Lord of the Flies Comparative Essay (Film vs Book)
Lord of the Flies comparative essay
The novel, “Lord of the Flies” by William Golding was published in 1954. It’s the story of a group of boys stranded on an island with no adults. Since then, it has had two film adaptions. The first adaption was produced in 1963, directed by the Englishman Peter Brook. This version was filmed in black and white and follows the events of the book very closely. The second adaption came twenty-seven years later in 1990, which was directed by the American Harry Hook. The second adaption did not quite follow the novel in terms of symbolism, the beast and the overall theme while the first adaption was more faithful to the novel.
The 1963 version of the film “Lord of the Flies” was filmed in black and white. This was an English film. This was the first adaption to screen for the novel. The film remained faithful to the novel throughout the whole film, bar a couple of key moments that were left out. The character of Simon was portrayed very accurately with reference to the novel. Simon was quiet, friendly with animals and knew about the beast in the film. The opening montage which sets up the background of the movie was terrific to show the innocence of the boys, and to show the audience that it is set during World War II. Showing schoolboys playing cricket and singing in a choir at the start of the film, then watching the boys murder one of their own, proves how savage the boys have become. Leaving out the scenes when the boy with the mulberry coloured birthmark disappears and when the Lord of the Flies talks to Simon was a terrible decision, as those two scenes are instrumental in the novel for the storyline. The disappearance shows the boys do not care if one of them dies, and Simon gets the idea that the beast is inside the boys when he talks to the Lord of the Flies. Both key scenes in the novel that should have been included in the film. This film is a commentary on the book as all it tries to do is relay the events that
The novel, “Lord of the Flies” by William Golding was published in 1954. It’s the story of a group of boys stranded on an island with no adults. Since then, it has had two film adaptions. The first adaption was produced in 1963, directed by the Englishman Peter Brook. This version was filmed in black and white and follows the events of the book very closely. The second adaption came twenty-seven years later in 1990, which was directed by the American Harry Hook. The second adaption did not quite follow the novel in terms of symbolism, the beast and the overall theme while the first adaption was more faithful to the novel.
The 1963 version of the film “Lord of the Flies” was filmed in black and white. This was an English film. This was the first adaption to screen for the novel. The film remained faithful to the novel throughout the whole film, bar a couple of key moments that were left out. The character of Simon was portrayed very accurately with reference to the novel. Simon was quiet, friendly with animals and knew about the beast in the film. The opening montage which sets up the background of the movie was terrific to show the innocence of the boys, and to show the audience that it is set during World War II. Showing schoolboys playing cricket and singing in a choir at the start of the film, then watching the boys murder one of their own, proves how savage the boys have become. Leaving out the scenes when the boy with the mulberry coloured birthmark disappears and when the Lord of the Flies talks to Simon was a terrible decision, as those two scenes are instrumental in the novel for the storyline. The disappearance shows the boys do not care if one of them dies, and Simon gets the idea that the beast is inside the boys when he talks to the Lord of the Flies. Both key scenes in the novel that should have been included in the film. This film is a commentary on the book as all it tries to do is relay the events that