A Revolução dos Bichos

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.

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.

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.

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.

George Orwell's book Animal Farm had a dark, bleak atmosphere, but it still left room for some sly comedy and satire on Communism, as well as an absorbing, interesting story. The new film version doesn't really have these redeeming qualities. I'll admit those films that show the geese singing the praise of Napoleon, the Stalin-esque leader of the pigs, are a hoot, but otherwise there isn't much dark comedy. It also isn't particularly bleak; the music was really what ruined the atmosphere. Yes, I know people want everything to be more upbeat, but it just doesn't work with this kind of story. The film itself merely skims the surface of the story, floats through it really, and never goes below the surface to explore the deeper meanings. Everything just floats along, and you don't really get to know anyone, hear their stories or get much sense of what their motives are.

The filmakers also really did not need to cut back and forth between Old Major's speech and scenes of the human farmer asking his neighbor for money, not getting it, and finding comfort under the sheets in the arms of the wife of the very same neighbor. There's no point to it (It wasn't even in the book!), and it downplays the impact of what Major's saying drastically.

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is downplayed, and it ruins the whole thing. You're much better off reading the book, believe me.