![]() ![]() Although that world was obviously very different from the real world of 1984, a deliberate choice was made to stick with the Orwellian vision in every way, anachronistic technology and all, and I firmly believe it was the right choice, as opposed to the "updating" we sometimes see in adaptations of classic "futuristic" stories. ![]() The look of the film is extraordinary in its evocation of the world Orwell created, down to the tiniest detail. ![]() If this were a big-budget Hollywood bomb, I might consider that a publicity stunt, but in the case of this little-known, little-seen British film, it's fairly obviously a form of homage. As noted in the end credits, the film "was photographed in and around London during the period April-June 1984, the exact time and setting imagined by the author". The film was obviously a labor of love for director Michael Radford, who also co-wrote the screenplay. In my opinion, this later version of "Nineteen Eighty Four" is one of the best literary adaptations I've seen. I am frankly mystified by the comments of those who seem to find this film disappointing or inadequate, and even more by those who claim to prefer the 1956 version, which I consider to be inferior in every respect to the later version, except for some top quality performances by Donald Pleasence and Michael Redgrave in supporting roles. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |