Andy Serkis’s new animated adaptation of George Orwell’s classic inverts the point of the book to score shallow political points, writes Nicholas Clairmont. It’s also just a terrible film.
We have endured a media for far too long that has successfully manipulated the masses into completely doubting our own eyes and ears as to what is actually occurring in front of us. A few examples include:
Men can become women (and vice versa!)
Boys have no strength advantage over girls in sports.
Joe Biden was sharp as a tack.
Hunter's laptop was manufactured by the Russians.
Donald Trump is a (fascist/racist/rapist/homophobe/misogynist/threat to democracy/dictator/king- you get the idea).
Conservatives are unwashed and deplorable rubes.
The masses all require free government stuff to survive
Minorities need white saviors to rescue them from their misery.
Billionaires are responsible for people being poor.
The only reason (communism/socialism/education/big government programs) haven't worked is because we haven't given them enough money.
We can all easily SEEK and DISCOVER the truth about ALL of these issues, yet the lies, half-truths and innuendos continue unabated. This is only a SMALL sampling of the ideas and policies force fed to the American people over the years by the MSM, under the guise of "Journalism".
Is it any wonder that they would attempt a complete rewrite of history, along with the reimagining of the meaning of the entire English language?
Totally agree, except for the "easily seek and discover the truth", part... lf only. Every source turned to for verification must be held in skepticism, turned over and have its own vetting and scrutiny …and the addition of AI at every turn has complicated the entire process so much, that reading the news from almost any provider becomes an hours long investment.
Back in the 70's, Pink Floyd made the album Animals, which they thought of as a musical version of Animal Farm. And like these clowns here, they believed that Animal Farm was a critique of capitalism. Great musicians, but clearly not the sharpest tools in the shed.
This is another example of moral inversion which has been pervasive these last few years. The cops are the criminals, Israel is genocidal, the West is entirely responsible for evil and suffering.
Given waning literacy and the apparent lack of interest in the past, I would not be surprised if this version becomes the definitive Animal Farm.
The amazing thing is the impenetrable bubble of smugness that could allow people to make a movie that even a child can see misses the entire point of the book it's based on.
There it is in plain sight. Leftist/progressives (90% of so-called Hollywood folks) want to control the public narrative. They invent new words, redefine existing words, rewrite history, misapply scientific knowledge and now rewrite classic literature. If 60+% of Americans weren't lacking common sense, unable to critically think for themselves using basic logic and lacking a basic understanding of math, economics, biological science, civics and business - Hollywood would be irrelevant. But, alas, most of my fellow citizens are pretty stupid. So, Hollywood does pose a threat to our functioning society.
1. Who controls the rights to Animal Farm and gave these idiots permission to do this? Surely not anyone with the repulation of Orwell at heart. If it is the Eric Blair Estate, then it needs new leadership.
2. It is something right out of 1984 to take Animal Farm and completely invert its message to the exact opposite.
3. Of all the crimes against Orwell committed by this atrocity, the one that would probably bother Orwell the most is the fart jokes.
Yes, I believe that it is in fact Orwell's family that controls all of Orwell's intellectual property. But my understanding is that they are very woke (oh, the irony), which would explain their greenlighting this.
This just proves you can be a tendentious leftwing polemicist and Hollywood will eagerly give you money to make a polemical abomination. Losing money and offending the majority audience seems to be the point.
This isn't the first time Hollywood has done something like this. The original film adaptation of The Manchurian Candidate starring Angela Lansbury and Frank Sinatra reflected the book's focus on communism. The remake with Meryl Streep and Denzel Washington changed the villain to a multinational company.
Yes it was. Not nearly as chilling as the original. Even as great an actor as Denzel couldn't salvage it. The original has a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes; the remake only 79%. Even that is too generous!
I remember criticism of the original film because it had an upbeat ending in which the animals overthrew Napoleon's regime at the last minute. That is quaint compared to this.
Except for that final coda it was very true to the book and well worth seeing. Just in case Orwell's point wasn't clear enough, the animals talk with Russian accents LOL.
Maybe Andy Sirkis can next do his version of 1984 where Big Brother is the hero, looking out for the best interests of the people of Oceania, and Winston Smith is a trouble-making civil servant.
If I remember correctly, a while back someone wrote a book that was a feminist reimagining of 1984, in which, yes, Big Brother is basically the hero. And I believe it received the full endorsement of Orwell's estate.
From an Indian professor: "Julia by Sandra Newman, a powerful feminist retelling of George Orwell’s 1984 which, while foregrounding a female character who was sidelined in the original novel, is a nuanced perspective on the genre. In Orwell, Julia gets represented mostly by how she looks through the male gaze of Winston: This
means we mostly don't get to see her desire or intelligence or moral reasoning. In Newman’s account Julia regains the capacity to be a narrative agent, negotiating Oceania’s dominating edifices with ethical squint, bodily independence and tactical aptitude. This paper analyzes how Julia re-centers the female character as
subject, de-familiarizes her self-representation by contrasting it with Winston’s gaze and reconceptualizes rebellion and survival as relational and morally significant." It doesn't sound like Julia makes Big Brother the hero but I haven't read it. As you say, it was approved by Orwell's estate.
I haven't read the book (although yes, Julia is the book I was thinking of) so I can't really talk all that intelligently about it. My comment was based on a review I read some time ago that I don't remember all that well. But if I remember correctly, the complaint was that roles seemed to have been inverted. That life in Airstrip One is presented as not being particularly unpleasant beyond it being run by males, and Winston is presented as being somewhat of an inept malcontent, who just complains a lot but never actually tries to improve anything. And the various things that Orwell presents as deliberate deceptions, like the eternal wars with alternating enemies/allies, are really happening, and the mixups in communication are actually just bureaucratic incompetence. So the totalitarian socialist state isn't actually evil; it's just poorly run, and its main issue is that the men are in charge. I agree that that is different from Big Brother being "the hero." But his crimes are minimized and contextualized as perhaps being better than the alternative. And Winston is portrayed as somewhat of a villain.
Like a remake of Uncle Tom's Cabin with Simon Legree as a kind-hearted abolitionist.
"corporate greed," "micro-aggressions," "white privilege," phrases which are all laughingly used by those tilting at windmills.
We have endured a media for far too long that has successfully manipulated the masses into completely doubting our own eyes and ears as to what is actually occurring in front of us. A few examples include:
Men can become women (and vice versa!)
Boys have no strength advantage over girls in sports.
Joe Biden was sharp as a tack.
Hunter's laptop was manufactured by the Russians.
Donald Trump is a (fascist/racist/rapist/homophobe/misogynist/threat to democracy/dictator/king- you get the idea).
Conservatives are unwashed and deplorable rubes.
The masses all require free government stuff to survive
(transportation/food/healthcare/childcare/internet/phones/housing- etc...)
Minorities need white saviors to rescue them from their misery.
Billionaires are responsible for people being poor.
The only reason (communism/socialism/education/big government programs) haven't worked is because we haven't given them enough money.
We can all easily SEEK and DISCOVER the truth about ALL of these issues, yet the lies, half-truths and innuendos continue unabated. This is only a SMALL sampling of the ideas and policies force fed to the American people over the years by the MSM, under the guise of "Journalism".
Is it any wonder that they would attempt a complete rewrite of history, along with the reimagining of the meaning of the entire English language?
Totally agree, except for the "easily seek and discover the truth", part... lf only. Every source turned to for verification must be held in skepticism, turned over and have its own vetting and scrutiny …and the addition of AI at every turn has complicated the entire process so much, that reading the news from almost any provider becomes an hours long investment.
Who funds all these stinker movies from Hollywood? Won't they run out of money to burn at some point?
Not soon enough, apparently.
Back in the 70's, Pink Floyd made the album Animals, which they thought of as a musical version of Animal Farm. And like these clowns here, they believed that Animal Farm was a critique of capitalism. Great musicians, but clearly not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Pinkos gotta pink.
This is another example of moral inversion which has been pervasive these last few years. The cops are the criminals, Israel is genocidal, the West is entirely responsible for evil and suffering.
Given waning literacy and the apparent lack of interest in the past, I would not be surprised if this version becomes the definitive Animal Farm.
Moral inversion. Exactly.
The amazing thing is the impenetrable bubble of smugness that could allow people to make a movie that even a child can see misses the entire point of the book it's based on.
Pig ignorance.
No. Pignorance.
Hmm. Sounds like One Battle After Another for kids!
And for the WOKE-hearted crowd.
There it is in plain sight. Leftist/progressives (90% of so-called Hollywood folks) want to control the public narrative. They invent new words, redefine existing words, rewrite history, misapply scientific knowledge and now rewrite classic literature. If 60+% of Americans weren't lacking common sense, unable to critically think for themselves using basic logic and lacking a basic understanding of math, economics, biological science, civics and business - Hollywood would be irrelevant. But, alas, most of my fellow citizens are pretty stupid. So, Hollywood does pose a threat to our functioning society.
Poor writer and truly lacks a cohesive understanding of a theme. Yikes!
Three things.
1. Who controls the rights to Animal Farm and gave these idiots permission to do this? Surely not anyone with the repulation of Orwell at heart. If it is the Eric Blair Estate, then it needs new leadership.
2. It is something right out of 1984 to take Animal Farm and completely invert its message to the exact opposite.
3. Of all the crimes against Orwell committed by this atrocity, the one that would probably bother Orwell the most is the fart jokes.
Yes, I believe that it is in fact Orwell's family that controls all of Orwell's intellectual property. But my understanding is that they are very woke (oh, the irony), which would explain their greenlighting this.
Now that is a twisted irony.
This just proves you can be a tendentious leftwing polemicist and Hollywood will eagerly give you money to make a polemical abomination. Losing money and offending the majority audience seems to be the point.
This isn't the first time Hollywood has done something like this. The original film adaptation of The Manchurian Candidate starring Angela Lansbury and Frank Sinatra reflected the book's focus on communism. The remake with Meryl Streep and Denzel Washington changed the villain to a multinational company.
I don't watch Meryl Streep movies, unless her character is going to die.
They did a remake? Who knew and who cares? I'm gonna take a guess and say it was lousy.
Yes it was. Not nearly as chilling as the original. Even as great an actor as Denzel couldn't salvage it. The original has a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes; the remake only 79%. Even that is too generous!
I pay no attention whatsoever to Rotten Tomatoes. There are a few people whose opinions I value but certainly not "the people".
It's unfortunate. I've read the book several times and would have looked forward to an honest adaption. Maybe a director will try again in the future.
I remember criticism of the original film because it had an upbeat ending in which the animals overthrew Napoleon's regime at the last minute. That is quaint compared to this.
I've never seen the original film. I guess my hope still holds, another director try's again with an honest interpretation.
So for now, I'll just enjoy the book.
Except for that final coda it was very true to the book and well worth seeing. Just in case Orwell's point wasn't clear enough, the animals talk with Russian accents LOL.
Maybe Andy Sirkis can next do his version of 1984 where Big Brother is the hero, looking out for the best interests of the people of Oceania, and Winston Smith is a trouble-making civil servant.
If I remember correctly, a while back someone wrote a book that was a feminist reimagining of 1984, in which, yes, Big Brother is basically the hero. And I believe it received the full endorsement of Orwell's estate.
From an Indian professor: "Julia by Sandra Newman, a powerful feminist retelling of George Orwell’s 1984 which, while foregrounding a female character who was sidelined in the original novel, is a nuanced perspective on the genre. In Orwell, Julia gets represented mostly by how she looks through the male gaze of Winston: This
means we mostly don't get to see her desire or intelligence or moral reasoning. In Newman’s account Julia regains the capacity to be a narrative agent, negotiating Oceania’s dominating edifices with ethical squint, bodily independence and tactical aptitude. This paper analyzes how Julia re-centers the female character as
subject, de-familiarizes her self-representation by contrasting it with Winston’s gaze and reconceptualizes rebellion and survival as relational and morally significant." It doesn't sound like Julia makes Big Brother the hero but I haven't read it. As you say, it was approved by Orwell's estate.
I haven't read the book (although yes, Julia is the book I was thinking of) so I can't really talk all that intelligently about it. My comment was based on a review I read some time ago that I don't remember all that well. But if I remember correctly, the complaint was that roles seemed to have been inverted. That life in Airstrip One is presented as not being particularly unpleasant beyond it being run by males, and Winston is presented as being somewhat of an inept malcontent, who just complains a lot but never actually tries to improve anything. And the various things that Orwell presents as deliberate deceptions, like the eternal wars with alternating enemies/allies, are really happening, and the mixups in communication are actually just bureaucratic incompetence. So the totalitarian socialist state isn't actually evil; it's just poorly run, and its main issue is that the men are in charge. I agree that that is different from Big Brother being "the hero." But his crimes are minimized and contextualized as perhaps being better than the alternative. And Winston is portrayed as somewhat of a villain.
This sounds like the typical socialist lament: Socialism is great but it's never been carried out by competent people, so next time we'll do it right.