A few thoughts on the BBC version of Lord of the Flies
1. It was a mistake to hack the text about in order to get into the psychological back story of four of the characters. It just isn’t relevant. The pace of the relentless descent into savagery which drives the book and Peter Brook’s matchless film is lost. This strategy led to the need for added material which was often padding, particularly in episode 4 (Ralph) where the momentum was lost. I just felt disappointed and frustrated.
2. It was a mistake to include flashbacks of the plane crash and the boys’ psychological hinterland. It is a Manichaean fable. Diluting it just didn’t work.
3. Piggy didn’t ‘fall through the air’ and the demonic character of Roger was diminished. Wrong.
4. The setting was lush and beautifully photographed. But sometimes it took over. The rivalry between Ralph and Jack in crossing the bridge added nothing we didn’t know already and slowed everything down.
5. The casting and character of Simon was misconceived. He should be a visionary who sees that the dead pilot’s parachute is not diabolical wings, and who learns from the pig’s head that the beast is not an external phenomenon but within the boys themselves. For knowing the truth he has to be slaughtered – like Jesus. The scene in Brook’s film where Simon’s body is outlined by phosphorescent sea creatures as it is tugged out to sea by the tide out to sea was utterly memorable. No such terrible beauty here.
6. The music was often inappropriate for the action, incoherently planned and the sound mix was poor. Too often the dialogue was drowned out by great waves of schmaltzy stuff – what Eliot called, in another context, ‘undisciplined squads of emotion’.
7. The boys’ acting was uniformly superb. What a shame it was squandered on this attempt to adulterate the existential horror of the original.
4 Comments
Michael Caine always said, “Why remake great films? Re-make the ones that could have been great.”
As with so much art, music and drama, things have become shallow and devoid of power – beautiful or terrible.
This review is informed and insightful; much more perceptive than the fawning reviews appearing in the papers.
Agreed with the main points wholeheartedly.
It looked beautiful, like a Rousseau painting. The nightmarish costumes after Jack’s troop looted the suitcases were a strong contrast to the lush jungle and dazzling beaches. The boys’ performances were excellent. However, the re- writing of Piggy’s fall through the air and the reduction of Roger’s key influence were serious flaws. The unnecessary and lengthy additions relating to families and school made even less sense. Was this to stretch out another 2 episodes?
In reply to your last question. I think so. We got length not depth.