Anyone who wants to try to understand the dark side of the human soul, it is simply necessary to read the book William Golding entitled 'Lord of the Flies' The novel had a difficult path: the manuscript was initially rejected by many publishers, and when the book finally went on sale, it took years before the world recognized the genius of the work. Now it is a classic, which is included in the program of many schools. The appearance of the film based on the motives was only a matter of time, so soon the audience had the opportunity to evaluate the visual version. I also met her, and therefore I hasten to share my impressions.
A group of children find themselves on a desert island as a result of a plane crash. They choose the main one and decide to make a fire so that someone will notice and save them. After some time between the guys there is a split into two tribes, which can lead to the most sad consequences. . .
In key moments, the movie loses much to the original source. For some reason, the scene with the construction of huts takes only a couple of seconds. Simon's mental conversation with the lord of the flies is missing, and there's nothing difficult about voicing ominous phrases in the boy's head. And that was, by the way, one of the most important moments of the novel. The scene of Simon’s return and the ensuing macabre events are too superficial. It would do well to show the cruelty and madness of the boys, but everything looks fake. The ending was crumpled, with no proper tension and no important dialogue at the end. And I keep silent about minor inconsistencies (for example, the appearance of an aircraft instead of a ship, etc.).
Atmosphere. I heard that the distributors were demanding to cut the length of the film, and they agreed. But we must understand that this affected the quality of the painting. Characters are poorly revealed due to limited time. Of all the boys, only Piggy and partially Jack were fully revealed. About Roger and decided to forget, giving his character indecently little time. All the actions of the film happen as if in a hurry. The authors deliberately avoid entering long dialogues and showing significant details to the viewer. It turned out to be like a ridiculous retelling of a book in the style ' Well, there was an island, savages and hunting'.
Music. Disgusting work with music. Drums hit the ears, constant looping and monotony. Where there should be a disturbing melody, there is no musical accompaniment at all.
Result. Any screen adaptation should not be 'dry', it must reflect the essence of the work, present the thoughts of the author and show emotional scenes of the book version. But with this, the tape has a big problem. Peter Brook was too carried away by the selection of actors and ' games in the sandbox' instead of conveying the tension and fear of the characters.
3 out of 10
(31%), the film does not reflect a tenth of the deep meaning of the book.
As a result of a plane crash, a group of children from England find themselves on a desert island. At first, life without adults seems like a gift of fate. The whole world belonged to them. But the longer they were alone with wildlife, the more difficult it was to remain human.
The original novel of the same name by the English writer William Golding is considered one of the most important works of Western literature. It is read, studied, loved and re-read, but at the moment it has only been transferred to the cinema twice. The black and white version of 1963 is considered as close as possible to the original book source, but it clearly does not reach the ideal.
Peter Brooke, the director of this film, worked exclusively with young non-professional guys who, except for James Aubrey, were no longer in the movies. Also, most of them did not read the book, and at the initial stage of filming, the script was not even really used. And this "uncertainty" in the narrative is very felt. In addition, a total of 60 hours of video footage was shot, from which the film was originally edited, lasting 4 hours. It was later reduced to 100 minutes for the Cannes Film Festival, and American distributors insisted it be reduced to 90 minutes. When you look at them, they are very visible. Though the idea that the movie could last a few hours longer doesn’t please me at all. To sit still and not be distracted was already difficult.
I don’t regret watching this movie, even though I don’t understand the reviews. As a full-fledged movie, this picture is weak. Yes, the power of the book base can be seen in some places, but as often happens with film adaptations, all the best are overlooked, lost and forgotten, and in some places it seems that this is a real documentary film, since the actors behave very strangely, not always understanding what they should do and where to look. I'm surprised that in the end, no one in the extras accidentally looks at the camera. With that kind of disassembly, it just had to happen.
For general development, this film can be seen, especially if you are not familiar with the literary work. After watching, I already want to take a book and learn all the subtleties and depth of what is happening, which I am actually doing now.
6 out of 10
Catastrophe, as a result of which a group of boys falls on a desert island, without any adults; two scenarios. Teenagers will remember decency and behave like "true Englishmen." Or the burden of civilization will come off them, and they will go wild, forgetting about values and discipline. The first opportunity was considered by the Scotsman Robert Ballantyne when he wrote the robinsonade Coral Island (1857), where he sang Victorian imperial England. About the second version spoke almost a hundred years later William Gerald Golding in the landmark book "Lord of the Flies" (1954). This is his debut in literature.
