Lord of the Flies (1963)
…………………………………………………
Lord of the Flies Movie Review
Lord of the Flies is a 1963 British drama film directed by Peter Brook and starring James Aubrey. It is a solid, albeit definitely flawed cinematic adaptation.
………………………………………………….
“You’re a beast, and a swine,
and a bloody, bloody thief!“
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
The titular book is a respected, thematically rich and very sophisticated work whereas its movie counterpart most definitely isn’t. Yes, while adapting it to the big screen, the filmmakers certainly rushed the whole thing and never really brought it home when it comes to its message and important statements on savagery, real human state and the importance of civilization.
This Lord of the Flies is undoubtedly extremely faithful to its source material for better and for worse. On the one hand, I loved that they transported some great scenes from the book in its entirety to the big screen and that was wonderful to witness. But on the other hand, the movie ended up being a paint-by-numbers, textbook experience in lacking any surprises. It should have had at least some new additions, if not changes to the story.
What I liked the most about the film are the characters. Yes, particularly Piggy and Ralph are phenomenally depicted and looking almost exactly as I imagined them in my head. That was fantastic. I also really liked the depiction of Jack as he was quite powerful. Simon is also pretty solid as are the little ones.
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
The character interactions are quite solid here and they felt like kids acting like adults which was necessary. However, the acting is absolutely mediocre with the exception of James Aubrey who’s pretty good and believable as Ralph. But others are unfortunately so mediocre and a fine example of usual inadequacy of child acting. But I cannot forgive the movie for that because 2017’s ‘It’ has shown that child acting can be exceptional. And here that just wasn’t the case unfortunately.
Let’s talk about the technical aspects. Lord of the Flies is at its best when visually speaking. Yes, for once an old Hollywood movie was shot on location, on a real island. And it shows in the final product because you can see that it looks real which is important as anything else would have been unacceptable in this instance. I loved seeing the trees, the beaches, the sea and some of the imagery is quite effective. The photography is absolutely fantastic, especially in the restored version that I’ve seen. Gorgeous to behold.
However, its score is ridiculously childish and simply not fitting for this very dark story. It would have been great for a happy children’s movie, but for this one, it felt entirely out of place and simply ludicrous. The dialogue is taken directly from the novel so of course it’s great. I also liked Peter Brook’s direction as it’s professional and elegant.
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
The movie has a couple of terrific sequences, the same as the book had, including that terrific beginning and a powerful ending. The decision to make the finale silent instead of talkative was an inspired change from the source material, the one that really worked to the movie’s advantage as it only further added to the emotional investment of the scene. Even though it has its great moments, the movie remains awfully rushed, overly short and particularly inept at generating real excitement owing to its bad pacing and lifeless feel as it thoroughly lacks energy.
1963’s Lord of the Flies is a solid cinematic adaptation which is very faithful to the novel with such well depicted characters, a fantastic beginning and ending and particularly strong, gorgeous real island photography. But it thoroughly lacks energy leading to a lifeless, badly paced, ineptly scored and weakly acted film that is solid, but it needed to have been much better.
