Animal Farm

I was disappointed to find that this version of Animal Farm completely fails to convey the fundamental message of Animal Farm.

George Orwell's novel is about the deception, the cruelty, and the hypocrisy of the pigs' control of the farm. The reason it is such a good book is that it shows the reader how the situations slides from a seemingly democratic revolution to a bloody tyranny.

The 1954 animation of Animal Farm portrays this excellently; the scene where Boxer is carried away is often mentioned as being absolutely heart-wrenching. However, in the new edition, I remember trying to feel the same abhorrent turmoil but finding that it just wasn't there.

The story seems to be told as if it were from a children's adventure book. It most certainly is not. Admirable filming with real animals counts for nothing when the whole reason for being of the story is not expressed.

If you want to experience the sheer force of the story of Animal Farm, watch the old version.

Frankly, when I read the back of the tape container, and it stated something like, "...Your kids will squeal with joy..." or to that effect. My reaction was not good. This certainly wasn't the same Orwell story I remembered. The story, to me, wasn't just an allegory, but also a cautionary tale, as well. Whatever your feelings about the small, powerful book...I really doubt "joy" was one of your emotions during or after your reading.

It's not an awful movie, just one that tinkers with the original classic. In this case, due to the popularity and in some schools, its mandatory reading...This was not wise to do so. Yes, it drags forth debate, but to what ends? Orwell is no longer here to give his biting opinion of TNT's efforts. TNT should be grateful for that, I would think.

The special effects were good, and the vocal talent was excellent. The last minute resolution was tacky. The wide-eyed "here comes the rainbow" optimistic ending, was irksome and indicative of American films, in general. Yup, 89 minutes of blood, mayhem and carnage...then the cast ensemble sings "Put on a Happy Face!" as the credits roll...

The "newsreel" concept was clever and novel. Yet, one couldn't escape the distance between the ending in the movie, as compared to the book. That divide is too wide. When in doubt, go to the source.

I really do wish people would get that into their heads. Just because it's about barnyard animals with no sex or adult language, doesn't mean that's necessarily for kids. It's, as many people well know, a metaphor for the atrocities of the Soviet Union under Stalin. It's bleak, nasty and upsetting, but it speaks the truth on the hypocrisy of leaderships, corruption and fascism.

And yet they decide to portray the story as though it's a children's film, with live action talking animals, with a special lighting to make it look child-like and family friendly. No! This is not what George Orwell's tale is about. The book is extremely depressing, but in this film, and especially the ending, they made it look like the things that happened were no big deal.

It's true that in real life, Stalin's regime collapsed on itself, "a victim of its own malice" in the end, but it would have been better if it wasn't depicted in the movie. Jesse, the sheepdog, serves as a narrator, and seems to predict and see through the evils of Napoleon, and yet does nothing about it. All the animals in the book apart from the pigs could not see what was going on due their myopia and little intelligence. And the violence was also very subdued.

If another adaptation should be done, it should be more gritty and truer to the novel, and to get the point the Orwell was intending point out.

The ending in Animal Farm was not only a travesty to Orwell's original work, but made no logical sense. Certain animals supposedly had the sense and wherewithal to go into hiding on the farm until Napoleon's reign came crashing. Where did they hide? How did they survive? Most of all, why weren't they hunted down as traitors by Napoleon's dogs?

But the real incongruity comes after Napoleon's fall. "The walls have now fallen," (a post-Reaganistic interpretation of the Berlin Wall) and now there is hope in the future. "There are new owners. We will not allow them to make the same mistakes."

What new power and insights do the animals now have to prevent the same mistakes? And just who are these new owners, anyway? Why do the animals (who have proven themselves capable of running a farm, if they are not mismanaged) have to revert to human owners to be their masters again? And why are we to believe these new human owners are better than Jones or Pilkington? Is it because they look more "American," drive a sleeker, newer car, and play rock-n-roll?

Orwell wrote this classic tale as an allegory of modern totalitarianism in general, and Stalinism in particular. TNT's production reeks of a post-modern, imperialistic, corporate-American view of Russia and Eastern Europe today, whose troubles would be over if they would just fully embrace their new owners, American multi-national corporations, with their hip technology and rock-n-roll culture.

It's been a while since I've read the book, but for the most part the show captures the feeling of dread, hopelessness, and frustration the animals felt on the farm. As with any condensation of book to movie details are lost, but the overall scope remains intact.

The major problem with the movie was the ending. The book ends with the animals not being able to tell the difference between pig and man (a scene which is done pretty well, but could have been better). In this version, we still have ten minutes left. While I can't spoil the ending (though it's not much of a spoil), let's say it feels incredibly unrealistic and improbable given the situation. Then there is a final monologue about hope. Blech. All movies are equal, but movies with bad endings are less equal than others.