Seen any good films lately? [3]

Eldorion wrote:Oh my god.



I don't feel so bad for having skipped out on an original sci-fi film now.

Double , what a crock !

going to watch that new film later, The tale of Tales. actually the original book was called Lo Cunto di le Cunti. its Sicilian but its just as well they changed it.

oooer, there's some very odd book titles floating about & half the time the foreigners dont seem to see what the fuss is about ? Language is funny, no ?

well I watched it and I have to say its a visual feast. hardly any cgi, all the locations and interiors are real, so its like a fairy tale tourist ad for Italy. and as its based on fairy tales its full of sex, violence, tragedy, horror and melancholy. its not exactly a happy tale but neither are fairy tales. its defo worth a look. some great acting. some advice, don't go on a dark windy miserable night. #heebygeebycityarizona

today I went to see Tomorrowland. it was really enjoyable, positive message, great fun. its very much a Disney film therefore don't expect anything gritty or urban. but yeah its pretty good.

I recently reread 1984, a favourite of mine, and decided afterwards to watch the film version, but which one?
So I decided over the course of a few days to watch (and listen) to all the adaptations I could find.

Here's what I make of them as film adaptations-

First up was an early BBC entry, made in 1954 for television (only 6 years after the book was published) it stars Peter Cushing as Winston, Donald Pleasence as Syme (he plays this role in two adaptations)  Yvonne Mitchell as Julia, André Morell as O'Brien.
It was adapted by Nigel Kneale, who the previous year had created the Quatermass Experiment- one of the great classics of British sci-fi TV.
Like most BBC drama of the time this was shot and broadcast as a live play, with a few bits of preshot footage inserted between scenes for exteriors or to show changes in location which could not be achieved live. Likewise the music score was also played live in the studio next door as it was being broadcast.

As you might expect therefore there are a few technical hitches to overlook, the occasional hint of boom in shot, a wobble on the camera, a stumble over a line, but nothing totally ruinous.
Performances wise everyone is pretty good.
Cushing is not my perfect Winston, but nor is he unsuitable physically for the role. Yvonne Mitchell n the otherhand is not quite up to scratch as Julia, but this is more due to the morals of the time than the actress, as she is a bit to prim and proper compared to the rebellious quick witted youth of the book who has grown up knowing nothing else but the world of Big Brother. And she is also simply to old for the role.
Physically Andre Morell is a good match for the books O'Brien, displaying the civilised man with a prize fighters physique of the book well. Although his gesture, which first draws Winston to him in the bok, of resettling his spectacles on his nose, is overplayed in this version so that it becomes a somewhat unreal looking gesture in the film.
The violence, particularly towards the end is also less played out than in the book, understandable a the BBC faced enough trouble for what they did broadcast as it was.
But the films greatest flaw, and one I have found in most of the adaptations, is that in a society where even a slight facial tick can be enough to give you away how do you tell the audience what s going on? The book of course simply gives you Winston's internal dialogue, a film has to put it out there somehow.
The solution although effective in informing the viewer does however undermine the peril of the situation, as you can in the film version get away with rather a lot of suspicious behaviour and questions just because the viewer needs that information.
However the meat of the book is there in terms of story, but like all versions Goldsteins book and its very important dissection of the society of Big Brother is largely absent and truncated to bits where it does exist.
This section of the book, where Orwell drops several chapters from another fictional book full of political dissection is a problem for all the adaptations.
Overall it cuts a fair bit, condenses several bits down, and over explains a bit, and not all the characters quite ring true to the original. But its not a bad stab at the book, and a fairly decent film in its own right.



Next up its the turn of Hollywood to give it a go. This version is from two years after the BBC one, made in 1956.

