Pourquoi Lord Of The Flies Critical Analysis
After watching a movie so underwhelming to it’s counterpart on paper you question why they ever bothered to turn such a literary classic into a screenplay. It is safe to assume even the French are saying, “Pourquoi Hollywood? Pourquoi?”. A book such as Lord of the Flies (1954) by William Golding, deserved more than selling out to a complete body of American directors, writers, and actors, who would disregard the important themes and meanings behind the book due to “time restraint”. Movies are adapted to bring books to life, but someone watching the movie Lord of the Flies (1990) directed by Harry Hook, would never quite understand the meaning behind the boys, their journey, and the question being answered about man versus nature presented by
…show more content…
Golding. Contradictory to the true themes and symbolism presented in the 1954 book, the 1990 film fails in respect to the books religious allegories.
For those uneducated of the Lord of the Flies plotline, here is quick summary just for you. A group of British schoolboys (yes only boys) during the time of WWII are being evacuated from their homes, when their plane crashes, their captain dies, and they become stranded on an island with no adult figures to act as leading role models in a survival situation. Focusing on keeping civilization between themselves, they elect a leader named Ralph, and use a conch as a structured means of speaking in their large group. Quickly the mood changes as a kid named Jack, jerk, breaks off with his own little group of savages, who like to dress up with little to no clothing and face paint, while they run around with spears hunting an imaginary and symbolic beast. The boys even go as far as chanting oddly coltish phrases such as, “Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!”(Golding 152), summing up the peak in which the characters in Lord of the Flies have truly broken away from civilization and revealed their true corrupted animalistic instincts.
If I wanted to get into the nitty gritty contrast between the four main characters in the movie to that of the book, here is how it would go: Piggy a conscious rule follower, socially awkward, made fun of british kid, in the ‘54 book, is one the reader attaches to emotionally as he is the bearer of innocence. In the movie this is not the case. Due to being portrayed as an annoying American child who though still a conscious rule follower, is someone the viewers cannot take seriously, leads him to be seen as a little uneducated. Another leading protagonist is Simon. A “big ‘un” in the book who seems to fit right into the survival aspect of things, tragically to be met with a much gruesome death differs completely from the Simon whose job is to look after a loopy pilot, in which he fails to do, and then dies after a group of confused boys mistake him for that of the “monster”. A group of boys led by a 12 year old named Jack. Who seems a leader at first in the book, but quickly turns into this complete asshole who leads this group of savages to kill not one but two well loved protagonists in the book, as well as in the movie. Then there is the true protagonist, Ralph, who in the book strives to be the leader, following a set of rules and morals, and after taking a vote happily claims “‘I’m chief then’”(Golding 23). The passive aggressive, movie Ralph is different to that of book Ralph as in the movie he does not care who is chief and is for a very longtime friends with Jack until he leads to the death of Piggy and then tries to kill Ralph. Don’t get me wrong, the actors were not terrible, it was the writer's fault to even try to turn Lord of the Flies into a movie because in most cases movies can never be compared to the magic of a book. The 1990 version of Lord of the Flies was also sadly American, bringing less of a contrast to the properness of civilised British school kids to that of man's true animalistic nature.
The question Golding presented was that when men are isolated in a life or death situation without order, does reason triumph instinct?
Religious allegories watch over the boy's actions as the book progresses almost like a third person narrator. As Jack, still a jerk, and his group of savages sacrifice and place a pig’s head on a stick for the fictitious beast, they retreat back to their camp. Simon, curious, comes across the pig's head in a declining state of mind and believes the pig's head is conversing with him. Simon after his conversation with the head, learns the beast is actually within them all, and that they only need to fear themselves.. Then as his mental state worsens, “Simon was inside the mouth. He…”, falls down and loses “...consciousness” (Golding 144). He wakes and then returns to the camp knowing the truth but is mistaken for the beast and then killed by Jack. Much like the story of Jesus’s conversation with the devil in the garden of Gethsemane in which subsequently he is brought to the soldiers by Judas and then killed. In the movie no religious allegory is made, Simon only looks but does not speak at the pig's head (Beelzebub), and yet is still killed leaving a viewer of the movie very much confused at its lack of context. Even in the 1963 movie Simon does not talk to the pig's head and the symbolism is lost in the movies presentation, and Simon dies anyway. A second small but religious allegory is made when Piggy, in the book, sadly is met with a terrible fate of getting hit by a rock and falling 40 feet to his death. The original intent of travelling 40ft to his death was similar to that of the story of Jesus or Moses’s journey into the desert. While all three journey’s were difficult and hopeful outcomes were to follow, Piggy, Moses, and Jesus all met with death. Yet again in the movie no religious allegory was made and Piggy did not fall 40ft but only to the ground and died. A third allegory was made when the boys were rescued (or so it
seemed) in the book when a naval officer dressed all in white with “a white topped cap”(200) and his crew arrived at the island. His wearing of white symbolized purity, godliness, giving us an almost angelic feel taking the boys away from their suffering. Yet once more the movie failed in all aspects to accurately represent the angelic figure dressed in white coming to their rescue, it was only a male marines officer and his crew dressed in camo. It was indeed still a rescue team, but it had lost all meaning in religious aspects.
The magic of the book can only be found in the book itself. Though not a terrible movie it failed to capture the themes, motives, and ultimately the meaning of the story. While religion played a huge part in the book, the movie was only about glamorization, making it American, more “relatable”. If the message is to stand the true test of time the emphasis should be on paper not on the screen. Being a movie watcher myself, I truly love watching movies, yet sometimes books are not meant to be seen, only read. This is one of those books. The chaotic beauty and the boy's descent into madness is a narrative drive of the book and it forces the reader to grasp these spiritual allegories and concepts. While you can analyze a book such as this for all it is worth, watching the 1990 movie seemed to just act as another “oh no someone's stranded on an island watch them descend into madness type of film.” For all those kids that do not like reading books but like watching movies it is going to be understandable but very disappointing. The movie was a nice gesture, but was insignificant to the level at which the book presents itself.
