Monday, January 4, 2010
Animal Farm movie version
Having seen a movie version of George Orwell's Animal Farm, reflect upon and write about the following: 1) the differences between the two and your thoughts on them, 2) how the movie did or did not address Orwell's messages and your thoughts on that, and 3) which you preferred and why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
1) Some of the differences between the movie were that Jessie was the main character in movie, while in the book there was none. In the movie, Old Major was shot and then chopped up for meat, while in the book he had died of old age. Mr.Jones and Mr.Pilkington had wives and Mr. Pilkington even had children in the movie, but in the book they didn't have any. Also, at the end of the book Animal Farm got right back to where it started, but in the movie everything got destroyed.
2) I don't think the movie addressed Orwell's messages, because of the different endings. In the movie, Napoleon's dictatorship fell and it was like, "Oh joy, now we can go back without having to hide anymore. Yay." In the book, it was more like a sudden shock of realization that they were back where they had first started, and they couldn't do anything about it at all and they had to live the rest of their horrid lives under Napoleon's dictatorship.
3)I preferred the book to the movie, but mostly because I almost always dislike movie versions of things, but also because it didn't really follow the plot line. It also seriously creeped me out. Old Major gave me nightmares.
The movie and the book Animal Farm were starkly different. To start, the movie is missing many characters and events in the book. One of such is the battle of the Windmill. Instead of a great battle, Mr. Jones, instead of Fredrickson, did not lead a grand attack with many other farmers with guns, instead, he snuck into the farm and blew it up. As well, the movie never involved Mr. Whymper, despite his purpose in the book. As well, the movie added a television. There was never a TV in the movie, and it replaced Orwell's use of the demonstrations. Overall, the movie was very different than the book.
The movie did not adress most of Orwell's messages in the book. He wanted to illustrate how people need to be educated enough to thinkl for themselves, as the pigs took advantage of the animals' stupidity. He also wanted to show how totalitarianism is much like communism, and that it only surrendered all power to the government. Lastly, he wanted to state that in both cases, the surrender of power then leads to the inevitable abuse of power, which makes the public suffer. In all, the movie never addressed these ideas. It only wanted to give a simple, kid-friendly plot on how some crazed pig wanted to rule the farm, an easy-to-identify antagonist, and a happy ending. It only occasionally mentioned how stupid the animals were, but never quite linked it to the overtake of the farm, and they even escaped the farm, which defeats the point of that anyway.
I feel that this movie had no point whatsoever. It should have been closer to the book, and it should have had a message involved. I feel, on the book's part, that yes, people do need to be educated to protect themselves from total government control. Orwell was right as he stated that absolute power should be absolutely abolished. I feel that this belief is the only solution to a public serving govenrnment. In all, I agree with the messages in the book, and disagree with everything to do with the movie.
In all, I would rather prefer the book. it cover many deep concepts that are still relevant today. It reminds people why we strive for education and speak out for ourselves to prevent government from stealing all the power. As well, it reminds us that abosolute power in any place can and inevitably will corrupt government, and that this can never happen in a government for and by people. However, the movie failed horribly to even give a straight story that made sense, let alone communicate these messages. In all, I would rather prefer the book to the movie.
1) The movie and the book have a lot of differences. For one, there was a news system, so the animals did not witness the executions first hand, even though they were scared just as bad. Mollie never left the farm, so there was no indication that some animals liked the way things were before the Rebellion. And then, Jessie emerged as the narrator of the story and as an important character, whereas in the book she was minor. And as Jessie was promoted, Clover became a minor character, and the fact that Clover's role as Boxer's good friend was replaced by Jessie annoyed me a bit(even though I liked Jessie). What annoyed me second to most, however, was the fact that Benjamin always seemed as dumb as all the other animals when, in fact, he was intelligent. my greatest irritation lay in the fact that in the movie, Napoleon's 'Manor Farm' fell and life was good after that, as that does not address one of the main messages in the book.
2) The movie and book both made obvious that the animals were stupid(even though, in the movie, even Benjamin seemed dumb). The reason the animals were dumb were because they did not have knowledge, and could not make their own decisions. In the movie, the animals were shown to be awed by the T.V., and their expressions seemed really stupid. Not to mention the fact that no one except Jessie noticed something was wrong until Napoleon declared himself the leader of the Republic.
Both versions explained that blindly following a leader(not that the dumbness of the animals allowed them any choice) was not a good thing, and that knowledge is power(also worded as, be educated and think for yourself). The animals, lacking education, blindly followed Napoleon and ended up being deceived and treated like slaves.
The outcomes of both the movie and the book shows that absolute power corrupts absolutely(especially when Napoleon sold Boxer to the knackers for whisky). However, the movie fails to make a point out of the message that 'some things will never change'. In the movie, Manor Farm finally falls, and the animals that have survived can have a better future. However, the book ends when the animals figure out that they are doomed to live under Napoleon's Republic like slaves. The book did not anticipate a 'happy ending' like the one the movie had. This is the main problem. The movie shows that things can change for the better, while the book was basically written to explain that 'some things will never change'. (Think: 'nothing had changed' was what Benjamin(in the book) was saying all along. However... no one really listened to him.)
3) I preferred the book. In most book-based movies, the book is better. Mainly it's because the book, as the original version, showed all the messages the author meant to show. The movie-makers deleted some of those important messages(especially 'some things will never change') to make a 'happy-ending'. I have nothing against happy endings, but some stories are better off without one.
The movie was different from the book in the end, because in the movie, Animal Farm was washed away, the "good" animals returned, and hope was found at last. In a nutshell, it was a happy ending for all the good guys. The book was a little more realistic, and did not get to the farm's ending, but it was assumed that the farm continued to prosper, for the pigs and dogs at least, all the animals were under control, and the farm in itself was advancing. Obviously, the farm was not going to fade away, and the pigs were still in control. Not as pleasant as the movie, but more realistic in many ways.
All of the author's messages were addressed in the movie, even if the effect was not the same. The movie did show how the pigs having absolute power made them abuse the power, and how the power became corrupt. It also showed how the pigs were able to keep that power because of their knowledge, and the other animals' lack thereof. Although the result of these messages in the endings were not quite the same, all in all, Orwell's messages,"Absolute power is absolutely corrupted." and, "Knowledge is power." were addressed in the movie.
I preffered the movie, because I am a fan of happy endings whether they are realistic or not. The author's way of writing really foreshadowed a not-so perfect ending, but the movie portrayed a hopeful ending, that left me with a happy feeling inside, even though I knew that it was not realistic.
Post a Comment