The first odd thing about it is the casting- it stars Edmond O'Brien and Jan Sterling and Michael Regrave, it has an almost entirely British cast save for the leads- Winston and Julia are both Americans and could not be more inappropriate.
Not just because its odd they are the only American speakers, and they kept the setting as London and everyone else English, but because they physically bear little resemblance to the book versions. This Wintson is portly (he would have been better cast as Winston's podgy neighbour Parsons), and Julia looks like a Hollywood film star.
Donald Pleasence also turns up in this version again playing Symne although in this version that character has been partly merged with the character of Parsons.
It also does some rather odd things, chief among them are inexplicable changes of character names- so O'Brien becomes O'Conner, Goldstein is almost gone from the plot completely and when he does turn up he goes by the odd sci-fi sounding name of Kalador and the book on politics only gets the briefest of mentions and is more important for being a plot device to move things on than for its own content.
It also makes odd changes from the book- gone are O'Briens spectacles, or the distinctive way he settles hem on his nose, even more perplexing gone too is Big Brothers moustache! (an odd omission as the book makes some play of Winston's life long musing on what sort of smile lurks under it, a question he only feels he gets an answer to at the every end)
There are also odd examples of dumbing down- the word proles is absent for example, so there are no prole zones, now there are 'people zones'.
Events from the book have also been moved around quite a bit, or altered to serve a slightly different purpose and in fact in many cases this actually works quite well. For example the opening scene is one in which Winston is in the 'people zone when the air raid goes off, he seeks cover in the doorway of a shop, Mr Charrington's shop, where he is joined by Julia who has been following him and also is forced to take refuge there- when the all clear sounds she leaves without a word, and his fear and suspicion of her is clear- this in an invented scene introduces quite a lot from the book- the prole zones, his belief Julia is following him and will denounce him, Mr Charrington and his shop, the war itself. But it also over simplifies most things too by over explaining everything in this manner.
This version also does a good job in the early stages of creating a genuine sense that a wrong word, a wrong move could cost you your life at any moment. It is much better in this regard than the BBC tv version and you get a much more oppressive feel of a controlled society.
But overall its odd casting choices, even odder name changes, and overall dumbing down of the story let it down. It just keeps doing odd things- it for example includes Winston's diary but then almost everything he writes in it they make up and just use it to over explain the plot and make sure everything is simple and clear. Even the soundtrack is somehow to Hollywood, and whilst the BBC version is from the same decade and is music is likewise in the style of its times it is far less generic than that soundtrack for this version.
Like many Hollywood films its biggest failing is that it constantly underestimates its audience and pays to the lowest denominator.



The third adaptation I gave a go to is a radio play, again from the BBC, this one hails from 1975 and stars Patrick Troughton in the lead role of Winston. Although its hard to find information on its production.
It follows the book very closely and radio gives it the advantage that things like the Oceania news bulletins and announcements suit the medium very well.
It also has one of the more extensive inclusions of Goldsteins book in it by changing it for a book to an illegal radio broadcast. A suitable solution for an audio version and a good alternative to just having the lead read it out.
The performances from everyone are excellent throughout, although again Julia is still a bit to prim. And like other versions is still has the problem of how best to convey what Winston is thinking in a world where he cant say any of it out loud. And it never quite overcomes this and there are a few moments where Winstons words or actions should really have got him caught there and then.



The fourth adaptation is from 1984 itself, and in fact filmed during the exact same months the book is set over.
Its a dark, very gritty, very harsh portrayal of the boks world, maybe even too much so. Life is truly miserable in this version, for everyone. It puts great deal of emphasis on bleakness and a compete abject sense of loss of hope, which can make it quite difficult to watch at times.
It stars John Hurt as Winston, Richard Burton (in his final screen role) as O'Brien, and Susanne Hamilton as Julia.
In terms of casting its perfect. Hurt and O'Brien in particular are very much as the book describes them, and Hurts physical transformation from beginning to tortured soul at the end is as impressive to see as it is horrific to watch.
The scenes between Winston and O'Brien are easily the stand outs of this version, but the rest is pretty solid too. And Hamiltons' Julia finally portrays some of her youthful rebelliousness of the book, as well as her intelligence at avoiding getting caught and her complete disinterest in the politics or in changing anything.
Its certainly the most faithful of the adaptations, retains the most of the political aspects of the book, and it does not fall into the trap of giving to much away through the main characters actions or words- rather they use the diary and voice over to convey the necessary information.
This works very well for conveying the information, and not for having Winston act in a way the world portrayed would not a low- but like all film with extensive voice over it sort of feels lie the wrong medium- film is primarily a means of telling stories in pictures, and there are points of this film which feel more literary than visual.
The soundtrack is also worth a mention, written by the Eurythmics. This gives the film a very unique sound, how much you like or dislike it will be down to musical taste, but I thought it worked well. And the Oceania national anthem in particular is a stand out I thought.




