The Lord of the Flies book by William Golding and the movie by Harry Hook (1990) differ from each other in many ways such as the boys’ change of the Nationality from British to American, the change of schools, and the symbolism of the beast. These are only some of the reasons that make the book different from the movie.
In the book, the boys seem like your average school-boys. They all come from different schools and struggle to know each other in the beginning. They are polite, kind and somewhat tranquil before they start to shape shift into savages and lose civility. Unlike the book, in the movie all boys come from the same military school where they already know each other. The significance of the change in schools is that the boys aren’t school boys but military boys that change their personality and their response to what is happening amongst them. Although there are other reasons, the main reason parents send their children to Military School is behavior. The majority of Military School attendees have a very bad behavioral record. This changes how the boys are educated and how they act. This is just one of the differences.
In the book, the boys are English and they didn’t use any swear words at all. Despite the boys’ actions, they maintained manner and seemed more civil before they become savages. Unlike in the movie the boys are American and they talk harsher and they use swear words. They start to fall into savagery way faster than in the book. The significance of the change of the nationality makes the change of the boys' behavior and actions also the bad language. Studies show that swearing and bad manners are traits usually assigned to American children. (This is not stereotyping or bullying Americans in any way, this is what social studies show). In Golding’s view, English children on the other hand, have very good manners and are more civil than their American counter-parts. This of course changes the setting and changes the story.
In the novel, the beast actually shows symbolism and is the main reason why the boys descended into savagery. The book’s interpretation of the beast makes it come across as a more figment of the boys’ imagination and symbolizes their tattered state of mind. In the movie, there was only a monster that completely lost the essence of the boys becoming savages because of it. In the movie, it makes no indication that the beast does not exist, leading the viewer to believe in it. This change makes the story very different and as well makes the movie different from the book. I have derived that the book makes you feel like an adult watching over the children whereas in the movie, you feel like you are one of them; clueless to reality.
The Lord of the Flies was an excellent book that went far beyond my expectations. However the movie lacked the significance the book showed. The book was far more superior to the movie and the movie isn’t complete. Their nationality change, school change, and most importantly the loss of the significance of the beast make for a change that make the movie lack the real meaning of the book. The book actually shows how the boys’ become savage. The movie should’ve shown the boys’ descent into savagery. While it didn’t it makes the movie lose the whole significance of the story and how it is set. The book completely masters that and these changes make the movie rather disappointing. The book was fantastic and I think the movie still needs more work on.
10/10 – Book – Lord of the Flies (William Golding)
7/10 – Movie – Lord of the Flies 1990 Version (Harry Hook)
No comments:
Post a Comment