1984
How I’ve gone 47 years without reading George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four is a bit shocking, but it’s always felt like a dense read that I wasn’t sure if I was up for. Michael Radford’s 1984 film- which he deliberately filmed around the dates and locations of Orwell’s novel- is a good introduction to the ideas and narrative Orwell wrote, even if I am not sure whether it would be a definitive version of the text.
One of the things that we saw in the 1980s were giant swings regarding the nature of reality in film. Sometimes, they were filmmakers showing us what the world is really like, such as David Lynch’s “Blue Velvet.” Sometimes, they were challenging our grasp on reality, such as a film like Douglas Trumbull’s “Brainstorm.” And other times, they were adapting elements from authors like Orwell to fit their own ideas, like Terry Gilliam did in “Brazil.” No doubt this was a reaction to the times, when- for many- Reagan’s “morning in America” turned into an anxious, challenging new economic landscape, on top of the last gasps of the Cold War, and the rise of conservative politics going hand-in-hand with religion. It’s no wonder the ’80s were such a wild time in movies.
In his adaptation of Orwell, Radford has created a bleak dystopia for his protagonist, Winston Smith (John Hurt), to inhabit. When the film opens, he is at a rally in Victory Square where propaganda films are shown, extolling the virtues of Oceania’s war efforts around the world, as they hope to unite everyone under Big Brother, Oceania’s supreme leader. We never see Big Brother in the flesh- only on television screens and posters- but he is everywhere in the film, ever mindful of what the people are doing. Winston works at the Ministry of Truth, rewriting history. He also keeps a private journal of his thoughts, which is tantamount to a thoughtcrime, out of the sight of telescreens for his safety. When he is accosted by a fellow worker, Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), and they begin an affair, Winston’s life and his reality are upended, and the ability to keep his thoughtcrimes to himself is challenged.
As with all great literature, Orwell’s novel- and its ideas- will always be relevant to society, especially to one that is ever-changing and evolving. Over the past decade, however, it’s cautionary tale about authoritarianism, propaganda and a subservient population (and media) has become more relevant than ever, whether it’s the rise of Fox News, Trump’s presidency and MAGA, Brexit, authoritarian leaders in general taking hold throughout the world, or the richest man in the world purchasing a social media app as his own plaything, they’re all intended for the same purposes- to control the nature of our reality, to see how much we will bend to the wills of the oligarchy so that they can impose their ideas on the world. Orwell, in his story, is warning us of complacency, and how giving up our individuality will be our death sentence. Radford’s film does a pretty good job of that, but after 40 years, it feels almost quaint in comparison to the real world.
This was Radford’s second film, and it’s a big swing to take. For his cinematographer, he has Roger Deakins (also in the early part of his career), and it’s striking to look at Deakins work in this film compared to later work, and see how his attention to detail when it comes to the story being told was formed early on, even if the film’s bleak visual landscape is rather ugly to look at. That was the point, though, although there are moments of muted beauty- like the countryside Winston and Julia share a moment at, or the cafe at the end- that shine through. As Winston, this might be one of Hurt’s finest moments onscreen; his distinctive face, voice and delivery are a perfect match for this character, and he and Hamilton have a strong chemistry to them. The same can be said between Hurt and the actor who plays O’Brien, a high-ranking party member who tortures Winston late in the film. Radford got Richard Burton to play O’Brien, and the scenes between he and Hurt are some of the most searing in the film. This was Burton’s final film, and he delivers everything he had left for a performance we’ll never forget.
Famously, there were two scores done for this film. The one that Radford preferred was written by Dominic Muldowney, and includes an absolutely malevolent choral work used to signify the Party’s propaganda efforts. One of the studios behind the film, however, was Virgin Group, who brought on the Eurythmics to score the film. Radford hated this score, and fought endlessly with the studio to restore Muldowney’s score. The Criterion disc of the film has both on it; for this watch, I listened to the Eurythmics one, and it’s an interesting electronic score- similar to the work of Tangerine Dream and Reznor/Ross- but not fairly distinctive outside of two songs the band wrote, “Sexcrime” and “Julia.” Next time I watch it, I’ll be sure to have Muldowney’s score chosen to compare.
Is Orwell’s book one of those that can be given a definitive adaptation? I do not know. I think Radford’s work here is deeply respectful to the author’s story, but I don’t know if it lands all its ideas. That said, it gives us plenty to think about along the way.
