Change Your Image
gab_vcor
Reviews
Lord of the Flies (1990)
Can't understand the bashing
I've just seen the movie and I certainly can't understand why there's so many people hating this movie with so much fervor. I've seen angry comment about them being American and not British, about leaving some things out and putting some things instead. Comments about the hair color of the kids, the skin color of the characters, the variety there is in the film that isn't on the book.
Well, if this is about judging an adaptation (or translation or version of the novel), then I believe it's to be expected to have different elements since novels and films are different languages. What we have to see here should be if the message was passed along. Did the money achieve that? We could see how these seemingly educated boys turned into savages, even when a minority tried to do things'as grownups would've done". I think that wasn't as emphasized as it should've been since the boys seemed a little wild from th beginning, so the change wasn't as shocking, but the message was there. And even if it was lacking some directing skill in making some scenes more moving than they were, it came off pretty well.
As I just read today, the idea that books are always better than movies should be one that must be erased. Films are a different thing, even when using novel arguments. There are as many great novels turned into hideous films as hideous novels turned into great films. Sad thing is, is very hard to find great novels turned into great films, but great novels turned into fairly good films aren't as hard. Plus, what's there to lose with an adaptation? "For the fans of the book, it won't change the love for it. For the ignorants, they'd either be content with the movie or check out the novel". That was Bazin speaking.
So, all in all, it was a fairly good movie, maybe getting some degrees outside of Golding's world and into Hook's world, which is fine since it's HIS movie. Just illustrating the book as it was, as incredible as it is, would be somewhat of an insult since it'll mean that it touched the director so little that he'd have to make a mechanical characterization.
Somehow this turned into a book-isn't-necessarily-better-than-the-film comment, but I think it fits to this case. If you liked the book, I recommend to watch the film. Both of them. It's all a matter of sitting and analyzing the motives of the director for changing. Why are they Americans? Check out the time line, the public it was directed to.
BTW, I don't know why everyone was so mad about the acting. The children playing Ralph, Jack and Piggy were pretty good, even if they had to play some scenes that didn't entirely convince (the sobbing after the breaking of his glasses?). And the colors were a pro instead of a con, as some pointed out, since it gave realism to the movies and a contrast between a beautiful place and horrible behavior that made the idea of making Hell on Eden all the more understandable.
*sigh* All this could be summarized in: 1. Watch the movie, whether you've read the book or not. In the best of cases, you'd want to read it (again, if you're a fan) 2. Stop bitching about differences and similarities and try to understand why were they made and what did they cause. If not, you're merely on a quantitative and impressionist level that readers of this novel shouldn't have (or allow)