Filmed in 1963 in the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, director Peter Brook’s Lord of the Flies finally puts a face on every character in William Golding’smasterpiece. Like every movie, it is not without its nicks, but I can definitely say that this is one of the few adaptations of a novel who stays true to the plot, the characters as well as the overallfeeling of the story.
The movie is about a group of young survivor boys who are stranded on an unknown island after a terrible plane crash. Left to survive on their own, they must take on adultresponsibilities and maturity overnight. Inevitably, they form two rival groups: the Hunters, led by Jack (Tom Chapin) ensure meat for the others, preoccupied with immediate survival, doing so while enjoyingthe castaway life they are imposed. The other group is led by Ralph (James Aubrey), who build shelters and collect food, waiting to be rescued. This clearly illustrates the difference between
Youmust Login to view the entire essay.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!
civilization and savagery.
For such a low budget film, this was quite a great effort on Brook’s part. It didnot fail to capture the strong emotions and details of the novel. Perhaps, in part, this is due to the child actors who, for amateurs, were very natural and looked comfortable on set. What I mean bythis, is that the actors did not ACT like little boys, but were little boys themselves, turning their sometimes nervous actions and behaviors into reality. Using non-professional child actors is one ofthe many things that make this movie unique and real. Yes, the speech and the interaction between the boys is awkward, stilted, even sometimes stuttered, but in this case, it’s not a sign of badacting; it is the point. The awkwardness is due to the constant fear of being cast out, and the “bad dream” quality of the film is very well reflected by this.
Another great aspect of this film is...