Published via Ecency

(source: tmdb.org)

George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is not only the best known depiction of dystopia in the history of world’s literature, but also the most influential book of 20th Century. For decades, people in different countries and of different political persuasions were using it as point of reference in debates. The novel itself became subject of intense debate shortly and during the year after it was named, because it was convenient (and in many cases, comforting) to compare actual reality with Orwell’s dark vision. This happened even in Communist Yugoslavia, where Radiotelevision Belgrade in 1983 marked the approach of "Orwell Year" with the special that would include brief dramatic recreations of certain scenes in the novel. The most famous dramatic recreation was Apple’s commercial directed by Ridley Scott (which would decades later be effectively used on Youtube by supporters of Barack Obama at the start of his presidential primary battle with Hillary Clinton). However, the most suitable way to pay proper homage to Orwell’s novel in the year when its plot took place seemed to be feature film adaptation. It arrived in the form of 1984 British film written and directed by Michael Radford.

The plot begins in Spring 1984 in Britain, which is under the rule of Oceania, one of the three global superstates which have emerged as the aftermath of nuclear wars and revolutions few decades earlier. Oceania is ruled by totalitarian regime of Ingsoc Party, which controls or tries to control every aspect of life and suppresses any expression of individuality, including sex. Protagonist, played by John Hurt, is Winston Smith, Outer Party member and minor clerk in Ministry of Records tasked of "correcting" newspaper articles and other documents when their content becomes inconvenient for official Party policy. Forced to live in small dirty apartment and faced with constant shortages of food and other necessities, he despises the regime and begins to express it by minor acts of personal rebellion, which includes writing personal diary. Although he is aware that such activities, due to omnipresent and dreaded Thought Police, might cost him his life, he begins secret love affair Julia (played by Suzanna Hamilton), young Outer Party member who shares his disdain for the regime. After some time, Winston brings attention of O’Brien (played by Richard Burton), mysterious member of Inner Party who, despite living in luxury unimaginable for the rest of society, appears to share Winston’s views and hints that might belong to broader network of like-minded individuals determined to bring the regime of Oceania down.

Michael Radford tried very hard, and for the most part succeeded, in making his film as faithful adaptation of Orwell’s text as possible. This faithfulness is reflected not only in plot and dialogues, but also in some stylistic choices. Radford recognised that 1949 novel had been in many ways a product of time and its bleakness was in many ways reflection of bleak realities of post-WW2 Britain, country which, despite victory in the war, still suffered and its people had to deal with economic deprivations and food rationing. Radford, therefore, refused to make the alternative 1984 Britain look futuristic. Instead it made it look stuck in time and with very plausible explanations why the fashion, architecture and other aspects of society haven’t advanced any further. The plot almost entirely takes place in decaying bombed-out city and the technology, apart from omnipresent telescreens, looks exactly as it looked in late 1940s. Radford originally wanted to make this film in black-and-white, but was vetoed by producers. Famous cinematographer Roger Deakins instead used special techniques to make colours look desaturated, which made the effect of general bleakness even stronger.

Radford also made good choices in casting. John Hurt, an immensely capable and versatile actor, used opportunity to deliver another great performance in one of the few starring roles in his career. He very effectively used his ability to display vulnerability, which produced some strong scenes in the beginning and, especially, in the latter scenes that depict torture of protagonist. Suzanna Hamilton is quite effective as his romantic partner, despite the looks that is far from what would pass as glamorous in conventional Hollywood film, but here it works perfectly in the context of the story. Hamilton, like Hurt, appears naked in various scenes in the film, but they are anything but exploitative – their nakedness serve both of symbol of rebellion against uniformity, as well as their helplessness when confronted with inevitable persecution of omnipotent state. Richard Burton as O’Brien is also very effective in what ultimately became the last feature film role of his career. He delivers very controlled and calm performance, which is great both as he tries to win Winston’s trust and later when he reveals his true colours during the scenes in infamous Room 101. Burton’s performance is even better in light of the fact that he was very ill during the production and had great difficulty delivering his lines.

Radford’s film is very good, but it is far from perfect. Nineteen Eighty-Four is maintaining a good pace, but there are some scenes that could have been left on the cutting room floor. They include over-repetitive public executions and confessions of condemned regime dissidents on telescreens, but the most problematic are Winston Smith’s visions, that at times seem too confusing and too "artsy" for what was supposed to be much more realistic film. Nineeten Eight-Four was made even worse by Virgin Films to use the film to promote pop band Eurythmics, which was hired to write electronic music soundtrack which sounds terribly anachronistic and out of place for 1940s looking film. Thankfully, Radford fought hard to keep at least some bits of more conventional and better-suited soundtrack by Dominic Muldowney. This resulted in different versions with different soundtracks. The one with Muldowney’s soundtrack is much better and it should be recommended, while Eurhytmics fans should settle with simple audio album.

The greatest argument against this film is, however, its uncompromising bleakness. Lack of humour and devastatingly unhappy ending would make this film unbearable to anyone who sees films merely as entertainment. Nineteen Eighty-Four, like the original novel, looks even bleaker today when open suppression of free speech, "woke" Newspeak, "fact checkers" that serve as online Ministry of Truth and cancelled people becoming "unpersons" make Orwell’s dark vision look closer than reality than anyone could have feared only few years ago.

RATING: 7/10 (++)