1984 directed by Michael Radford

George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty Four­, written in 1949, is a novel projecting the near-apocalyptic fate of the world in fifty-five years. Unfortunately, Orwell died a year later, and was unable to see his dystopian novel adapted, ironically, to screen in 1984. Our generation doesn’t feel the full weight of Orwell’s title – 1984 is long gone. A movie about Nineteen-Eighty Four that was released in 1984 is a passing memory. But to the people who read the book before 1984, watching Michael Radford’s 1984 in 1984 elicited one of two sentiments: a failed prediction about the state of their civilization or a bitter reminder that circumstances could turn for the worse at any time.

The film adheres to the original plot of the novel faithfully. Winston Smith is a citizen of the totalitarian state, Oceania, who rewrites historical documents for the Ministry of Truth. Winston leads a tedious and routine life; he must abide to strict procedures by the Party, like propaganda movies and daily inspections, else he answer to the ever-looming Thought Police. Winston keeps a journal that contains his private thoughts. This is problematic, because free thought in Oceania is considered thoughtcrime, and those who commit thoughtcrime are never seen again. The story’s pace changes when Winston meets Julia, a bold and energetic young Party member. The two enter into a forbidden relationship and Winston rents a secret apartment above the store of a trusted colleague. Winston and Julia are eventually found out through the espionage of the trusted store owner. The Party seizes Winston’s diary as evidence and imprisons Winston and Julia. They are promptly brainwashed by the torturous practices of O’Brien, a Party leader, and refute their thoughtcrime and love for each other before being released; aimless ghosts compared to their former selves.

The tone of the movie is accurately captured in the dull colors of the environment and the contrasting lighting. Radford uses a film technique called bleach bypassing that retains the silver in the film to give the film blunted visuals. 1984’s sets are chaotic and washed out — Winston’s Party living quarters are Spartan and deteriorated; the store that Winston turns to for privacy has dusty, fragmented merchandise. The weather is always gloomy and buildings are minimally lighted. Even the physical qualities of the actors project their predicaments – John Hurt’s lean, weathered appearance is a powerful reflection of the early resignation of Winston. Indeed, Hurt’s aged features later reappear in the 2006 film adaptation of V for Vendetta in Adam Sutler, the dictator of the Norsefire party. The dreary and scored landscapes reveal the depressing deconstruction of the world. Perpetual fires blaze and once lofty buildings lay demolished in sepulchered heaps.

1984 is less about the destroyed society of the future as it is about the current state of Earth. The movie is a bold assertion that 1984 has approached with little evidence of Big Brother’s fixed leer. It still reminds us of the anarchic dictatorships that litter our continents. Of course, Orwell probably didn’t have an earnest prediction in mind when he wrote his novel, but that doesn’t mean Radford can’t grin matter-of-factly at the absence of a corrupted major world power. 1984 is now one of many dystopian perspectives in film. Children of Men is a focused progression, chronicling the journey of a politically apathetic man and a child-bearing young woman in a world whose women can no longer give birth. The political disintegration is more of a background entity, but the chaos and turmoil of the country still propel them to their destination. V for Vendetta puts us behind the eyes of two brave revolutionaries who have made personal sacrifices in the face of a vicious government. The story centers on actually overcoming their oppressors – however costly the desired end may be. But 1984 is really the father-in-film of the modern depiction of alternative futures and sets the melancholy tone for movies to come. Winston and Julia make no progress against the party but are tragically assimilated into the unstoppable momentum of the ambiguous Big Brother. The viewer isn’t left with any sense of satisfaction or achievement, just a bitter after-taste from the futility of Winston and Julia’s struggle.

Radford’s 1984 does the book justice in the way it manipulates the mood of the plot and physically mirrors the state of both its characters and its setting. The movie leaves no room for optimism, only conflicting senses of sympathy and dread for the “rehabilitated” Winston and Julia. Though it’s difficult to attach to the movie because of its slow progression in the beginning, it’s doubtful if later dystopian films came as close to the profound psychological upheaval that 1984. Winston’s weary visage and Julia’s starved torso stay with the viewer as an eerie reminder of the opaque frigidity of the future.