Lord of the Flies
August. 13,1963 PG-13Following a plane crash a group of schoolboys find themselves on a deserted island. They appoint a leader and attempt to create an organized society for the sake of their survival. Democracy and order soon begin to crumble when a breakaway faction regresses to savagery with horrifying consequences.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Save your money for something good and enjoyable
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.
A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."
"Sucks to your asthma!" Fine adaptation of William Golding's classic novel. I'll forego summarizing the story since anyone who ever went to high school has read the book. I hadn't seen this film in years and was quite taken with how naturalistic it felt. It had almost a documentary feel to it. I was also taken with how little dialogue there was and how much of the story was able to be told visually (an albatross around the neck of most literary adaptations), which is why director Peter Brook's adaptation remains the best film version of this novel. The boys in the film seem very real and all seem to genuinely enjoy their time on the jungle playing with spears, making fire, and hunting. With the exception of the boy who plays Ralph, none of the boys went on to make any other films, which leads me to think that to a degree they really were just a bunch of kids in the jungle going feral. The central conflict between Jack and Ralph is portrayed well by both actors, who are sincere in making their cases for civilization vs. going savage, but I think the boy who played Piggy is the most memorable. He carries himself like a little adult, out of place and clearly seeing the reality of their situation; that he's out numbered, without any influence, and is at the mercy of the mob. This film works both on a subtextual level about human nature in terms of civilization vs. savagery, but it also works as a simple surface level adventure story. Overall, this is fabulous filmmaking and is a must see.
Many have written of the stellar cast, the amazing cinematography, the brilliant direction, etc. And like any movie review, it's all subjective. This movie is remarkable. It is much of the above, and more. But it has its flaws.By necessity, the format of film requires a writer/director to abridge a book. If one were to film every "word" of the book, the result would be an incredibly long, and probably boring film. So of course, this film leaves much out. But what it does get, it gets right. It's stark, brutally direct and unforgiving.Having said that, I found parts of the direction lacking. Endlessly drawn-out shots of the sky, the beach, the jungle were distracting, as if the director was trying to slow down the story, and had me reaching for the fast-forward button. Some shots made little-to-no sense at all, while others were too quick, too short to truly grasp the situation.My biggest complaint was the score. I honestly couldn't figure out what Raymond Leppard was going for. Was he trying to evoke a feeling of loneliness? Isolation? Fear? Boredom? Whatever it was, it didn't work. Rather, it just annoyed. For example, throughout the movie the score kept returning to a single, tuneless melody played by a solo flute (or piccolo?). It wavered around, with no discernible rhythm or melody, as if someone was simply "making noise" on it. It was shrill and irritated in a nails-on-blackboard does.Overall, the movie shines as an example of honest filmmaking, despite its flaws. Next time, I'll just mute the sound and imagine the dialogue!
Seeing Lord of the Flies on film, I am struck by how unfaithful these screen counterparts are compared to the imaginary characters built up in my head from reading Golding's novel. They are tiny little things, barely even pubescent, and thoughts of savagery and bloodlust seem so far away. The novel's message is even more piercing when considered in this way; how easy it is to forget that these are the same little boys that descend into animalistic urge and desire later. Golding's words might have lulled some into complacency over the course of the chapters, but here there is a constant reminder through their pudgy limbs and wide eyes (and, to some extent, their English accents, which they recognise themselves as being the hallmark of civility and order). This low-budget feature version was shot by Peter Brook entirely on location, utilising all the harsh wilderness of the beach territories of Puerto Rico. The cast were all amateur actors, boys freed from authority and let loose to play on a deserted island. The style, a jagged combination of harsh natural lighting, sudden cuts and black and white images, saps the beauty from what should look like a holiday destination. The most frightening scene of the movie signifies the complete and utter abandonment of reason for savagery - when the boys gut Simon by the fireplace during nighttime. The cinematography continually throws the shots in and out of focus, one moment the white flames in sharp contrast, the next dancing chaotically in the background. And the hand-held camera bobs in motion as if it was one of the frenzied boys itself, chanting and getting right up into the painted faces of these savages. There are no light sources other than the fire and the bright spots of their torches, and in the darkness they become a trembling, murderous mass, more inhuman than human. Brook's rudimentary approach comes alive in some instances, and yet in others grounds the story. Most of Golding's figurative language is marred here; the painting of the island as firstly a wondrous paradise and then a nightmarish backdrop for ghouls and beasts, the forest as a teeming, dense thicket hiding the horrors of their imagination, even the palpable heat and scent of the island that the boys begin to be imbued with. The images wield darkness and shadow well, but the tribe become decidedly less menacing when they have to chant in open daylight. Golding's central allegory, of the beast and innate evil inside us all, also somewhat fades. Yes, there are grisly closeups of the rotting pig's head anointed with flies, but Brook ditches Simon's stumbling into surreal realisation, the horror of discovering something more terrible than any corporeal beast could ever be (unusual considering Brook's prior work in experimental theatre and Dali). The overall result is something like a strained documentary, trading periodical rawness and cynicism with stilted action, delivery and accents. It doesn't grip you like it should because there is still an undercurrent of rehearsal and civility under it, like a performance of a primary school play. Now, the 8mm murder mystery film that the boys shot themselves as they were acting out actual savagery? That I would like to see, because it would come from their own unplanned urges. And I wonder, of course, what quarrels might have occurred on that set, and who wrested directorial control from whom.
This rather stark, black and white film, captures the surreal elements of the classic William Golding novel. A group of British choirboys find themselves stranded on an island. To survive, the older boys take on parental roles and create a society. Golding feels that the boys, who represent society as a whole, will ultimately come into conflict and create tribes. I always thought this was a cynical view of the world and others have agreed. Now, looking at the climate of U.S. and the world in general, I'm starting to see him as quite prophetic. The movie is bare bones and bleak; but that's what sells it. The later version of the book is more graphic, more colorful, and much less effective. It plays up the violence. It also doesn't get into the religious implications where this does that nicely.