Nineteen Eighty-Four

I can't say I'm really that much of a fan of the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. I can see it's value and I like how relentless and complete it is in the way it deals with these big political concepts, but at the end of the day I always preferred the more parable-like Animal Farm. I just thought I'd say that as a kind of apology before getting on with the review. This film version of George Orwell's masterpiece is probably as faithful an adaptation as you could possibly put on the screen. But this also begs the question as to why you would bother to do such a thing... if there's an argument for not using certain texts as a direct basis for films than this film would be one of them. The book is fairly cerebral as it is, it's a novel that relies on internal monologue and there isn't really a whole lot that happens during the course of the protagonist's journey through the system from unquestioning cog to political pawn. It makes for stimulating reading, but as a film it's not particularly engaging.

Starting out with the quote, "He who controls the past controls the future, he who controls the present controls the past", Nineteen Eighty-Four mumbles it's way onto the screen with an image of the feverish fanaticism this futuristic state instils in it's subjects. Winston Smith (John Hurt) is a worker in the Ministry of Truth who becomes obsessed with ideas of lovemaking and attraction that transgress the totalitarianism of his world. He begins an affair with Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), and the two entertain ideas of joining the Resistance. It doesn't take long for Smith to make contact with O'Brien (Richard Burton, in his last role), an Inner Party member who apparently works at counter-purposes with the state.

As anyone familiar with the book will know, the rather slim plot is merely a contrivance that allows the author to explore the idealogy behind his depressing vision of the future. Along with the rather hapless Smith we're shown the layers of deception used by the state to control and neutralise any resistance offered by 'thought criminals'. The last thirty to forty minutes of the film are particularly hard to watch as a result of this - the disturbingly realistic torture sequences demonstrate the dispiriting notion that no one could really hold out from confession if faced with their greatest fears. Beyond this we're shown the full process the state employs to keep it's stranglehold on the populace... it's not good enough to capture those who oppose you, you must also break their spirit and then brainwash them for use as propaganda. I'm not saying that all films should end in a cheerful manner but it just doesn't help that we spend nearly two long hours to get to this point without much in the way of drama or action. It's not exactly the film's fault - the text just wasn't written in a fashion that's conducive to visual storytelling.

On the positive side, Nineteen Eighty-Four is an absolute dream from a designer's standpoint. The film uses 1940s fascist iconography to bring it to life in a way that even the doubly-dour Orwell himself would've marvelled at. It's all vibrant navy greys and faded reds, with the media footage always presented in oddly clear sepia tones. It's also grotty, war-torn world of concrete beautifully photography by celebrated cinematographer Roger Deakins, which probably goes a long way towards explaining why this film looks so good. John Hurt does a decent job in the rather thankless role of Winston Smith, his haggard pre-naturally aged face and small frame makes him perfect as the worn down creature at the centre of this cautionary tale. Suzanna Hamilton does well in getting across the brainwashed parts of her performance without falling into lazy sci-fi zombie territory, though it seems a bit odd that she spends most of the film naked. In the only other major role, Richard Burton gives a calm, zen-like performance of a man resigned to his job. His torturer sequences are matter-of-act and without showmanship... it matches the tone of the film and what the text requires but (once again) it doesn't exactly make for an exciting film. His melifluous voice however is ideal for the voice of this reality, soothing the audience as much as it soothes Smith. It's hard to tell though if Burton intended to give such a weary, underplayed performance or if was just a side effect of his rapidly declining health at the time.

Overall Nineteen Eighty-Four is frightening, depressing, tiresome and without a lot of incident. There's some nice use of surveillance camera-styled angles to help ram home the themes, but it's ultimately all just a bit too obscure. They might've done well to introduce the idea of the Resistance and the Proles a bit earlier or more clearly but I think the creative team were just too afraid to break away from the source material in any significant way - leaving the film a singularly dreary experience.

DIRECTOR: Michael Radford
WRITER/SOURCE: Michael Radford, based on the novel by George Orwell
KEY ACTORS: John Hurt, Suzanna Hamilton, Richard Burton, Cyril Cusack, James Walker, Gregor Fisher, Roger Lloyd-Pack

RELATED TEXTS:
- The novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, obviously.
- Adapted as an earlier film version in 1956, starring Edmund O'Brien and Michael Redgrave.
- There have also been at least three television adaptations.
- The film version of V For Vendetta (a graphic novel that riffs on Nineteen Eighty-Four) features John Hurt in the Big Brother-like role of Adam Sutler.
- Other films that take their inspiration from Nineteen Eighty-Four include Alphaville, THX 1138 and Brazil.

AWARDS
Nominated for a BAFTA for best production design.

John Hurt won three Best Actor awards at other film festivals, tying with Richard Burton at one of them. Michael Radford also won for Best Film at two minor film award ceremonies.