|
1984
Jul 26, 2004 8:02:49 GMT
Post by The mekanik on Jul 26, 2004 8:02:49 GMT
George Orwells 1984 is a true litterary masterpeice. If you have not yet read it, then WHY NOT?!? It is easy to get hold of, with most bookshops stocking it, and most libraries have a copy too. An added bonus is the Appendix of newspeak. It is highly advised that you have background knowledge of the book/film before posting here. I will create a thread for those who are unsure/unstable .
|
|
|
1984
Jul 26, 2004 21:42:17 GMT
Post by Thanatos on Jul 26, 2004 21:42:17 GMT
Bloody good book. Shame about the film, excellent actor though John Hurt is. I haven't seen the old black and white film, though.
|
|
|
1984
Jul 27, 2004 10:22:50 GMT
Post by The mekanik on Jul 27, 2004 10:22:50 GMT
I never knew that there was a black and white film. Although I have seen the first 10 mins of the 1984 film and I liked it.
I dont knwo about anybody else, but i dont think orwell described the telescreens as being so tremendously huge, as they are in the films.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
1984
Jul 27, 2004 10:44:35 GMT
Post by HStorm on Jul 27, 2004 10:44:35 GMT
He didn't describe them as being particularly small either, and I think they had to be fairly large so that they'd have a wide enough field of vision to keep most of a room in shot. Basically, the bigger the room the bigger the screen.
The black-and-white version was made in 1956 by the BBC and starred Peter Cushing as Winston Smith. It was shown on BBC4 last year. There was also a play-version broadcast live a couple of years earlier, in the era before videotape.
The John Hurt version isn't too bad at all, but it doesn't really include enough of the intricate detail of the novel. Therefore anyone watching it who hasn't read the book is likely to be left a little bewildered by it.
|
|
|
1984
Jul 28, 2004 10:28:28 GMT
Post by The mekanik on Jul 28, 2004 10:28:28 GMT
As is the practise with most book-film conversions.
I think 2 mins hate was well done.
When winston was going back to victory mansions, the street was full of rubble. This was not mentioned in the book. I think it is supposed to represent the Flying bombs damage, but they only tended to land in the prole areas.
Wouldent it be good if only proles got shot in modern wars? We could do away with half-wits.
|
|
|
1984
Jul 28, 2004 11:10:37 GMT
Post by Naselus on Jul 28, 2004 11:10:37 GMT
I always imagined rubble pretty much everywhere when I read the book. After all, I don't think the party were overly concerned about clearing up after the atomic war, or indeed after the revolution, and it adds to the whole gritty air of a world falling apart. I must say, however, that I found the film almost entirely disappointing, except for the ministry of love, and even that was rather darker and dingier than I'd imagined. I expected almost glowing white walls and constant 350 watt bulbs.
|
|
|
1984
Jul 29, 2004 10:32:44 GMT
Post by HStorm on Jul 29, 2004 10:32:44 GMT
Wouldent it be good if only proles got shot in modern wars? We could do away with half-wits. Yeah. Starting with the half-wits who can't spell the word "wouldn't" correctly, perhaps? There's no 'class-priority' on stupidity. And this is doubly true in Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the protective stupidity of doublethink becomes more pronounced the further up the social order you look. I'd much prefer the political class to be the ones who get shot up, seeing they're the tossers who insist on declaring the wars in the first place.
|
|
|
1984
Jul 29, 2004 11:55:58 GMT
Post by Naselus on Jul 29, 2004 11:55:58 GMT
But in 1984 it WAS mainly the political classes getting shot. Remember, the war was actually relatively small-scale, with few people taking part in active combat roles. The party probably 'vanished' more people every month than the rocket bombs killed in a year.
|
|
|
1984
Jul 29, 2004 11:58:28 GMT
Post by HStorm on Jul 29, 2004 11:58:28 GMT
I meant the political classes in the real world, like GWB and Tony Blair.
|
|
|
1984
Jul 29, 2004 12:02:03 GMT
Post by Naselus on Jul 29, 2004 12:02:03 GMT
Oh, them. Perhaps some sort of televised celebrity death-match style confrontation between Saddam and Osama vs B&B? Is it not mildly worrying, just to go back to the 1984 side of things, that the leaders of real-world Oceania are initialed B(&)B?
|
|
|
1984
Jul 29, 2004 12:07:23 GMT
Post by HStorm on Jul 29, 2004 12:07:23 GMT
Yet another eerie prediction come true then, worth mentioning in the 1984 Today thread perhaps.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 6, 2004 17:30:34 GMT
Post by ringmasterrob on Aug 6, 2004 17:30:34 GMT
I am a little confused as to what this thread is specifically about, what elements of 1984? There are references to Today's world that would go in the 'Today' topic, there are references to the films that could go into the 'Films' topic. Other than that what issue (if any) is this topic discussing?
|
|
|
1984
Aug 6, 2004 17:36:31 GMT
Post by Naselus on Aug 6, 2004 17:36:31 GMT
It's more or less just a general discussion of the concepts and suchlike. Perhaps a little bit more light-hearted too.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 6, 2004 17:41:46 GMT
Post by HStorm on Aug 6, 2004 17:41:46 GMT
Yeah, it's not specifically about any aspect of the book. It was the thread on the General 1984 Discussion Board.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 6, 2004 22:03:11 GMT
Post by ringmasterrob on Aug 6, 2004 22:03:11 GMT
Right, I thought as much. The title '1984 Start' threw me as I couldn't figure what it actually meant.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 10, 2004 10:11:45 GMT
Post by The mekanik on Aug 10, 2004 10:11:45 GMT
I appologise for that. My poor english prevails.
perhaps i should put more thought towards topic names in future.
Does anyone one know what circumstances G.Orwells death occured under in 194(7)?
|
|
|
1984
Aug 10, 2004 10:13:46 GMT
Post by HStorm on Aug 10, 2004 10:13:46 GMT
He died of tuberculosis in 1950.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 10, 2004 10:16:03 GMT
Post by The mekanik on Aug 10, 2004 10:16:03 GMT
Thanks for that.
|
|