Nineteen Eighty-Four X 4

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (often rendered 1984) is a quintessential dystopian science fiction novel.

Many hesitate to label it sci-fi, accurately claiming it is literature, not pop fiction, but there’s no reason it can’t be both.

While neither the first nor unique among dystopian sci-fi stories, it grabs our attention because Orwell overlays his ugly authoritarian future atop a very recognizable England (this is an old trick and a popular one; H.G. Wells hammered home his points on colonialism via The War Of The Worlds).

Orwell’s story belongs to the “If this keeps up…” sub-genre of sci-fi.  There’s very few scientific or technological predictive elements in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the two-way giant screen TVs being the biggest example (and if you’re reading this in front of a computer terminal, guess what…).

The social changes aren’t major, either.  They’re simply continuations of what was already being implemented by despotic regimes around the world for centuries.

Indeed, the most futuristic element of Nineteen Eighty-Four is its use of language -- Newspeak -- and even here it’s simply mimicking and amplifying what religions and despotic regimes had done in the past.*

I bring all this up not to discuss Orwell’s book but rather to examine four film and TV adaptations of it, how they work or fail, and why.

We’ll examine them out of chronological sequence, from weakest to best

. . .

1984 is a 1956 British film based on an American TV adaptation of Orwell’s book.  Starring Edmund O’Brien, a fine actor here horribly miscast, it follows the basic beats and set pieces of the book (most adaptations get the plot right but run aground on the politics).

This isn’t a bad film, but it’s awfully weak.  Nineteen Eighty-Four as a story lends itself to a theatrical style of interpretation, but too often “theatrical” is cinematically interpreted as “epic” by film makers.

Trying to make the world of 1984 look and feel real badly undercuts the intensity of story, likewise the lack of chemistry between O’Brien and Jan Sterling.  Michael Redgrave does all right as “O’Connor” (changed from “O’Brien” to avoid confusion with the star) but Orwell’s villain is one of the best written in literature and nothing but red meat to any half-way competent actor (and Redgrave was far more than competent).

Released in two versions -- one ending as the novel does, the other having the characters renounce Big Brother at the end and dying together -- it never really seemed to connect with audiences on any level.

Ungood:
I recommend it more as a novelty than a film worth watching on its own merits; for Orwell and sci-fi completists only.

. . . 

Nineteen Eighty-Four is the 1954 BBC adaptation of the book starring Peter Cushing.  Cushing, a solid working actor in supporting roles, turned in a memorable performance that soon started landing him major roles in films (when Hammer came a’calling his stardom was assured).  

This version, scripted by Nigel Kneale (he of Quatermass fame) is a good, solid, faithful adaptation.  It looks and feels claustrophobic due to budgetary limitations, but claustrophobia is a good emotion to evoke with Nineteen Eighty-Four and the teleplay doesn’t suffer from it.  Yvonne Mitchell is Julia, and André Morell played O'Brien (properly named in this version).

Nineteen Eighty-Four was broadcast as a live drama with filmed inserts and luckily it was kinescoped for foreign distribution by the BBC (it can be found on YouTube).  Good writing and performances make up for a threadbare production and again the story focuses on the plot more than the politics.

Good:
It’s several notches above the film version that would come out a few years later.  (Fun factoid:  The images of Big Brother were based on photos of Roy Oxley, a member of the BBC art design staff.)  Recommended.

(A second live production based on the same script was broadcast by the BBC in 1965 and was considered lost until a taped copy missing several minutes from the middle of the production was found; it’s not available to the public at this time.)

. . . 

Nineteen Eighty-Four is the 1984 movie adaptation starring John Hurt as Winston Smith, Suzanna Hamilton as Julia, and Richard Burton as O’Brien (yeah, I know, a Welsh voice with an Irish name…).  It’s a very good adaptation, larger in scope than the various TV productions but not overblowing the story as the 1956 film version did.

Because it was filmed after western nations did away with most film censorship, it could be a lot more frank and a lot more faithful to the original novel.  Written and directed by Michael Radford, it’s the most conventional adaptation of the book but comes through with a technically flawless production.

Plusgood:
Burton’s last film (well, digital recreations excepted), his role as O’Brien is powerful, frightening stuff.

But oddly enough, his interpretation of the character -- as good as it was -- was not the best…

. . .

1984 is the 1953 Westinghouse Studio One live version of the story.

In my opinion, the best by far.

Unlike the BBC version which offered filmed exterior scenes, the CBS-TV version was shot entirely live to fit a one hour time slot (roughly fifty-minutes minus commercials).  

Like many live dramatic productions of the era, 1984 was staged in a very theatrical style, and given the limitations of the medium that works in the production’s favor.

Writer William Templeton (who would adapt Orwell’s book yet again for the 1956 movie version) pares down the story, keeping key scenes and the emotional intensity but stripping away various elements such as the Englishness of the setting and the use of Newspeak.

But this combined with the stylized art direction works greatly in the production’s favor.  Instead of trying to get us to accept the reality of what we’re seeing, it sweeps us along with its stylized unreality.

It becomes a modern grim fairy tale, a moral parable that carries a haunting and memorable message.

And the most shocking thing about it?  The cast.

Eddie Albert is Winston Smith.  When an actor is cast in an iconic role (as Albert was on the TV show Green Acres) it overshadows their talent and range displayed in other productions.  

Albert does quite well as a thoroughly Americanized Winston Smith, and Norma Crane does well has his paramour Julia, but the real surprise is Lorne Greene as O’Brien.

His is the most chilling version of the character I’ve seen, and he brings a relentless coldness to the part that easily outshines Redgrave, Morell, and even Burton.

Available for viewing on Amazon Prime.  Keep a sharp eye out for Martin Landau in the background in one scene and a sharp ear out for Robert Culp as one of the telescreen voices.

Doubleplusgood:
Highly recommended.

. . .

Finally, a word about the art for this entry:  I chose the Alan Harmon cover art for the 1950s Signet paperback edition because it’s simultaneously 100% accurate and yet at the same time 100% wrong, turning the story into yet another goofy pulp sci-fi image.

I love it!

© Buzz Dixon

*  Playing on both the overlay of a sci-fi setting on English culture and the creative use of language, Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange reads as an obverse of Nineteen Eighty-Four with the proles wreaking havoc on the politicos above them, creating their own patois to vividly express their moods and ideas while parodying Orwell’s Newspeak.  There is an odd similarity-yet-difference between “a bit of the old ultraviolence” and “thoughtcrime”.