Compare and contrast the 1963 and 1990 version of ‘Lord Of The Flies’ Essay

In this essay I will be compare and contrast the 1963 and the 1990 version of ‘Lord Of The Flies’. I will be exploring the two films to see which is better at helping students to understand the central theories of Golding’s original novel. Peter Brook’s version was made in 1963, had a British cast and was filmed in black and white. He took an assembly of schoolboys to the Caribbean island of Vieques for three months and then got them to act out the book with very little direction from Brook himself. This may be because he wanted the film to look realistic and not staged. Harry Hook’s American, technicolour version was produced in 1990 and included characters who were not in the original novel. There are a number of differences between the two films. In the ‘Lord Of The Flies’ novel, Golding makes sure that no adults are present, aside from the dead parachutist. However in the 1990 version, a fatally ill pilot is present amongst the children. We are also never told about the boys’ homes or past in the book, whereas in Hook’s version the boys gossip about Jack’s military record and the time he drove off in an army car. At the beginning of Hook’s version, the boys are all members of the Sea Cadets and therefore are familiar with each other whereas in Brook’s version, the boys are meeting each other for the very first time. Nearing the end of the 1963 version, the chants used at Simon’s death are from the original novel, ‘kill the pig, cut his throat, spill his blood’. Conversely in Hook’s version they recite chants that are remembered from their training at the Cadets. The beast is a major theme in Golding’s original novel. It is the manifestation of the boys’ innermost fears of the evil that resides inside themselves. The video versions treat the beast in different ways. In Hook’s version the idea of a beast is introduced through Jack as he is telling stories around a campfire. In Brooks’ version, the little boys with the birthmark introduces the beast, saying he has seen a monster in the jungle. Both films portray Ralph as a good-looking, tall boy. This is why the children warm to him and elect him leader, whereas Jack, whose is ‘ugly without silliness’, is overlooked. This is an issue in everyday life where good-looking people are more socially accepted than ugly people. An example of this is how magazines always display attractive models. Towards the end of both films, Ralph is being hunted like a pig as the boys set fire to the island hoping to corner him. As soon as he reaches the beach the naval officer appears, showing a sign of authority. At the beginning of both films Ralph is admired by the boys, but slowly loses respect through his inability to offer the same fun as Jack does. This shows that children overlook maturity and responsibility when there is an option to have a good time. Jack is represented in the same way in both films. He shows anger and impatience from the start of the film. When he fails in his attempt to challenge Ralph for leadership, his thirst for power overflows as he sets up his own tribe. His tribe is of a dictatorship nature and refer to Jack as the chief, obeying his every command. Hook’s film shows Jack turning savage faster, wearing more face paint than in Brook’s version. Piggy’s unfortunate quality are the subject of the other boys’ scorn; his asthma, fatness and poor eyesight, with his glasses being a visual symbol. They are symbolic of man’s insight or lack of it, where there are no rules of society to control behaviour. Piggy is not afraid to express his opinions, but is never taken seriously because he is fat, short sighted and has a different accent. These qualities add up to someone who fails to fit in with the rest of the boys. Ralph, however, is tall, fair, and good-looking, speaking in a cultured way (the same as the others). Nevertheless Ralph does not possess the real brains that Piggy does, which causes his downfall and lets Jack get away with murder. From this, one is led to believe that humans are shallow and fail to look beyond the visual exterior of man. Simon is depicted as the silent boy in both films. He is likened to Jesus and is killed, just as Jesus died on the cross. The new technology available in 1990 made Hook’s version gorier. Simon never finds the courage to express his thoughts and emotions, and therefore is looked upon as an outsider like Piggy. The human mind needs to be constantly nurtured to prevent it from turning against others. Children need a higher figure to maintain peace and harmony, ensuring them that their biggest fears are in fact figments of their imagination (for example monsters under the bed). When there is no higher authority, undeveloped minds do not think of others. They do not live their lives considerately. Instead, they act on their instincts and are quick to blame an outsider for their own fears. This is how the beast becomes an issue on the island, as even the older boys begin to doubt their common sense. Rather than rationally thinking the problem out, the boys begin to fear this imaginary beast. The only boy that realises the truth is Simon, who understands that the beast is the boys’ inner fear, physically manifested. Authority is also a major issue in both films, more so in Hook’s version, where the boys lose sight of civilisation quicker. The conch is symbolic of the law and is used to call order in the beginning. However as the boys are replaced by their savage primitive selves, the conch loses all significance. The smashing of the conch shows the crumbling of the walls of society. The two films are aimed at similar audiences, both children and adults alike. Brooks’ version was appropriate for its time and so lacked the elements of the modern film. Hook’s version showed effects that were relevant to modern times, which made it more appealing to children in society today. The language in both films had to be different to appeal to the target audience. For example, in Brooks’ version Piggy calls Jack and his tribe, ‘a pack of painted niggers’. This would be deemed as racist in society today. In the same way, Hook’s version uses words of profanity that would have been unacceptable in 1963. Both directors have used different technical effects in their film versions of the novel, such as camera angles, music, make up/costume, photography/lighting and direction. Brooks used music at the crucial points of the films. When Simon died, religious music was played to make the audience think of holy things. Brooks’ version contained not much stage direction, as he wanted the film to appear realistic and not staged. However there were not many camera angles. More mid shots and less angle shots were taken. In 1963 there wasn’t the technology to filter light. Brooks’ version used make up well. The savages were easily distinguishable from Ralph’s group, and the war paint on Jack’s tribe was realistic, as if natural. The music used in Hook’s version was sincere and genuine. The music was dramatic and the mood changed throughout the film. At the start it was jolly as the boys were only just discovering the island, whereas near the end the music was reflective upon all the destruction the boys had caused. At the time of Simon’s death, a low, mournful type of music was played while as Piggy died, silence reigned. This gave the audience the impression that the death of Piggy symbolised the complete destruction of civilisation. It gave them a chance to think about how the boys had gone from mindless games to murder. Stage direction were used in accordance to the novel and was therefore noticeably better. Due to technology a wider variety of camera angles were used. There were many close-ups of the war paint on the savages, truly showing how society had crumbled. Mid shots signified the passing of time. Subjective shots were taken during Ralph’s chase, which led to the effect that Ralph was the only sane boy left being chased by savage brutes. In Hook’s version the lighting was clear. He was able to control the amount of light he wanted cast onto each individual scene, which was not possible during the time of Brooks’ film. The fact that the film was in colour added to the effect on the costume and the blood on the hunters. The effects mentioned above help us to understand and interpret the novel. They tell us about time passed on the island and the gradual deterioration of the boys’ sense of law and order. I have concluded that Brooks’ version of the film would be more helpful for students of the text. His film was made only nine years after the book was published and therefore used the same language of the period. Hook’s version was made in 1990, and was vastly different. Society had greatly changed in forty years. The language used was completely different. The American actors meant that the vocabulary used was different from the novel. This film contained many characters that were not in the original novel, which could have led to confusion for students studying the text. Brook’s version showed more relevance to the script. The events occurred in the same sequence as the book. Children of today would have found Hook’s version more entertaining, seeing as there was more blood, gore and profanity. However it would not aid them in the study of the text as much as Brook’s version could.