Dear Internet,
I am
quite familiar to "Lord of the Flies." The book is probably one of my most favorite
and enjoyable novels. The 1990 film
version was acceptable and took a few too many liberties that strayed away from
the source material. This might not be
as important if it was not key aspects of the themes that the book was trying
to stress, and neglected to make use of the vivid imagery that the novel
uses. With the 1963 film version, the
story tries to stay as true to the book as possible and succeeds in capturing
the horrors of man that it is alluding to as well as keeping the spirit of the
original work.
The
plot of "Lord of the Flies" is surprisingly simple if you have not
heard of it. A group of English
schoolboys are evacuated away from England during a war, but their plane is
shot down. All alone on a deserted island,
the boys must fend for themselves. There
is Ralph, the central protagonist who desires order and finding a way to leave
the island, Piggy, the intelligent yet slightly know-it-all mannered one, and
Jack, the antagonist who only wishes to hunt pigs and create a tribal
culture. In the beginning, all the boys
wish for some semblance of rules and regulation. They take a vote and make Ralph their acting
chief. They decide to create a small fire,
by use of Piggy's glasses, which can be used for making a much larger signal fire. The group even gets as far as making shelters
before the downward slope begins. Before
long, Jack and his group begin to hunt the pigs that populate their tiny
island. They neglect their duties to
tend to the signal fire, and it goes out when a passing plane speeds past. Jack cites their need for meat despite the
obvious fact that he and his hunters failed in keeping to the highest priority,
getting off the island. Afterwards,
there is introduced a fear of a beast haunting the island and the superstition
that the boys create.
I could
spend three for more pages merely talking about the plot alone. I once spent half a day during a road trip
recalling the whole story to a friend from beginning to end. But that is neither here or there. What matters now is the ability of the movie
to be faithful to the book while at the same time working the story for a
vastly different medium. It would be more
difficult for me to look at the movie and criticize the plot or story since I
am so familiar with it and enjoyed it whole heartedly. Instead all I can do is point out the things
that the movie makes new or in the very least does right.
One of
the first things off the back is the use of the singing of "Kyrie Eleison"
throughout the film. Translated from
Greek, it means "Lord, have mercy."
Jack and his followers are choir boys, most likely in the Anglican
Church. The first time they make an
appearance in the film, they sing this song.
Throughout the film they sing this until they make a new song. When the group has made a kill on their hunts
or have begun to slip down the path to tribalism, they shout out with exuberance
"Kill the pig! Slit her
throat! Bash her in!" It is just as much of a chant as the Kyrie is
but stands on the other side of reason and humanity. The chanting of the pigs death is used
multiple times in the film and each time it is used, the audience gains a
glimpse to the madness that sneaks into the corners of men's minds. Eventually, it is no longer the pig's throat
that is called to be slit.
The
movie also makes use of the "stick sharpened at both ends." I only mention this because the 1990 version screwed
it up. There is a special horror that
comes with this kind of stick, of which I will not describe since it can ruin a
revel late in the story if you are unfamiliar with the novel. But I will try to work around that. In the 1990 version, the movie makes a
reference to this kind of stick but only in the second use of it. It never mentions its use in the first
time. Since it forgot to do so, the hint
of the horror that it is going to be used for never makes it to the
audience. If the audience does not know
what the stick is being referred to, then the audience gains no impact to learn
that it is being made again. The 1963
film realized that the horror of the stick was important and subtle. In the novel it has the ability to wallop the
reader flat to learn that it is going to be used a second time and for
what. But I think I am digressing too
far into a criticism of a different film.
One
great thing that the 1963 film has going for it is the use of pauses. It knows that with every deep realization
that falls upon the group of boys, there is a profound moment that should not
be passed quickly. When the group learns
that a plane had passed over them and they missed their chance to be rescued,
there is a silence that cuts deep. The
realization that they are going to be stranded there for a longer time is compounded
by the fact that it is their own fault. The
silence of understanding is then juxtaposed with feeble excuses made by Jack. It works and works well. Another type of silence occurs with the character
of Simon. In both the book and movie,
Simon is the herald of the beast or in the very least the concept of the
beast. What is the beast? I am not telling. Let me just say that it is more than just a
physical apparition and also a reflection of the fear of doom in men's
hearts. The movie does not scoff at the
notion of an unknown terror or even known terrors. When Simon comes face to face with the Lord
of the Flies, Simon spends an uncomfortable amount of time staring at the
beast. This is supposed to be the
playing out of a scene in the book which is made much more powerful. The movie, sadly, does little to convey the
near otherworldly mysticism that is found in Simon. However, Simon does receive a few silent
scenes that play out what would be seen from outside his own viewpoint.
Another
thing that I was impressed by was the actors.
It can be difficult to work with child actors, especially those that are
young. They have difficulty memorizing their
lines and often come across as reading from a TV prompt with no idea as to what
they are saying. At first I was afraid
this was going to happen, especially when I heard Piggy talk. He is the only one that comes across as dry
delivery but that is due to his accent more than anything. The rest of the cast perform their roles to the
point of immersion. There are dynamic
deliveries that rate up there with seasoned actors and can cut to the heart of
the scene. Even Piggy, who I thought
would come up dry, gets a few lines attacking Jack's failures and skirting
responsibility.
The
best aspect of the film has got to be the imagery, but that is not saying
much. All films must have imagery,
otherwise there would not be much use in telling the story visually rather than
through another medium. The story was
already told in written word and could be worked over to fit a radio drama if
it already has not been. The film is
able to take the elements in the book and create a visual representation of the
downward spiral of the mental state of the boys, namely Jack. Jack is probably the best example of
this. He begins as a choir boy, wearing
a black cape and hat along with some sort of puffy white collar I cannot
describe otherwise. He discards the
cloths of authority and that of religion.
After that he wears paint on his skin to hide himself while
hunting. Eventually, the paint he wears
gets to the point where he looks more like some sort of shaman from an Amazon
tribe. After that, he makes decorative headdresses
from the fauna and strips his old hat to make a mask. All of this adds up to a visual
representation of his mental state. Jack
becomes a wild tribal with no sane creed.
"Lord
of the Flies" is a really good film that examines the nature of man and
his fall when throwing away the good of the community for self desire. The novel has been sliced up and analyzed to
death that anyone reading it in an educational institute will most likely hate
it by the time they are done. So, I do
not need to go any deeper than I already have, lest I start sounding like an
English teacher. This movie does a good
job in covering all the plot elements of the novel with very little glossing
over. If you are looking for a faithful adaptation
to a classic work of literature, you will be hard pressed to find a more accurate
revision. While not a replacement for
the novel, for how can any film accurately depict the implications of how the
mother pig is killed, this movie would be a good starting point for a person to
become interested in the book or a good way to pass an hour and a half.
Yours in digital,
BeepBoop
P.S. Tomorrow is "Brutal Legend" for the PS3. That means a stream provided I can get
everything up and running properly.
No comments:
Post a Comment