1963 Lord Of The Flies Comparison Essay

From his birth in 1911 Newquay, England up until his death in 1993, Sir William Golding approved only one film to have done the task of successfully transferring his literary masterpiece onto film. A decade of J.F.K., Moon landings and most important of all, a movie adaptation of “Lord of the Flies”. The 1963 interpretation transcends that of its 1990 counterpart, despite its shortcomings in new-era techniques and technology. Therefore, one can assume that the 1963 adaptation of “Lord of the Flies” is the quintessential film summary for the novel of the same name; The movie’s more accurate depiction of the plot, better use of inter-character communication (dialogue etc.) and, the misrepresentation of entire characters within the 1990 version. These speak a lot to the time periods being portrayed in the movies.
The time period is essential for capturing the essence that is “Lord of the Flies”, with the World War II being a tremendous influence on the boys, and their actions.
Harry Hook fails to realise this in his version, with a failed attempt at modernisation to try to cater to a new audience. Despite the adequate technology available for the film, the most important parts which could have benefitted were shafted , for example, Simon’s vision of the Pig speaking to him (a pivotal point in the book which could not easily be shown in the 1960’s due to lack of technology) is reduced to mere seconds where he locks eyes with the dead swine. The moral Golding was trying to convey is rooted deeply in the words he uses, so Brook’s choice to directly quote the text was a well-founded choice, unlike the newer version, which chose to instead bring in a completely new and arbitrary sub-plot which brings little to nothing to the real story. There are multiple examples of botched modifications within Hook’s film, including plot, character and especially
dialogue.

Coincidentally, one of the most common gripes among critics of the 1990 film is, how much of the dialogue between characters can be described as “filler”, serving no real purpose for the actual plot of the film and only present to avoid silence. A well known device among creators of all kinds is “show, don’t tell”, however, Brook seems to be so focused on telling his story through literal speech he forgets to “show” all together (for example Simon’s interaction with the Pig, where instead of showing him experiencing it, he has Simon earlier in the film simply state “What if there isn't a beast… what if it’s just us?”). Conversely, Hook works around the ineptness of his child actors, using expertly set up scenes and the like to deliver his message. If the heat of each scene and the emotion it unleashes could be captured, Brook’s film would look like a flatlining patient, while Hook’s more resembling that of a seismograph in a magnitude 7 earthquake. Even though Brook had a superior cast in terms of raw acting talent, it is what those actors are asked to portray which deems if a movie is a bang, or a bust.