Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: _1984_ (spoiler) Message-ID: <497@rtech.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 04:14:47 EDT Article-I.D.: rtech.497 Posted: Thu Jun 20 04:14:47 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 01:26:14 EDT References: <2107@ut-sally.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA Lines: 34 > > _1984_ > > by Kelvin Thompson > > _1984_ is a bad, utterly depressing, anti-humanist movie. The producer > of the movie has claimed that at its heart the movie is a love story, but > in truth it is a relentless attack on the nobility of the human > condition. > This review makes me wonder whether Mr. Thompson ever read the book "1984" by George Orwell. "1984" is one of the most important books of this century, and from everything I have heard, the latest movie version of it is pretty true to the book. The book "1984" is definitely pro-humanist. George Orwell intended it as a satire of the trend toward totalitarianism that existed in the year he wrote it, 1948, and still exists today. The point is that totaliarianism destroys love and everything else that is noble about humanity. The depressing tone of the book and the movie, and the fact that Winston Smith completely loses his humanity in the end, are intended to make you feel the hopelessness that living under totalitarianism must bring. I'm really surprised that someone posted a "spoiler" of 1984. I thought just about everyone had read the book. I was required to read it in High School English. If the review to which I am responding was a joke, sorry for boring you by not getting it. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff