nan | 楠木

What words can begin to describe Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell’s 1949 classic novel of a dystopian society? If anything, the sheer amount of popular references to this book, from “Big Brother” to “doublespeak”, is testimony of its profound impact. In this light, any attempt to visualize this classic must be praised for its boldness and courage.

Michael Radford’s eponymous big-screen adaptation of the book is devoutly faithful to the source material, and makes the conscious choice of leaving elementary questions unanswered to make the narrative focused on the core message. This makes the film unaccessible to viewers unfamiliar with the book, who will find the dystopian Oceania a fascinating but frustrating society to observe. Even the most basic of concepts – the various ministries, the structure of the party and the state of the world- are left unexplained. This no doubt severely limits the appeal of the film, and one can even argue that such an approach is irresponsible and a lazy way out, as it saves a lot of headaches in the narrative. One can go further to argue that the best films typically never make such presumptions about its viewers and makes itself accessible to all audiences.

On the other hand, such an approach has its obvious benefits, and readers of the book will be delighted at the immersive experience created from the first scene. A picture is truly worth a thousand words, and seeing Winston for the first time in his rundown apartment with the ominious telescreen ranting on in the background is a dizzingly fascinating experience – so this is what hell looks like…

The film barely deviates from the source material, the only noted exception being a dream sequence where Winston sees himself opening the door of room 101. Instead of a room, it leads to a enchanting scenery of green hills and soft pastures. I take this scene as a gloomy foretelling of the final act, since at this point Winston obviously doesn’t know the meaning of room 101 yet.

John Hurt’s performance as Winston is frighteningly authentic, especially during the final act where he undergoes the “therapy” to make him harmless to society. His gradual loss of humanity is vividly portrayed, and the various emotions – confusion, anger, fear, remorse – come out naturally. Richard Burton is equally impressive as O’Brien, and is perhaps one of the most terrifying soft-spoken villians on-screen.

At its core, Nineteen Eighty-Four is a story against authoritarianism. Orwell crafted a society that is deplorable and horrible, with its strict regime and methodological doctrine to destroy knowledge and free thinking, the ultimate purpose of which is to make the regime everlasting. The real irony is since its publication, quite a lot of what he describes in the book actually happened in the real world. Orwell’s passages on Winston’s work at Minitrue and the way the state’s propaganda machine worked can find its real world counterparties – an actual decrease in chocolate rations manipulated into a raise in rations and forced onto the masses as the most memorable example (and which is highlighted in the film). Orwell’s argument on the dangers of authoritarianism is well-developed (“those who control the past control the future, those who control the present control the past”). Radford’s adaptation effectively present these arguments, and through this visualization makes the points poignantly clear.

One can argue that the film is merely an extension, or an illustration of the book. While this is a valid argument, it nevertheless does not affect the film’s greatness in its effective presentation. The film is limited in its appeal since it assumes that viewers have read the book, but for fans of the book it is a gem which will make them love the book even more.

9/10