![]() |
John Hurt is simply perfect as Winston Smith, in Michael Radford's faithful Orwell adaptation 1984 |
Director: Michael Radford
Cast: John Hurt (Winston Smith), Richard Burton (O’Brien),
Suzanna Hamilton (Julia), Cyril Cusack (Mr Charrington), Gregor Fisher (Parsons),
James Walker (Syme), Andrew Wilde (Tillotson), Phyllis Logan (Announcer)
Few novels of the 20th century have had such a far-ranging
impact as George Orwell’s 1984. Its
concepts and ideas have dominated the popular language around topics from
politics to reality television. Orwell’s idea of a dystopia, ruled by a
controlling government, has inspired virtually every other story in a similar
setting since. Hell, Orwellian is now
an actual word.
Michael Radford had dreamed for years of bringing a film
version of Orwell’s last masterpiece to the screen. This film is the
end-result, shot (as it proudly announces at the end) in the exact times and
locations the original novel was set in. Radford has created a hugely faithful
adaptation that strains at the leash to cover all the complex political,
philosophical and personal questions Orwell’s novel explores. From the opening
sequence, expertly recreating the books “Two-minute-hate”, it’s immediately
clear that Radford knows (and loves) this book.
Winston Smith (John Hurt) is a party worker in Oceania (a
sort of super country consisting of North America, Britain and Ireland), whose
role is to edit and adjust the historical records to ensure that everything the
ruling Party has ever said was always accurate and correct. Unpeople are
removed from old newspaper cuttings, economic targets are edited to match the
final results. In his heart he has sincere doubts about the system and yearns for
freedom – but it is not until a chance meeting with Julia (Suzanna Hamilton)
that he finds a way to express his individuality through their love affair. But
what does Inner Party member O’Brien (Richard Burton) have planned for him?
Radford’s film is a marvel of design. Its look and feel
could have been ripped from the pages of Orwell. Today we’d call it almost
steam-punk – every piece of technology is made of antiquated and repurposed
pieces of equipment (such as phone dials or computer screens) that have a
rusty, poorly maintained feeling that immediately communicates the run-down
crapsack world the film is set in. Every building seems to be crumbling,
collapsing, poorly made, unpleasant, dirty – every street is littered with
wreckage. Who on earth would want to live anywhere like this?
The oppression of the design – all dark blues, greys, blacks
and crumbling stone and rusty metal – is contrasted at key points. The
(relative) opulence of O’Brien’s apartment – with actual comfortable chairs,
plastered and painted walls and decent furniture – really stands out (as does
Burton’s well-tailored boiler suit compared to the uncomfortable rags of the
others). Roger Deakin’s photography also really mixes up the grime of London
with the sweeping vistas of the countryside, the only place we see greens or
brighter blues.
Radford’s adaptation of the novel manages to hit every beat
from the original. I’m not sure if it is quite accessible to someone who hasn’t
read the novel: there is a lot of information only briefly communicated here,
and the film makes no real effort to set up or establish the situation in
Oceania. Some moments work a lot better if you know the book – the nature of
Winston’s job most especially. However, Radford really captures the spirit of
the original – and he really understands the contrasts in the book between its
gloom and oppression and the free spirit of Julia, and what their love affair
represents to Winston.
The film contains a lot of nudity in these scenes (Suzanna
Hamilton does full frontal several times –John Hurt’s bottom similarly appears a
fair bit) – but it’s kind of vital. The characters are literally (and
figuratively) laying themselves bare. It’s a clear visual sign of how they are
rejecting the rules, systems and crushing control of the state itself. Alone
they can shed the burden of being controlled and truly be themselves. It’s one
of the few films where extensive nudity actually feels completely essential to
the plot – and vital to communicating the character’s desire for openness.

The film is further helped by the casting of John Hurt as
Winston Smith. If ever an actor was born to play this role, it was John Hurt.
Not only does Hunt’s gaunt face, emaciated frame and pale cragginess fit
perfectly (he also looks a lot like Orwell), but Hurt’s gift as an actor was
his empathy for suffering. His finest parts were people who undergo great loss
and torment, so Winston Smith was perfect. He gives the role a great deal of
damaged humanity, a naïve dream-like yearning, a desire for something he can
barely understand. There’s a real gentleness to him, a vulnerability – and it
makes Winston Smith hugely moving.
Suzanna Hamilton (in a break-out role) is a great contrast,
as a confident, controlled, brave Julia – again there is something tomboyish
about her that really works for the part. She’s both certain about what she is
doing, but also unwise and naïve. It’s a shame her performance often gets
overlooked behind Hurt and Richard Burton. This was Burton’s final film – and
while he clearly looks frail, he gives O’Brien all the imposing authority of
the melodious voice: you could believe Burton as both a secret rebel and as the
face of the state. He’s really good here, hugely menacing and sinister.
1984 is perhaps
one of the most faithful and lovingly assembled tributes to its source material
you can imagine. In fact that’s the root of its two biggest flaws. Radford had
an electronic score by the Eurythmics imposed upon the film (the band was
unaware that Dominic Muldowney had spent almost a year working on a score
rejected by the producers). This electronic, slightly popish soundtrack feels
completely out of whack with the tone and style of the rest of the film. It’s
very 1980s electronic tone doesn’t match the novel and it looks even worse
today. That’s the danger when your passion project can only get finance from a
record company!
The other problem is the film is very much an adaptation:
wonderfully done, brilliantly designed and acted, but it exists best as a
companion piece. In fact the full enjoyment of the film pretty much relies on
having read the book – and it has virtually no appeal to someone who didn’t
already know the book (even the 2-minute hate that opens the film isn’t explained).
Historically I think the film is very easy to overlook as it came out at a very
similar time to Terry Gilliam’s Brazil.
Brazil doesn’t adapt the plot of
Orwell’s book – but in all other senses it’s an adaptation of the heart of that
novel, told with greater artistry and imagination than here. It’s a thematic
adaptation that is its own beast not just a page-to-screen version. That’s what
1984 is and, however well done, it will
always be in the shadow of the original.
Radford’s labour of love is still a very good film. Somehow
what was pretty bleak on the page is even more traumatising on screen. A lot of
this is due to Radford’s balance between oppression and freedom, and the film’s
perfect adaptation of the book’s themes. But a lot of it is due to Hurt’s
heartfelt, sympathetic and perfect performance in the lead role. Literally
no-one else could have played this role: and from the opening shots of him at a
party rally, through scenes of love, torture and traumatised aftermath, he’s
simply wonderful. Read the book: but once you do enjoy (if you can!) the film.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.