an entirely different purpose than merely translating the text into action and speech that can be seen and heard. Film adaptations ought to stand on their own as works of art.
Sometimes this means taking as few liberties with the text as possible, sometimes it means taking quite a few liberties, sometimes it falls somewhere in between. For any given work of text, there's not necessarily one, and only one, "correct" approach to film adaptation. Art doesn't work that way. Hence, my saying I like both versions about equally, but if either one had included Simon's internal dialogue with the Whatever-You-Call-It, and been just the same otherwise, I would've liked that version better.
"I don't deduce, I observe."
[deleted]
I smell a fraud. I don't believe you're really a teacher, and I'm now inclined to believe you don't have any master's degree, either. If you were, you wouldn't deign to address other people in the unconscionably rude way you've shown on these boards.
If somehow, Lord help us, you really are a teacher... I'm so glad I'm not one of your students.
"I don't deduce, I observe."
Petronius, I respect your well reasoned and extensive posts. I read them carefully. I respectfully disagree with you on several major points. The word respect being the issue. The other poster (who I banned) turned a cival discussion, into a name calling affair. I come on here with the hopes of cival, hopefully intelligent discussion and debate. When someone calls you a turd, out of the blue, it sort of ruins any hope of that, and poisons the thread. I tend to become reactive in those situations, my bad. People at all levels of education can be rude and abusive.
If you think I'm a fraud, that's fine. I suppose I was raised and educated in an old fashioned way of thinking. I tend to be rigid about accepting only the standard literary concensus of a novel such as "Lord of the Flies". The title and theme of the novel is about Satan or the idea of Satan as created in the minds and eventually the actions of the children. Golding shows Satan as created or conjured my humans. I believe that interpretation is almost universally agreed upon. Maybe I'm being an ass for expecting people to remember what their 7th grade teacher taught them about the novel, again my bad.
I guess I was also raised with "the book is always better than the film" mindset. That's why I tend prefer film adaptations be as true to the source as possible. That said, you do make some good points on this subject.
Well, I've gone back and edited all the embarrassing "1999s" in my first post to their proper "1990;" thanks for pointing that out. I also tightened up the writing and punctuation, etc., a bit here and there.
About flaming on IMDb: most of the time, it's just not a good idea to fight fire with fire. Let alone respond to a TOS violation with another TOS violation. If you really feel like being snarky and trollish, the various Politics boards on IMDb, are a great place to unleash your Inner Troll, but don't expect to ever "win" a political argument on IMDb. On the Politics boards in particular, no matter how vicious you get, there's always somebody worse than you.
On a now-expired thread on the "The Social Network" boards, somebody wondered if there would ever be a similar movie about IMDb message boards. My response was, "Yeah, I can just see it now: "Coming soon to a theater near you-- The Antisocial Network!"
Still is my response, come to think of it...
"I don't deduce, I observe."
Fair enough. Any how, this discussion made me rethink and remember why we teach this novel to 6th and 7th grade children. Its a very dark piece, and not exactly appropraite for youngsters that age. But it is a very teacheable novel for young people. The use of symbolism, metaphor, allegory in a great piece of literature, in a story that people in the age group can relate to, provides this opportuinity. I have to say, some of the kids are lost, and some make the connections, and come up with brilliant analysis of the minor themes of the novel as they relate to the main theme, i.e., loss of innocense, civilazation versus primitivism. For me and I expect others, "Lord of the Flies" was a seminal moment in learning to interpret and analyze literature.
shareHmmmm... Well, I for one would be inclined to view "civilization versus primitivism" as a potential misinterpretation of the thematic material.
The thing I got out of every reading was that Golding is telling us, "civilization" isn't, after all is said and done, this great wonderful thing we're all fired up to believe it is. That at best, it's a razor-thin veneer over the kind of primitive tribalism the boys "revert" to on the island.
Didn't take much, either; basically, just one big argument over who let the fire go out, and what should be done in the near future about it, and that's pretty much "all she wrote" for their attempts to function as a cohesive unit.
When the sailor shows up at the end and, we may assume, begins preparing to "rescue" the boys by taking them, um, back to World War III, do you ask yourself if he isn't just taking them out of the frying pan and into the fire? If not, you should.
Apropos of the above: I like the fact that in this 1990 Americanized version, the soldier at the end appears to be a US Marine, not regular Army or Navy. It fits.
"I don't deduce, I observe."
Perhaps its better stated as "Civilization vs Savagery". The social order that the boys have agreed upon and that Ralph and Piggy have tried to ititiate, begins to break down, starting with letting the fire go out and going downhill from there.
The breakdown of the tenuous social order due to the lack of any legitimate authority figure allows someone like Jack become powerful. This leads to an interesting question. Is Jack a sociopath by nature?, or is it the circumstances on the island that allow this "side" of him to flourish? I think this is very thematic material.
I agree with your point about WW3. Its important to realize that this novel takes place in a World gone mad, where children are being evacuated from England because of fear of nuclear attack. What is more emblematic of Human created evil than murder on an industrial scale? This novel reflects the paranoia of nuclear war in the early days of the Cold War. In the early 1950s the World, and in particular Europe, was still healing mentally and emotionally from the Second World War. It is this context that the novel is written.
Does Golding seek to show the experience of the lost boys on the island as a microcosm of the World they lived in?
Its clear that you and I are both passionate about this great work. Our disagreement is about the quality of the 1990 film adaptation. I saw it for the first time about two weeks ago, and had a negative reaction. Maybe I will rewatch it, and give it a second chance in light of the things you write about it.
Have you read and seen The Godfather? That is certainly a case where the book is not better than the films.
sharePatronius, please read mjandrde's replies on the other thread. I think this moron makes my case for me. "Um, the title of the book is a about a pig's head with flies around it".
share[deleted]
I have read the book several times as I have taught it. I agree the 1963 version is much better but that it not saying much as the 1990 film is so appalling it does not take much to better it. I still have to see the definitive version of The Lord of the Flies - perhaps another, more intelligent, more faithful to both plot, character, symbolism and theme shold be on the cards and preferably with British boys and not foul-mouthed American army brats.
If you wanted to get me on my back you just had to ask.
I opened this thread to learn something that others may have learned, all I got was some of the longest comments I've ever seen on IMDB.
Two people writing extensive essays to show off to us and to out-do eachother with their use of English, but unfortunately saying very little.
It would seem people like them do it because they want us other readers to think they are f£&@ing smart.
What these two grandiose bone heads said in 5000 words (to impress you) I could have made their point in three sentences.
Wish people on some of these boards could just make their point short and sweet and keep their essays to the readers digest website.
Some of the carefully constructed language sounded like it came right out of Ian Brady's mouth, whom has had nothing better to do these last 35 years, than to learn and use words and language that take up inches of space, but says very little.
Sorry to the people that wanted a comment on the film and novel from me, but I just had to point this out.
This is a rare occasion where I have read the book and seen both the adaptations.
I think the 1990 version adaptation works well in its own right.
Its that man again!!
I agree. They stripped the context of the story. The result: gratuitous violence and major storyline fails.
share