poe-48833 Lacking both the gritty realism and visceral violence of the 1984 version of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, this version is the least interesting of the three that I've seen: the costumes and sets are too neat and clean, and everyone appears well-fed and, for the most part, satisfied; there's none of the EMOTIONAL impact of the 1984 version; in short, a typical '50s television view of Life. Donald Pleasance, who had a bit part as Syme in the BBC version, here plays Parsons- a much meatier part, although so much of it's missing that he doesn't have a whole lot to work with. From the book: Parsons was "one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges upon whom, more even than on the Thought Police, the stability of the Party depended." "All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism," Orwell wrote. The recent corporate coup by Donald McDonald and the Billionaire Boys Club underscores this. ("It was not the man's brain that was speaking; it was his larynx.") "It was nicknamed Muck House by the people who worked in it." "... stands had to be erected, effigies built, slogans coined, songs written, rumors circulated, photographs faked." Information is trickling out, though. "It was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and its significance made known." "It was important to write something down." ("The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, just to keep the people frightened.") And frightened they are, here in these "united" $tate$, because the Free Poor are puppets of the Fossil Fool Industry. In time, THEY'LL end up immolated in The Memory Hole... "People are being killed all the time..." and "the dangers inherent in the machine are still there." ("This is business.") ("All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.") ("... an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties..." In North Dakota, the Genocide of the Native Peoples continues apace...) "In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it." "The capitalists owned everything in the world, and everyone else was their slave. They owned all the land, all the houses, all the factories, and all the money." "It is necessary for us to know everything." "... if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance... in practice, the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare." "Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist." "With the development of television... private life came to an end." "There were bribery, favoritism, and racketeering of every kind..." "Power is not a means; it is an end." "We are the priests of power." Sound even vaguely familiar...? ("It was too great a coincidence.") O'Brien is miscast as Smith, but, otherwise it's not a bad adaptation- for what looks like '50s American television, although "it was a peculiarly beautiful book." And, finally: "The book is indestructible."

MartinHafer This is apparently the first movie version of the George Orwell book "1984", though it was actually the second version overall--with a made for BBC version coming out two years earlier. The first thing that becomes apparent is how stark and minimalistic the production looks--exactly the way it should look based on the book. This dystopia is supposed to be colorless, lifeless and grim and the film succeeds. And, the actors do a good job in keeping to the spirit of the story.Instead of explaining the rather familiar plot, I'll point out a few ways that it differs from Orwell's book. One of the most obvious is de-sexualizing the relationship between Winston Smith and Juilia. Films back in 1956 could only imply sexuality and the fact that the film talked about the 'anti-sex league' is actually a bit surprising. The film a handles the scene where Smith betrays his lover is sanitized a bit--again, films in the 50s weren't about to be this graphic--and they would not show Smith with a rat cage strapped to his face! However, otherwise the film is pretty close to the book...apart from a totally unnecessary epilogue where the audience is admonished about the importance of freedom. Unnecessary, as unless you are a blithering idiot, you'll clearly get this message in the film! Very well made and I enjoyed it more than the much grimmer 1984 version with Richard Burton and John Hurt.

Greg Treadway (treadwaywrites) Hopefully everyone knows the story of author George Orwell's novel and then the subsequent movie, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Even the cult classic movie Brazil in 1985 has an Orwell type features and themes through the entire fabric of the film. In fact the working title for for the highly futuristic Brazil was 1984 and a half.In the future, the people of Oceania are in a endless, living in a state of poverty, fear, and oppression. Even personal will and thought are monitored for the common good. Meals are rationed and virtually every move is monitored through video cameras and police agents. Winston has memories of when life was better and he expounds about it in a private journal that he keep hidden. Winston begins making eye contact with a younger woman named Julia; it's not long afterward that they are part of the rebellion against the state.George Orwell published his book in 1949. The novel found fame because of its portrayal of everyone watching everyone else and loss of personal rights in the face of a oppressive government. He chose the year 1984 as the target date for Big Brother as he called it.There was a BBC version of the movie followed by the 1956 Edward O'Brien film. Together the movies were able to cause only a minor stir and that was for sending people back to the book to read the full story. This version was directed by Michael Anderson who did such films as Around the World in 80 Days and Logan's Run in 1976. This movie is just not well done, it lacks timing and any degree of suspense. If you can find the BBC version try that one first. Even though there is some combining of characters, Donald Pleasance is in it and does a pretty good job.

wnstn_hmltn ......is even better. One might be tempted to call this a remake, and I suppose it is, but it was the first theatrical rendition, enabling audiences to watch Big Brother (watching them) on a bigger screen than was possible via the BBC/Peter Cushing version (1954) of two years earlier. I agree with previous commentator "bux's" observance that, while Edmond O'Brien and Jan Sterling may not have been Orwell's first casting choices for Winston and Julia for the reason stated, the sterling performances generated by the leads and their supporting cast more than compensate. As a huge fan of the late, great Hammer Films luminary Michael Ripper, I was especially pleased to see him helping to take up the rear as an Outer Party Orator, exemplifying the tender loving care with which producer N. Peter Rathvon saw fit to cast even the smaller roles.