Although much of the books action was captured in the film, it failed to perpetrate the allegory, character and plot development, as well the whole feel and mood of the book.
In the 1990 version of Lord Of The Flies, the conch was just the shell they used to call meetings, not a huge symbol of civilization and democracy as it was in the book. There was no connection whatsoever to what was happening in the outside world, no allegory towards Nazi Germany at all. Partially because Harry Hook decided that a group of disciplined English schoolboys could be easily replaced with a bunch of potty mouthed American Military Cadets who came as one huge group instead of a union of many small ones. There was no Lord Of The Flies scene in the movie which was in one sense the climax of the storyline. A connection to The Catholic Church and The Devil was completely absent in the film. Harry Hook just decided that the title of the book meant absolutely nothing and trashed that whole part of the storyline. Instead of a union of society then a segregation of it, it started with a brief period of union.
In the 1990 version of Lord Of The Flies, the conch was just the shell they used to call meetings, not a huge symbol of civilization and democracy as it was in the book. There was no connection whatsoever to what was happening in the outside world, no allegory towards Nazi Germany at all. Partially because Harry Hook decided that a group of disciplined English schoolboys could be easily replaced with a bunch of potty mouthed American Military Cadets who came as one huge group instead of a union of many small ones. There was no Lord Of The Flies scene in the movie which was in one sense the climax of the storyline. A connection to The Catholic Church and The Devil was completely absent in the film. Harry Hook just decided that the title of the book meant absolutely nothing and trashed that whole part of the storyline. Instead of a union of society then a segregation of it, it started with a brief period of union.
Many characters were bluntly nameless or just non-existent in the movie, Sam and Eric didn’t have names and it's like Harry Hook completely forgot about half of the boys and just decided to leave them out. Even the characters who were there were missing some of their fundamental attributes. Piggy's words filled with wisdom and logic are replaced with whining and crying. Ralph's bravery, remorse, and self blame was slightly captured in the movie. Yet, Ralph did have a few annoying attributes which were absent in the book, for one, he was a snotty American potty mouthed brat just like Jack. Jack was just... wow. Apart from the fact that both Ralph and Jack didn't look their parts Jack was by far the worst portrayed character. In the book, he was obviously evil but being evil doesn’t necessarily mean he was a complete and utter idiot as Harry Hook thought he quite clearly was. The amount of language which was spewing out of Jack's mouth was one worthy of much note.
The Island and the whole paradise feel of it was completely absent. With no halicunations the feel of the tribes men was pure evil. With no real beast in the story the whole point of the revolution was non-existent. Harry Hook failed miserably to capture the Lord Of The Flies into a book. If he had even got the mood right it would have been 20 times better, but quite frankly, he did not. It's an embarrassment to the book that even some of the most basic scenes were switched with all-new ones which weren't even part of the book in the first place. Also, the fact that they were suddently Americans in the time of the Cold War slaughtered the whole ironic feel and pretty much killed off any hope for the movie at the very start.
In conclusion, Harry Hook should have probably never titled it Lord Of The Flies. If he had called it something else and said it had been based very loosely off Lord Of The Flies then changed the characters names it would have passed as a perfectly normal movie and wouldn't be the brunt of shunning movie reviews who despise it. In fact, if he had named it anything different, very few people would have known it had much to do with Lord Of The Flies, because it was just that bad.
The Island and the whole paradise feel of it was completely absent. With no halicunations the feel of the tribes men was pure evil. With no real beast in the story the whole point of the revolution was non-existent. Harry Hook failed miserably to capture the Lord Of The Flies into a book. If he had even got the mood right it would have been 20 times better, but quite frankly, he did not. It's an embarrassment to the book that even some of the most basic scenes were switched with all-new ones which weren't even part of the book in the first place. Also, the fact that they were suddently Americans in the time of the Cold War slaughtered the whole ironic feel and pretty much killed off any hope for the movie at the very start.
In conclusion, Harry Hook should have probably never titled it Lord Of The Flies. If he had called it something else and said it had been based very loosely off Lord Of The Flies then changed the characters names it would have passed as a perfectly normal movie and wouldn't be the brunt of shunning movie reviews who despise it. In fact, if he had named it anything different, very few people would have known it had much to do with Lord Of The Flies, because it was just that bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment