LORD OF THE FLIES (1990) A Film Review by Ted Prigge Copyright 1997 Ted Prigge
Director: Harry Hook Writer: Sara Schiff (from the novel by William Golding) Starring: Bathalzar Getty, Chris Fuhhr, Danuel Pipoly
William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" is obligatory reading for the young student. So obligatory that I never read it. I guess that makes me feel special, but there's something about overly symbolic fables (i.e. Orwell's "Animal Farm," one of my favorites) that gets me, and I wish I had. Of course, I guess I could. But like most famous novels, there's a film adaptation that's about half as good as its source. And that's precisely what I saw when I watched this on TV impromptu during a VERY boring Sunday afternoon here at Temple U.
For those who don't know, "Lord of the Flies" is about a group of school boys who are marooned on an island without any adult supervision (though there's the pilot, but he's so wounded that he's pretty much insane and has to be tied down). The boys need some discipline, so they democratically elect Ralph (Bathalzar Getty, from "Lost Highway"). But as things go on, and as they realize that they're really not going to be rescued in any forseeable future, some become savages, painting their faces, carrying spears, and running around half-naked, speaking in short declaritive sentences, like "Cheif brings gift."
The leader of the other clan is Jack (Chris Fuhhr), who is a kind of asswhole of a kid, who starts off as a bully and proceeds to the totally evil dictator of what turns out to be a clan of savages, alienating Ralph and his only friend, Piggy (Danuel Pipoly), who is supposed to be the wise, overly intellectual kid of them all, who somehow saved his glasses in the crash. The climactic ending is obvious, but not anticlimactic, and, of course, shocking, bringing all the ideas together.
These characters are all supposed to represent one part of the psyche. Ralph is supposed to be the part that is civil and wants law and order. Jack is the savage, immature part. And Piggy, is, of course, the voice of reason in a increasingly chaotic island (there's also another character, Simon, who is pretty much not in this film).
And, of course, everything is supposed to be symbolic. The numerous misadventures of Piggy's glasses (i.e. it's breaking and being stolen), causing him to be near blind, is symbolic of him breaking down, and hoping to be with the other clan. And the actual "lord of the flies," a decapitated boar's head is supposed to be a sign of ultimate evil and horror. Then there's the "beast," which I guess represents their gradually declining civility or something. I didn't read the book, give me a break, I'm bullshitting here.
Anyway, this is all supposed to happen here in this film...and it does. But while apparently in the book, it's supposed to be subtle and we're supposed to watch the story unfold and think about afterwards...much like a good novel. But the director is so paranoid that the Americans won't get it, so he makes everything in our faces. This adheres the story, and makes it seem way too mechanical. Also, this makes the symbol less intense. It's supposed to shock us. I was just like, "Oh, he broke his glasses, ho hum."
The acting is also not very good. While Bathalzar and Fuhhr are merely passable as the two leads, the guy who plays Piggy can't even complete a sentence, and he seems to whiny and boring. I mean, the part where he's preaching to them (and nearly says, "Why can't we all get along?"), and some jerks above him push a giant rock onto his head, I was not just shocked that they've become savages like that, but I was also feeling a bit of contradiction because I was hoping someone would do that to him anyway. The guy can't act, he's annoying, and he's nothing like he should be.
This whole film is nothing like it should be. I'm supposed to feel totally shocked by the story, how these school kids have become the epitomy of evil. When they kill Piggy and Simon, they're shown as being shocked and saddened. They're not supposed to care (except for Piggy and Ralph). And the boar's head is just not as scary as it should be. I mean, I didn't even read the book and I was disappointed.
On a positive note, it's not a BAD film. By the end, I was kinda feeling depressed, which was probably what the director had aimed for. When they killed Piggy, I was hoping someone would just kill those pricks who did it. The ending is too short, but the visions we see, with the forest on fire, and everyone chasing Ralph, who has almost no chance of survivial except for a little part of deux ex machina, totally bowled me over. It was absolutely mesmerizing and almost redeems the film from a truly bad rating. And the cinematography is gorgeous, but seems too much like a film for the rotary travelogue.
This film is wrongly modernized. The kids swear and talk about "Alf" (why, in god's name, ALF?!), and there are planes and choppers, and they're very early American instead of post-war Brits. What is the point of this? To dumb it down? This modernization just weakens the story, because even in 1990 there were kids killing kids in our very American streets. The scary part of this book is it was written in the 50s and predicted what would be happening now. This is just like some "Classics Illustrated" type of spiel, for the kids who don't want to read the book since there's a movie version of it. And it's only 90 minutes long, so it will cut down some hours of reading.
But trust me, kids, pick up the damn book and read it, 'cause it's probably much better than this. But if, like me, you're bored, and it's on TV somewhere, it's worth a viewing, I guess.
MY RATING (out of 4): **
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews