1984

I finally was able to see this film, having seen the 1984 version with John Hurt when I was in college. I recall the 1984 version having some good production values, but I remember being disappointed also. This version was well-cast, and the art direction was also competent. Edmund O'Brien turned in a great performance as Winston Smith. I think that he brought a great quality of desperation to the role; which seemed to run contrary to John Hurt's performance. I'm sure there was a lot left out of the book. But I get tired of hearing people moan and groan about the argument of literature vs. cinema. Come on people, film is time-based, and can't digress like novels can. The screenwriter/director mainly extracts plot points, and can't be bothered with too much exposition (unless of course they have a whopping budget!). I've read many criticisms where more skeptical viewers complain that we don't get to know Big Brother's motives, strategy, etc... What?!! It's Big Brother - an enigmatic and probably non-existent despot....you're not supposed to know his whole story! The love affair, although brief, is very empathetic. In lieu of all the paranoia, Big Brother-cheerleading, etc. - the love between Winston and Julia is a good emotional oasis. Even though I watched a poor copy of this version, it really did make an impression. One of the few criticisms I have is Room 101. I thought the rat shot/scene was truncated, and could've been dramatized more. That's where the John Hurt version trumps this one.

I saw the movie once back in 1968 or so and thought it was great. Don't know how I'd view it now but I have never had any desire to see the remake. The fact that the movie is in black and white still leaves a very visual impression of the stark, bare lives people like Winston Smith led. No color in their lives and certainly no color in their thoughts was the order of their day. I think the film captured that along with the idea that their technology available was also unenlightening. It served only one purpose and that was to control. I don't think I would be as impressed if the movie were made today. Our technology is too sophisticated. In the original version, less is more.

......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.

I saw this movie as a young boy,and at the time I was very naive as to what they meant by "Big Brother" Many people to day, in particular the young, do not know the real meaning to Big Brother. Another name for it is the "New World Order" As in the Bible,you will have a noticeable stamp on your body in order to buy food or what have you. And your whereabouts will be monitored. And for this reason, I've NEVER forgotten this movie. It's a must see film by those that are as naive as I was,when I was a young boy.

Good, and I do really mean GOOD, dystopian Sci-Fi is the only (sub-) genre in cinema that occasionally manages to frighten me or make me feel uncomfortable. Titles such as "Soylent Green", "Z. P. G", or the more recent "Children of Men" are deeply disturbing not because we will be battling alien races or intelligent robots in the not-so-distant future, but because mankind itself made the planet unlivable. George Orwell, and his uniquely magnificent novel "1984", is probably the founding father of dystopian SciFi (although the influence of "Metropolis" is also unneglectable) and it's still one of the most horrifying tales ever written as far as I'm concerned.

Admittedly "1984" didn't turn out to be the phenomenal movie I secretly hoped it would be. It's an engaging, competently made, and absorbing transfer of Orwell's totalitarian nightmare from paper to screen, but some things are missing. I just didn't feel it. I didn't feel Big Brother's eyes penetrating in my back, I didn't feel the Inner Party's tyrannical madness, or their greed to own and control every human being's life. I didn't feel Winston and Julia's desperate desire to live in complete freedom. Perhaps the year of release, 1956, was still a bit too early to turn the novel into a motion picture. Director Michael Anderson somewhat fails to recreate the bleak and depressing atmosphere, as well as the dauntingly monotonous set-pieces, of a truly miserable dystopian world. 20 years later, however, Anderson would prove himself certainly capable of doing so with "Logan's Run". The 70s were just the ideal decade for dystopian Sci-Fi.

Of course, I would like to finish by underlining that "1984" is nevertheless a very good film, and worth tracking down for fans of the Sci-Fi genre, as well as George Orwell admirers. Several aspects are fantastic, notably the strong performances of the emotional Jan Sterling and the stoic Michael Redgrave. There are a handful effectively disturbing highlights as well, like the inspection rituals Winston has to endure in his own apartment, the public promoting of events like "hate-week" or the persona of young Selena Parsons, who has been so completely indoctrinated by Big Brother that she even becomes terrifying to her own neighbor and father (the stupendous Donald Pleasance in an early role).