I owned the DVD of "Lord of the Flies" for more than 15 years already, but for some reason I kept it wrapped in plastic and refused to watch it for as long as I didn't read the classic William Golding novel on which it is based. Now that I read the book, I sorely regret this choice. I'm not a big reader, but based on the few great works that I did read, I principally learned that you should restrict to one version only; - either the book or the film. By now I wish that I either watched this film, considered it to be just average and simply assume that the novel is similar. OR that I read the book, realize it's fairly impossible to make an equally powerful film out of it and never even bother to unwrap the film from its plastic! The issue with "Lord of the Flies" is that it's not a bad movie on itself, but in case you constantly compare it to the brilliant novel stuck in your head, it does become quite terrible!
I can't stop making the following reflection: why would one even bother to adapt a legendary novel into a film version if he plans to alter several small but crucial details, as well as simply eliminate most of the symbolism? The genius of Sir Golding's tale lies within the fact that it's the perfect allegory on humanity's true and dark nature! The story painfully illustrates how human beings, regardless of their age or social status, rapidly degrade towards violent savagery when confronted with difficult situations, extreme conditions, lack of surveillance and the increasing urge to rely on survival instincts. This heavy but essential fundament is almost entirely missing in the film. Here we have a bunch of kids running amok on an island, but I never sensed that atmosphere of hopelessness or that genuine fear of the unknown. Two seemingly minor and superficial changes ruin the entire story of the film, in fact. In Golding's novel, all the boys came from a traditional British boarding school, whereas in the film they are American military cadets. This makes a world of difference regarding how they interpret authority or how easily they turn rogue. It's a lot more petrifying to imagine how choir boys metamorphose into face-painted hunters, like the case in the book, rather than military cadets. Another downright dumb change in the script is how they set the events in the present day; late eighties/early nineties. Golding's novel, written somewhere in the early fifties if I'm not mistaken, thrived on the disturbing idea that WWII escalated into an all- devastating nuclear war. The boys still hoped to get rescued, but maybe there even aren't any adults left? Here, the kids are a little worried about Russian but otherwise there isn't any threat coming out of the world next to the island. The mental as well as physical descent into primitivism is missing completely. They boys hair doesn't grow wild, they aren't walking around filthy or wounded, the rivalry between "civilized" Ralph and "barbaric" Jack doesn't slowly mount, etc. But all the above isn't even half as scandalous as the fact that Golding's symbolism has entirely vanished! If you haven't read the book but only watched the film, you certainly won't be able to explain why the story is called "Lord of the Flies". So many aspects that are essential in the book are just mere footnotes in the movie, like the pig's head on a stake, the beach gatherings summoned via blowing on a giant sea shell or the immense fear of "The Beast".
Just to illustrate that "Lord of the Flies" isn't a complete an utter disaster; I have to mention a couple of positive points as well. The Piggy character is definitely the most properly developed one of the film, and truly resembles how he was created by Sir William Golding, although he still could have been even whinier. Most of the young actors certainly give away adequate performances, while the filming locations are breathtaking. I might still do my best to track down the film version released in 1963, as allegedly it's much more faithful to the book, but after that I'll follow my own newly invented rule: either the book or the movie, but not both.
I can't stop making the following reflection: why would one even bother to adapt a legendary novel into a film version if he plans to alter several small but crucial details, as well as simply eliminate most of the symbolism? The genius of Sir Golding's tale lies within the fact that it's the perfect allegory on humanity's true and dark nature! The story painfully illustrates how human beings, regardless of their age or social status, rapidly degrade towards violent savagery when confronted with difficult situations, extreme conditions, lack of surveillance and the increasing urge to rely on survival instincts. This heavy but essential fundament is almost entirely missing in the film. Here we have a bunch of kids running amok on an island, but I never sensed that atmosphere of hopelessness or that genuine fear of the unknown. Two seemingly minor and superficial changes ruin the entire story of the film, in fact. In Golding's novel, all the boys came from a traditional British boarding school, whereas in the film they are American military cadets. This makes a world of difference regarding how they interpret authority or how easily they turn rogue. It's a lot more petrifying to imagine how choir boys metamorphose into face-painted hunters, like the case in the book, rather than military cadets. Another downright dumb change in the script is how they set the events in the present day; late eighties/early nineties. Golding's novel, written somewhere in the early fifties if I'm not mistaken, thrived on the disturbing idea that WWII escalated into an all- devastating nuclear war. The boys still hoped to get rescued, but maybe there even aren't any adults left? Here, the kids are a little worried about Russian but otherwise there isn't any threat coming out of the world next to the island. The mental as well as physical descent into primitivism is missing completely. They boys hair doesn't grow wild, they aren't walking around filthy or wounded, the rivalry between "civilized" Ralph and "barbaric" Jack doesn't slowly mount, etc. But all the above isn't even half as scandalous as the fact that Golding's symbolism has entirely vanished! If you haven't read the book but only watched the film, you certainly won't be able to explain why the story is called "Lord of the Flies". So many aspects that are essential in the book are just mere footnotes in the movie, like the pig's head on a stake, the beach gatherings summoned via blowing on a giant sea shell or the immense fear of "The Beast".
Just to illustrate that "Lord of the Flies" isn't a complete an utter disaster; I have to mention a couple of positive points as well. The Piggy character is definitely the most properly developed one of the film, and truly resembles how he was created by Sir William Golding, although he still could have been even whinier. Most of the young actors certainly give away adequate performances, while the filming locations are breathtaking. I might still do my best to track down the film version released in 1963, as allegedly it's much more faithful to the book, but after that I'll follow my own newly invented rule: either the book or the movie, but not both.