1984 (1984)
A couple defy their dystopian rulers by falling in love.
There were deep levels to the performance that the superficial elements don’t account for; the actors were clearly informed about the subject matter they were depicting. It was also effective to see the actors bodily involved with the performance, John Hurt was able to sell the torture scenes very well due to this.
It’s exceedingly difficult to make a dystopian film without either selling out on the message or it being pervadingly bleak, in this case it was the latter which makes it heavy to watch at times and somewhat predictable but still with the subtextual integrity intact so some entertainment can be made drawing parallels to modern life and the political climate.
An interesting element was that it’s never made really clear which nation or society the party is meant to represent. There are high rise buildings like America, ornate halls like central Europe, MK-Ultra style interrogation rooms, and even at one point what appeared to be Battersea Power Station. This vagueness keeps the focus on authoritarianism rather than blaming one place or country.
The main character is out link to this oppressive world but he wanders through it as though it’s all new to him, despite the strength of the brainwashing being that nobody inside knows any different. That nobody is to be trusted is a present notion for the diagetic world, which makes the protagonist seem too naive by trusting nearly everyone he meets that isn’t on a big screen.
5/10 -Can’t find a better example of average-
-Only the central character, Winston Smith, gets a first and second name.
-One of the first scenes shows a clock with 24 marks instead of 12, referencing the opening of the book which involves the clocks striking 13.
-While the film was released in the same year as the title, the book was released in a year that’s an anagram of the title: 1948.
0 notes
Minority Report (2002)
Why is this movie so fucking ugly? DoP Janusz Kaminski is one of Steven Spielberg’s regular collaborators, he has proven time and again to have an immaculate technical hand behind the camera. Recently, he was denied an Oscar because the Academy think VFX and cinematography are the same thing. But here, the film plunges deep into the valley of hideous early-aughts futuristic sci-fi dystopian nonsense. He was well ahead of the curve on the blue filter of death, rendering dull and lifeless already dreary scenes, and sequences in the mall and elsewhere are gauzy and indecipherable as light washes the definition out of the image. It’s certainly a choice. But it’s an incorrect one.
Why am I drawn to aesthetic in my haphazard discussion of this film which so thoroughly relies on exposition in order to tell its story? Perhaps because it’s just so slick in its production design. This feels very much like Steven Spielberg’s swing at a Paul Verhoeven action satire of the late 80s and early 90s, the Dutch auteur not giving a shit while he took Hollywood’s money and used it to lampoon itself as well as American culture at large. Spielberg, by contrast, is practically the American id from the standpoint of Hollywood, so thoroughly has he defined the aesthetic. So I can appreciate the immaculate design here. It’s incredibly well realized, all told. The performances are great, and he pulls from a daunting cast—a committed Tom Cruise, Samantha Morton and Colin Farrell, Neal McDonough, Max von Fucking Sydow—all a cocktail for success. And he achieves it, largely. But it just doesn’t have that final spark to complete the portrait.
THE RULES
SIP
Someone says ‘Precog’.
Clarity gets name-dropped.
Tom runs like nobody else can.
Eye puns.
BIG DRINK
Prominent eye imagery.
Personalized advertising.
Spielberg indulges in grossout imagery.
1 note
·
View note
Orwell's depiction of a dystopian world was one where people are crushed by oppressors and have no hope of escape, meanwhile Huxley's depiction of a dystopian world was one where people passively and happily allow their oppression.
This is why Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget took such a sharp turn in aesthetics compared to the original film, as the oppressive and dark visual themes of the first film as well as the narrative themes of forced compliance compare better with something like Orwell's 1984 but the colourful retro-futurist themes of the sequel, combined with the themes of delusional compliance and mind-control compare better with Huxley's Brave New World. In this essay I will--
100 notes
·
View notes
the thing about adaptation discourse (specifically with pjo but this can apply to others i've seen) is that people fail to realize:
a) they are adapting it for a NEW audience. and
b) they are making it fresh for the ORIGINAL audience!
as much as people say they want a 99% accurate representation of a book to screen, be for real that would just be boring!!!! knowing every plot twist every turn every development would get tired sooo fast. by adding changes however minor or major to themes, plot, details, WHATEVER, it makes it fun while still keeping the heart of the thing! maybe i'm just an optimist but holy shit it's so fun to be taken on a whole new journey while still knowing where they'll end up, but being able to be surprised by what may happen to get there! i audibly gasp in delight when things happen that weren't in the books. i LIKE being surprised and falling in love with something all over again for new reasons. especially in a book to tv format, there's so much room to add, to develop, and to REdevelop aged out moments of the books!
tl;dr be kind to adaptations. just. just shhhh. it's okay. they can be good things on their own.
94 notes
·
View notes