Peter Brook's film is the closest adaptation to the book, the film has both strengths and weaknesses. The strong, of course, is the fact that the director was able to fully convey the conflict from the novel – the confrontation of Mind and Destruction. The dialogues are accurately conveyed, almost word for word, the characters of the main characters are well shown. As a film adaptation of the book, this tape takes a clear revenge, wins against the further version of 1990, which is full of directorial slack. Like a book, Brooke's tape metaphorically depicts the island as a world in which a totalitarian tribe of savages formed, poisoning the uniques "not like them." Due to the close proximity of the picture to its original source, we note that this is one of the few advantages that cover the shortcomings of the film. He is forgiven for primitive filming or an almost complete lack of musical accompaniment. This is wonderfully compensated by the good performance of the main actors who played Ralph, Jack, Piggy, Simon. The guys played some particularly emotional scenes. For example, episodes of the confrontation of rational Ralph thirst for blood and blind rage Jack.
One of the tools Brook used to convey the book conflict in the film is the loneliness of the characters. At the beginning of the film, Ralph and Piggy, future supporters of order, are alone with the viewer. In the finale, Ralph becomes a loner in the world, an outcast. Another way is the sound or its absence. In the film, the dialogue between Ralph and Pigs takes place in silence; the boy Simon, the personification of truth, reveals the terrible truth about the Beast in dead silence. While Jack and his tribe sing their ritual songs. In front of the viewer a number of symbols: noise as madness; calm as order. However, the meaning of silence is dual: in some episodes, it is a sign of impending danger or a preparation for horror (Ralph and Jack find the Beast “from heaven”). The same is true of fire in Golding’s story. Fire, as a saving sign on the mountain, is the only way to civilization, for which Ralph is diligently clinging; on the other hand, the flame here personifies the apocalypse, since it can destroy the entire island. The fiery destructive force caused by inhumans means the end of humanity as a whole.
Jack is the headman of the church choir, but his faith is false, as evidenced by his further behavior. He and his choir, dressed in majestic black cloaks, are symbolically represented as the "elite." The island exposed the Evil that lurks within each of us, and the Beast burst forth. Ralph is the personification of order, clinging to civilization. Like Piggy, he wore old clothes throughout the film, even though he was wearing them all, another detail that sets them apart from the hunters. However, in the book, Ralph’s human personality is tested for strength: fighting savages for his life, he forgets about the human in himself, becoming like others. The “child of science” in “Lord of the Flies” is Pig; this boy is short-sighted because he looks only at science, does not believe in monsters from a scientific point of view, but believes in civilization (note that it is thanks to his glasses that you can get fire). Therefore, Golding makes him a spectacle, as an intellectual; this is why the semi-blind asthmatic is least adapted to survive in the wild.
The most famous allegory from the book speaks of the Lord of the Flies as Beelzebub, Prince of Darkness, mentioned in the Bible. However, there is another interpretation: the lord of the flies is Jack Meridew, and his tribe is, accordingly, flies flying over the corpse of human nature. Very strong and memorable Christian allusions are most likely opposed to the scientific sphere of human life, which is personified by Piggy. So in a way, Golding's novel is Christian. Another allegory speaks of a desert island as a world in which various strata and structures of society are present. Ralph as a Democrat (the sea horn he found is the bulwark of democracy). Piggy as a commoner clinging to civilization, besides, superficially looking at the world for his short-sightedness. In the same section we include Perseval, who memorized the address of the priest's house in Hackett St. Anthony, and struggles to keep it in his brain, for the time being. Jack as the leader of totalitarianism and a follower of an annihilating ideology with his faceless counterparts like Roger.
My verdict: The novel "Lord of the Flies", although frightening, and sometimes even repulsive, is good because it helps the reader think. Written in living language, showing acute conflicts, current problems, this work of the master of words William Golding is one of the smart books of the XX century. Peter Brook’s film can be equated with the original source, to the point that they merge into a single whole (a truly rare case!). Without in its arsenal of bright special effects, masterful actors of his time or some soulful elements, but filled with interesting "chips", the analyzed film is remembered for its proximity to the original. The fact that she was able to convey allegories and frightening prophecies of the writer 100%. This is not a warm-hearted film for family viewing. “Lord of the Flies” is in the section “Cinema is not for everyone”.
