Apparently Peter Brook's Lord of the Flies is a very faithful adaptation of the William Golding novel. I wouldn't know, since I haven't read the book. But after reading about the 1963 film version, this seems to be the best reason anyone can give for why it is such a widely respected and highly regarded film. Maybe I am missing something, but I was very under-impressed by this movie.
Brook used non-actors to play the children who are stranded on a desert island in Lord of the Flies. I have read that this supposedly helps with the film's natural feel, but I think that's a ridiculous claim. The kids are bad; they are not portraying the characters naturally, but rather trying their best to act when they really don't know how. That's the impression I got, anyway.
There are a handful of nice-looking shots in the film, and the black-and-white cinematography is good, too, but I can't see why there is anything too special about this movie, especially considering some of the other amazing films that were being made at the time.
The film seems to fly through the story, taking very little time to dwell on any of the more important themes and even less to develop characters or explain things in the plot. And I can't for the life of me figure out how all these kids are so good with outdoor survival skills.
Lord of the Flies isn't exactly a waste of time, but there are many films that would be better worth an hour and a half.
No comments:
Post a Comment