Golding. Contradictory to the true themes and symbolism presented in the 1954 book, the 1990 film fails in respect to the books religious allegories.
For those uneducated of the Lord of the Flies plotline, here is quick summary just for you. A group of British schoolboys (yes only boys) during the time of WWII are being evacuated from their homes, when their plane crashes, their captain dies, and they become stranded on an island with no adult figures to act as leading role models in a survival situation. Focusing on keeping civilization between themselves, they elect a leader named Ralph, and use a conch as a structured means of speaking in their large group. Quickly the mood changes as a kid named Jack, jerk, breaks off with his own little group of savages, who like to dress up with little to no clothing and face paint, while they run around with spears hunting an imaginary and symbolic beast. The boys even go as far as chanting oddly coltish phrases such as, “Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!”(Golding 152), summing up the peak in which the characters in Lord of the Flies have truly broken away from civilization and revealed their true corrupted animalistic instincts.
If I wanted to get into the nitty gritty contrast between the four main characters in the movie to that of the book, here is how it would go: Piggy a conscious rule follower, socially awkward, made fun of british kid, in the ‘54 book, is one the reader attaches to emotionally as he is the bearer of innocence. In the movie this is not the case. Due to being portrayed as an annoying American child who though still a conscious rule follower, is someone the viewers cannot take seriously, leads him to be seen as a little uneducated. Another leading protagonist is Simon. A “big ‘un” in the book who seems to fit right into the survival aspect of things, tragically to be met with a much gruesome death differs completely from the Simon whose job is to look after a loopy pilot, in which he fails to do, and then dies after a group of confused boys mistake him for that of the “monster”. A group of boys led by a 12 year old named Jack. Who seems a leader at first in the book, but quickly turns into this complete asshole who leads this group of savages to kill not one but two well loved protagonists in the book, as well as in the movie. Then there is the true protagonist, Ralph, who in the book strives to be the leader, following a set of rules and morals, and after taking a vote happily claims “‘I’m chief then’”(Golding 23). The passive aggressive, movie Ralph is different to that of book Ralph as in the movie he does not care who is chief and is for a very longtime friends with Jack until he leads to the death of Piggy and then tries to kill Ralph. Don’t get me wrong, the actors were not terrible, it was the writer's fault to even try to turn Lord of the Flies into a movie because in most cases movies can never be compared to the magic of a book. The 1990 version of Lord of the Flies was also sadly American, bringing less of a contrast to the properness of civilised British school kids to that of man's true animalistic nature.
The question Golding presented was that when men are isolated in a life or death situation without order, does reason triumph instinct?
Religious allegories watch over the boy's actions as the book progresses almost like a third person narrator. As Jack, still a jerk, and his group of savages sacrifice and place a pig’s head on a stick for the fictitious beast, they retreat back to their camp. Simon, curious, comes across the pig's head in a declining state of mind and believes the pig's head is conversing with him. Simon after his conversation with the head, learns the beast is actually within them all, and that they only need to fear themselves.. Then as his mental state worsens, “Simon was inside the mouth. He…”, falls down and loses “...consciousness” (Golding 144). He wakes and then returns to the camp knowing the truth but is mistaken for the beast and then killed by Jack. Much like the story of Jesus’s conversation with the devil in the garden of Gethsemane in which subsequently he is brought to the soldiers by Judas and then killed. In the movie no religious allegory is made, Simon only looks but does not speak at the pig's head (Beelzebub), and yet is still killed leaving a viewer of the movie very much confused at its lack of context. Even in the 1963 movie Simon does not talk to the pig's head and the symbolism is lost in the movies presentation, and Simon dies anyway. A second small but religious allegory is made when Piggy, in the book, sadly is met with a terrible fate of getting hit by a rock and falling 40 feet to his death. The original intent of travelling 40ft to his death was similar to that of the story of Jesus or Moses’s journey into the desert. While all three journey’s were difficult and hopeful outcomes were to follow, Piggy, Moses, and Jesus all met with death. Yet again in the movie no religious allegory was made and Piggy did not fall 40ft but only to the ground and died. A third allegory was made when the boys were rescued (or so it
seemed) in the book when a naval officer dressed all in white with “a white topped cap”(200) and his crew arrived at the island. His wearing of white symbolized purity, godliness, giving us an almost angelic feel taking the boys away from their suffering. Yet once more the movie failed in all aspects to accurately represent the angelic figure dressed in white coming to their rescue, it was only a male marines officer and his crew dressed in camo. It was indeed still a rescue team, but it had lost all meaning in religious aspects.
The magic of the book can only be found in the book itself. Though not a terrible movie it failed to capture the themes, motives, and ultimately the meaning of the story. While religion played a huge part in the book, the movie was only about glamorization, making it American, more “relatable”. If the message is to stand the true test of time the emphasis should be on paper not on the screen. Being a movie watcher myself, I truly love watching movies, yet sometimes books are not meant to be seen, only read. This is one of those books. The chaotic beauty and the boy's descent into madness is a narrative drive of the book and it forces the reader to grasp these spiritual allegories and concepts. While you can analyze a book such as this for all it is worth, watching the 1990 movie seemed to just act as another “oh no someone's stranded on an island watch them descend into madness type of film.” For all those kids that do not like reading books but like watching movies it is going to be understandable but very disappointing. The movie was a nice gesture, but was insignificant to the level at which the book presents itself.