8 out of 10
What is the price of humanity? And what defects will the soul expose when the fetters of order and rightness suddenly fall? Truly unchildish questions faced by a group of boys who found themselves on a desert island. They, inexperienced and innocent, have to go to hell and back, and not understanding where was the line that was not worth crossing.
Back in 1963, Peter Brook was the one who moved young heroes from the pages of the novel William Golding to the white canvas of the big screen. And he did it, it should be noted, very skillfully. It was this film that I was most interested in. Although, to confess, and embarrassed a few years of release (still characteristic of old films some naivety and schematic), that's why there were doubts - is it worth watching? But with the first frame, all these doubts disappeared, and with the last - expectations were met.
Everything from the landscapes themselves, where the events developed, to the cast, nothing but praise does not cause. Even more, at some points I had the feeling that this was how the book was described. It is clear to the naked eye that Peter Brooke took the director's chair for good reason. With enviable pedantry, he recreates the atmosphere of the island, a change in the boys who found themselves face to face with the need to survive and be strong in any way. And thanks to this manner of presentation, what is so touching in the book, continues to cause genuine interest in what is happening on the screen.
Despite some roughness (and without them the film did not do), this film adaptation is perhaps the best that is available at the moment. Therefore, if you suddenly want to watch a movie instead of a book, you can safely give preference to this creation. I don't think you can.
Black and white adaptation of the famous novel by William Golding from the first to the last frames is maintained almost in a documentary manner. It must be said that the difficulty in transferring this terrible and fictitious parable to the screen lies precisely in justifying and revitalizing, making the situation constructed in the book natural. But in the film by Peter Brook, this was completely possible – the documentary-detached manner of narration further emphasizes the horror of what is happening on the screen and more focuses the viewer’s attention on it.
The most amazing thing about this film is the way children play. How accurately they are selected and fall into their characters, how naturally and truthfully they exist on the screen, without allowing the slightest falsehood. This is, of course, an outstanding merit of the director.
The musical accompaniment alternates the school march with military drums, and when watching you can not get rid of the feeling of some amazing realism of what is happening, despite all its seemingly “theatrical” and deliberately pretended cruelty.
Undoubtedly, this is the best transfer to the screen of the debut novel of William Golding, and after watching it somehow do not really understand how (and why?) it can be done differently.
Peter Brook’s film “Lord of the Flies” is based on the novel by the genius writer William Golding. In the beginning, I consider it necessary to say that I read this work not so long ago and I can safely say that it really captured me, made me think about many things, and in general, I really liked it.
On the wave of impressions that overwhelmed me, I decided to watch the film adaptation of the story “Lord of the Flies” and... remained in a very unsatisfied state.
So, what is Golding’s story? This is clearly thought out to every detail, a completely realistic picture of both the modern world and the picture of the world in which Golding lived (after all, 60 years have passed). It fully reflects the true nature of man and what will happen to him if he loses everything that prevents his degradation (the same rules of survival on the island, in this case). Behind the seemingly innocent images of children in this work are all people, each person individually, because everyone has something demonic, some dark side of the soul. And with all his work, he opens the eyes of all mankind to the current situation in society.
Now let’s move on to the movie itself. Everyone knows, of course, that no director makes his film exactly following the literary analogue, if he uses it, of course. Therefore, the phrase “based on motives” is not accidentally found in the credits of all films. But, as a rule, the director tries to show his view on the problems outlined in the work taken as a basis. And from this inevitably follows the conclusion that the main motives of the plot as not to twist should be present in the film. Or at least be replaced by others closer to the director's understanding.
In the same film, it all comes down to the fact that too many of the incredibly important moments necessary to fully understand the problems that Golding poses are simply missing. And some of these moments are climaxes, for example. How can you make a movie where you eat the climax? But the whole work of Golding is built on this ...
Moreover, in the moments when you need to tell more, to shoot the action taking place longer, it is better to open the topic, Peter Brook cuts everything to the root. But in moments when you do not need so long to dwell on things and dialogues so important for the narrative, the director, as if to spite, does so.
If you look for the pros of the film, then they can include well-reflected characters of the work, there are no complaints, as well as music, with the help of which the very tension is achieved in places, or rather, its sluggish part ...
The film does not reflect the whole essence of the book, and in some places even “swallows” its fundamental parts, endangering the “whole mansion” of Golding’s work. If this is the so-called author’s perception, then, as it happened, I did not agree with this opinion. That is why there are no impressions.