The final version I listened to was another BBC radio version this one more recent, a two part adaptation as part of Radio 4's celebration of Orwell's works.
It stars Christopher Eccleston as Winston, Pippa Nixon as Julia and Tim Pigott-smith as O'Brien.
This was my least favourite, the production is good, the performances are good, but its both thee the most truncated of the adaptations as well as the worst offender for 'things Winston should be shot for.'
He questions everything, out loud, often in public or even to other characters- this Winston should have been denounced as a Thought-criminal within the first five minutes.




So overall if I had to pick one, I couldn't in fact- the Hurt version is easily the best in terms of production, performance and fidelity to source, but its a hard watch its so bleak. I would say its a bleaer experience than reading the book because you don't get any glimpses of anything else the way being in Winstons head lets you get some reprieve in the book.
For pure enjoyment I would say the Troughton radio version is my favourite, despite some of its issues with saying things out loud which shouldn't be said.

The Hollywood version is a curiosity really, and the Eccelston version I would say avoid,sadly, as I had very high hopes going into it.


Interesting trivia- out of the adaptations I watched or listened to Winston was played by - Peter Cushing, Edmond O'Brien, Patrick Troughton, John Hurt, Christopher Eccelston over a span of 60 years- and all of them bar the American, Edmund O'Brien, have also played the Doctor.

Eldorion wrote:Agreed about DH2.  Bill and Fleur there were almost as perfunctory and meaningless as PJ's Beorn.  Almost.

malickfan wrote:I tried watching Drive, but gave up after about twenty minutes, just found it pretentious and dull...

I can understand the dull complaint RE: Drive (it's oddly paced and not a ton happens after the opening chase), but if you don't mind me asking, what did you find pretentious about it?  I thought it had a pretty schlocky premise.  I suppose the sparse dialogue and long periods of people staring at each other can be a little impenetrable on first watch, but I actually love that because it shocked me out of my post-Tarantino phase of fetishizing the script above all other aspects of cinematic storytelling (which says far more about me at that age than it does about Tarantino's work, of course).

Basically the things you listed, it just seemed like a empty film swept up in its own sense of being 'cool' and 'different' rather than telling an interesting story...abstract pacing and dialogue choices can feel either interesting or self indulgent...admittedly I watched it two or three years ago so I can't remember it very well but it just didn't grab me, maybe I'll force myself through a rewatch some when.

(I know this is ironic coming from a self confessed Terrence 'Arty Farty' Malick-fan, but I had similar issues with his 'The New World' the only one of his five (haven't seen his sixth) films I didn't like)

I've seen a few of Tarantino's films (Pulp, Dogs and Unchained) he's a great writer and always turns in a fun film, but again I can't escape the feeling he tries to hard being self indulgent and 'clever'...

I watched Dumb and Dumber Too recently, not exactly disappointing as I'd heard it was quite forgettable, but it definitely wasn't worth a 20 year wait, there were a fair few laughs and Jim Carrey picks up where he left of straight away, but the film basically felt like a lesser rehash (if not a parody) of the first, the humour seemed coarser for the sake of it, Jeff Daniels didn't look entirely sure what he was doing there, and many of the jokes just seemed stupid or cold hearted rather than silly.

4/10

Hamburger Hill was great, very well paced and shot, and less in your face with the thematic stuff than most Vietnam War films, quite a grim and gory war film for its time, but very engrossing and believable.

8/10

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I recently reread 1984, a favourite of mine, and decided afterwards to watch the film version, but which one?
So I decided over the course of a few days to watch (and listen) to all the adaptations I could find.

1984 master post. Need to get around to reading that. I'm thinking about writing something about adaptations in general, so this will be great fodder for my thoughts.

Thanks Blue- I highly recommend the book, its a good story in its own right, but a more important message.
Some people find the political stuff hard going, particularly the chapters from the Book- The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.
When I first read it at school I know I found this bit hard going, these days its among my favourite parts and worth a read in its own right. But best read first in its proper context.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html

Ah, yes. It's definitely one of those should reads. I tend to shy away from those a bit, because if you're expecting something special you are kind of setting yourself up to be let down, and I like to arrive at most things from some outside point of interest. That does seem to help ones enjoyment of something. Recommendations and insight into the subject matter, I do find the political stuff very interesting, does help though. I'll keep it in mind.

there is definitely something about Richard Burton. I liked the sinister "you can trust me for I bullshit you not" essence about him. Pathetic, not strong enough but determined Winston was played well by John Hurt. I liked that version anyway.Matched how I felt as I read the book.

