Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site leadsv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!leadsv!sas
From: sas@leadsv.UUCP (Scott Stewart)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: _1984_  (spoiler)
Message-ID: <485@leadsv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 11:51:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: leadsv.485
Posted: Mon Jun 24 11:51:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 00:50:02 EDT
References: <2107@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: LMSC-LEADS, Sunnyvale, Ca.
Lines: 60
Summary: Mild flame and comment

In article <2107@ut-sally.UUCP>, kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
> 
> 
>                                _1984_
> 
>                           by Kelvin Thompson
> 
 
Having not seen the movie, I will not argue you opinion of it. But, from
those comments I've extracted below and capitalized, I get the feeling you
don't even know the literary source of thsi movie. If you don't, I'll kindly
inform you that it is George Orwell's classic novel "1984", written in
1948 (last two digits of the year the story was written were reversed to
arrive at the title of the book).  

>  To be sure, the plot of the movie does have the broad outline of a love
>  story.  A man, John Hurt (_The_Elephant_Man_, _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_),
>  meets a woman, played by an unknown British actress, and they embark on a
>  difficult relationship.  Unfortunately, the "difficulty" in their
>  relationship is that they live in a futuristic, totalitarian society
>  which forbids love.  (IT IS UNFATHOMABLE WHY THE MOVIE IS ENTITLED
>  _1984_, WHEN IT IS SO OBVIOUSLY SET IN THE FUTURE.)
>  
>  
>  THESE PRISON SCENES ALSO GIVE THE WRITERS A CHANCE TO REALLY CUT LOOSE
>  WITH THEIR ANTI-HUMANIST, SKINNERIAN PHILOSOPHY.  Between tortures Hurt
>  and his jailer, the late Richard Burton (_The_Wild_Geese_), talk about
>  the society they live in, and Hurt loses every debate. Time and time
>  again Hurt raises a point about love or kindness or hope, Burton bats it
>  down, AND WRITERS CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE HURT RAISE A COUNTER POINT. 
>  Finally, after a particularly brutal torture (which the viewer is all but
>  forced to look away from) Hurt gives in and truly renounces his love for
>  the girl.
>  

You are correct in feeling that the movie shouldn't be billed as a love
story, it's not. It's a story about a society and the love story is used as
a foil to fully illustrate the societies evil, by our standards. As mentioned
above, Richard Burton's character manages to defend every evil of the
society as being the good of the society. It depends on your point of view
and personal morals. What's so depressing about the scene above is that, as
a reader, you find it hard to battle the arguments also. You don't want to
believe any thing the "Torturer" tells you, but you are unable to not
believe it. The novel is a very depressing and frightening story, and
this is what makes it endure so well. It captures much truth of social
systems and their capabilities and possibilities. (An aside, I heard
that the U.S.S.R. has finally recognized this book, stating that it is
a statement against the evils of Capitalim. )

Your review makes it appear that the movie follows the book very well, 
conveying much of the same emotions the book expresses. "1984" is a classic
novel, and very depressing and frightening view of our possible future.
It is book based much on ideas, and because of this, I don't feel any
movie could do it real justice. But, please, when you criticize any
movie, get your information straight and assign your criticism to those
wh deserve it, whether good or bad.


				Scott A. Stewart
				LMSC