Of course, it is important to express your opinion about things like fiction. But if you discuss it without having any arguments, you obviously lost.
I can only advise those who have not yet read Golding’s brilliant creation. For you to look first and then read it will be even better. Because I would definitely put 10... And here's the movie... Alas.
It is sometimes punishable...
And you imagined that I could be tracked down, killed? For a few moments, the forest and all other vaguely guessed places were shaking in response with vile laughter. - But you knew, didn't you? That I'm part of you? Inseparable part! (W. Golding).
"Lord of the Flies" in Hebrew sounds like Baal-Zevov, that is, Beelzebub, one of the host of evil spirits. Golding’s story about children who found themselves on a deserted island is far from the usual genre of robinsonade – this is a multi-layered philosophical work full of symbolism and allegory. At the same time, the writer clothed his ideas in the simplest possible form - familiar things and ordinary boyish dialogues. In 1963, the classic novel got no less classic adaptation, and Golding himself took part in the work on the picture.
The original version of the film had a time of four hours, but, unfortunately, they were only a miserable ninety minutes. Of course, thanks to the subtle editing, which included re-voicing of some scenes, the film still covers the main events of the book and literally reproduces many dialogues, but still it seems too fast. More than once you catch yourself thinking that you would like to see the process of savagery of civilized English children at a somewhat slower pace, if only for reasons of humanism.
In general, the notorious process of children losing a touch of civilization, which has not yet been absorbed into their blood as it happens in adults, and their transition to a semi-wild state is reflected very well. Careful selection of young actors made itself felt: James Aubrey (Ralph), Tom Chapin (Marydue) and Hugh Edwards (Pig) perfectly got into the images. As for supporting roles, it is even difficult to single out anyone in particular, since there was no one who was sharply dissonant with the book prototype. It is funny that the final rating of the film did not even allow the child actors to watch it, and they knew the script only partially, largely improvising, which the director highly encouraged. One of these improvisations – the story of Piggy about the name of Camberley – even entered the final version of the tape.
The only thing I think Brooke lacks to be the author of a truly perfect film adaptation – an irrational horror of the Lord of the Flies. His Lord is just a pig's head on a stick, nothing more. Reading the book, it is impossible not to be imbued with the fear of Simon, with whom the head conducts its cynical dialogue, and it immediately becomes clear where the legs of any cult of the Beast on this earth grow. However, Brooke’s approach makes one think that the four-hour version gave the Lord enough time – if only one eye could see it!
In the end, Brooke turned out the same must see as Golding – must read, so you need to watch. That’s just entertainment and robinsonade should not wait: this story is a completely different kind.
Children’s souls are innocent, but are they? I have a teenage daughter, and I know what incredible passions are boiling in children’s minds at this age. Wherever children gather without adult supervision, there is a struggle for leadership, which means envy, intrigue, and all the worst that can be found in any adult team, but here it is very concentrated, violent, hypertrophied due to the fact that children do not understand the nature of evil, and are not able to control these processes within themselves. Unfortunately, I can’t see my child “transform” when I’m not with him, but I hope that my love and upbringing will always stay with her, and help to cope with the negativity that is in each of us. Apparently, this was deprived of most of the children who, according to the plot of the Lord of the Flies, were on a desert island, and were forced to survive. As you know, the strongest survives. Someone who is not and cannot compete successfully joins one of them. It happened this time too. The two leaders, Ralph and Jack, who represent different concepts of public administration – democratic and totalitarian – clashed in an irreconcilable battle for the souls and minds of the governed. Strangely enough, it all began with democracy, and ended with brutal despotism and tyranny. The children of stiff Englishmen, raised in the Puritan spirit, quickly turn without supervision into little monsters, ready to kill their kind just because they are weaker.
It is noteworthy that the picture clearly shows the methods of mass control used by all totalitarian regimes. In order for people to become more controllable, they need to instill fear of the enemy, even if fictional, virtual, then they will stumble into the herd, and will look into the mouth of the shepherd, meekly and thoughtlessly obeying his orders, and thanks to his “savior.”
This story is as old as the world, a person always seeks a “hard hand”, thinking that it will lead society to stability, and eventually chooses a beast that first plays democracy, and then, feeling his unlimited power and impunity, begins to devour those who chose him. This is the path to the apocalypse.
The film is great, but terrible for its truthfulness!