On a mission. I found 10 websites with top 10 films of all time and made my own list to watch. Started with the Godfather yesterday. There are 47 films on the list but I am aiming to see the top 10 of those with a couple of others thrown in when we fancy.

Also going to see Mad Max today. Hopefully that is as good as people have been saying.

that reminds me, have we done a top 10 performance thingie? Not the film itself just the best acting performance that you like, its subjective obviously.
its hard to choose but I will have a go, in no particular order. These performances felt the most real as a nuanced character study I guess.

1.   Juliet Stevenson in Truly madly Deeply
2.   Tilda Swinton in Orlando
3.   Charlton Heston in The Agony and the Ecstasy
4.   Michael Caine in Get Carter
5.   Al Pacino in The Merchant of Venice
6.   Tom Hanks in Castaway
7.   Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth 1 (tv production)
8.   Ingrid Bergman in Notorious
9.   Jimmy Stewart in Its a wonderful Life
10. Richard E Grant in Withnail and I

The only ones on that list I've seen in it's entirety (in one sitting) have been Merchant of Venice and Notorious.  Notorious made me think it was a real shame Cary Grant was never James Bond.  He would have been perfect and canonical, but he mainly wanted to do family friendly comedies.

Edit: I did see the Agony and the Ecstasy. Definitely one of Heston's better performances.

Cary Grant certainly had the gentlemanly elegance, but I think he would have lacked the brutal dangerous side of Bond and the ruthless womanizing wouldnt have sat well on him imo. He was too classy for Bond. Connerys Bond it always strikes me that his tastes are learnt as part of his job while Grants Bond his taste would have come naturally. Roger More is more like Grant in that way.

a lot of people poopoo Agony and the Ecstasy, but the film is better than the book.

My favorite performances seem to change from hour to hour and day to day, but on this particular morning as I'm looking out my window, I'm thinking of Peter Sellers in Being There.

And they didn't even give him an Oscar. (Peter Sellers that is.)

Unrelated, but congrats to Mrs Figg for her 17,000th post, which was made in this thread!

Bravo Figgy !

thanks guys

Congratulations Figgs

Staying on Topic, Tommorowland was a bit meh...

Wow! Impressive indeed Figgsterino!

malickfan wrote:Congratulations Figgs

Staying on Topic, Tommorowland was a bit meh...

Elaborate please!

Forest Shepherd wrote:

malickfan wrote:Congratulations Figgs

Staying on Topic, Tommorowland was a bit meh...

Elaborate please!

Without getting into spoilers about the plot my thoughts:

I didn't watch any trailers or read any reviews before hand so I wouldn't say I was dissapointed, just a bit underwhelmed, the film is wonderfully shot, with a solid cast and some very inventive set pieces, you can certainly feel the passion behind the camera (though the film gets a little heavy handed with the messages towards the end and there is a subplot between Clooney and another character which has an slightly uncomfortable resolution) and it makes a pleasant enough way to kill two hours, but that's it, it's just choppy as film and forgettable as a story, something you'd watch on TV on a sunday afternoon, although there are some interesting ideas in the script (and some rather cool future tech on display), the central story isn't particularly interesting i.m.o. Its unevenly paced (many have commented the closing act is underwhelming, not a complaint I share personally), overly preachy (or perhaps refreshingly optimistic depending on how you look at things) and Hugh Laurie is given little to do, his most memorable line being 'Bollocks', but I still enjoyed it a fair amount, though it might have been better to wait for the DVD...

Damon Lindelof the beloved screenwriter behind Prometheus, Star Trek Into Darkness and Cowboys and Aliens had a heavy hand in the script and came up with the story so it isn't really surprising...

Den of Geek's review speaks for me pretty well:

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/tomorrowland/35434/tomorrowland-a-world-beyond-review


6/10 from me, a fun  rather inventive film, but messily plotted and overly preachy