1984 Skeleton Outline Essay

â€Å"I used to think that cyberspace was fifty years away. What I thought was fifty years away, was only ten years away. And what I thought was ten years away†¦ it was already here. I just wasn’t aware of it yet†. Bruce Sterling (www. brainyquote. com) Technology has helped society achieve great strides in the world today. It has helped us to walk on the moon and find cures for certain cancers. However, technology can also have horrible and devastating effects. This is best illustrated in Orwell’s novel, 1984. Orwell’s novel has been adapted by Michael Radford who captured Orwell’s technologically inclined society through a visual medium. See more: Social process essay Radford’s film portrayed Orwell’s idea of 1984 more effectively. This will be proven through examination of additions and deletions of scenes, cinematography, and casting. Radford’s additions and deletions leave the audience questioning his choice. At the end of the film Radford leaves the audience with unanswered questions, whereas in the novel, Orwell had clear visual clues the answered the questions. â€Å"But it was all right, everything was all right the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother. (Orwell 311) An affective addition Radford included in his 1984, was towards the end of the film, Julia and Winston were planned to meet up with each other. In the novel, they had not planned to meet and just so happened that they bumped into each other. â€Å"Actually, it was by chance that they had met. It was in the Park, on a vile, biting day in March, when the earth was like iron and all the grass seemed dead and there was not a bud anywhere except a few crocuses which had pushed themselves up to be dismembered by the wind. He was hurrying along with frozen hands and watering eyes when he saw her not ten metres away from him. It struck him at once that she had changed in some ill-defined way. † (IBID 304) Make sure that you state why this quote is significant in proving that Radford was better at depicting Orwell’s vision. In the novel when Winston goes to meet O’Brien to get the Newspeak dictionary Julia was there with him. In the film when Winston goes to meet O’Brien to get the Newspeak dictionary Julia was not there, Radford has this addition included to emphasize how much Julia did not care about the Party. Radford`s interpretation of 1984 of additions and deletions was very affective. Radford’s use of cinematography was well done based on Orwell’s vision. With the help of color or if you look at it another way, a lack of colour, the film was meant to be shot in a dull and dreary setting. Radford was able to get across to the viewers, the sense of depression. * (put a quote in here of anything that describes any way that they dress or any of the colors that are described in the novel) Consider the opening couple of paragraphs. You could also talk about the scene in the film where his mother died and compare that to another scene to show how times have changed. Radford used bland and mechanized colors such as grey, navy blue and black. In Radford’s 1984 there was a scene shown of Hurt walking home from work and there was no color but greys, and a small amount of a dull navy blue. The actors in the film were too wearing dull navy uniforms and that was it. This was a perfect representation of the way Radford emphasized how dull the film was. The characters in the film, more specifically, John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton, were also physically grey looking. Their skin was dead looking and physically sick which helped Radford set the theme of the film. (Use the description of the golden country are they the same in the novel and the film? ) If so how? If not how are they different ? Radford’s character selection was very effective that helped to portray Orwell’s vision. Radford’s 1984 was well cast. John Hurt acted just the way he was described in the novel. Although he did not speak much, Hurt used excellent facial expressions in order to get his point across and to communicate with others. â€Å"Winston Smith (John Hurt) is 39, but he has the skinny, wizened look of a perpetually chilled, undernourished child, whose face is that of an old man. † (www. ovie. nytimes. com) Julia, Suzanna Hamilton, was better depicted in the film than in the novel. â€Å"She brings a captivating freshness and warmth to her role, a little reminiscent of a young Harriet Anderson. Her pale, wiry, broad-hipped body has a simple, unaffected, almost archetypal beauty, and in the film’s more intimate moments, she radiates all the tactile sensual grace of a Munch or Degas nude†. (www. IMBd. com) Hamilton helps to portray Julia being a very rebellious character. In the film, Julia was an upfront kind of character whereas in the novel Julia seemed very closed yet didn’t really say much. Radford’s film adaptation of 1984 does effectively portray Orwell’s vision. This was proven by characters, additions and deletions, cinematography. Radford’s cinematography is an excellent adaptation of Orwell’s plot. The characters were well cast and Orwell’s vision was seen. The additions and deletions are very effective in portraying the vision of 1984. Overall Radford’s film does Orwell’s novel justice. Maybe for your conclusion keep the compare and contrast going. So for example Orwell made many choices about where to place characters in the novel but Radford adding or deleting them was a better choice for the vision as a whole.