Review of Lord of the Flies (1963) by Brett C — 02 Apr 2014

Peter Brook's Lord of the Flies may be a classic for some but for me it came off as a disappointment, in almost all of it's key areas. I came into this film with optimism, hoping that it might be good but within the first few minutes of the film, it was already clear that this film is dull and that I doubt second and third act of the film would save it from being just that.

Lord of the Flies' novel was written by William Golding and written for the screen by Peter Brook. I haven't read the novel so I cannot note on the accuracy this film displays in accordance with Golding's novel. The film's story consists of a plane accident that English school kids as passengers. They stay on an island and from there they figure out what to do for themselves. The pitch of this film sounds very interesting and it has the opportunity to create a sense of heightened drama and tension that would have it's audience be thrilled and emotionally involved. Sadly the events that occurs throughout the film were for the most part, very boring. There never seems to be any sense of exploration, of the environment and it's characters. It all just felt really shallow. The first act of the film starts off with a sense of collaboration and community, but creative differences has lead to a separation. There are two leaders that a person can follow, with one showcasing a sense of intelligence and hope, and the other displaying primal instincts and skills to gain resources. Both display leadership but in two very distinct ways. As the film goes on, it is suggested that division has started to appear on the community and the souls inside each individual, with each member now having an idea of what they truly believe in. The last act of the film was definitely a bit more interesting than the rest of the film as we see more dramatic scenes from primal tribe and the scenes started to create tension, having the audience to start gaining feelings of fear and excitement. I really didn't know which one I wanted to succeed more, but just as tension has reached to a boiling point, it was quickly diffused which left me disappointed, not giving a sense idea of what side would triumph more. It didn't inspire anything in me, the scene felt nothing and I just have to accept the fact that it happened. The film's dialogue isn't actually a problem, but it's more on how the actors deliver it. If it was delivered in a way that felt more natural then it could have carried some sort weight to it and it would have made the film feel more intelligent and professional.

The film was directed by Peter Brook, and this was his third film. I am disappointed with the way he handled this film, as it was clear right from the start that he wanted to explore ideas and themes of the human condition and morality. But in the end, it just came out unfocused and not leaving any sort of impact that would make me want to come back any search through it more. The film touches on the idea that children, when left with no adults that can provide the right discipline and direction, can leave their "ego" and "super-ego" undeveloped and their "id" starts to take over and define them. Morality also comes up in discussion, particularly during the murder sequence, but the scene that was supposed to judge the current status of morality in these children are left unexplored and soon shrugged off. These themes are really interesting if one just explores it enough but the director seems to just leave us with the headlines and not fill in the details. The film's pacing was polarising, as the first half of the film felt extremely rushed with characters feeling undeveloped and one-note, the second half of the film took it's time with scenes but the content was really uninteresting that it would have fared better if it moved at a higher speed. The director also failed to create this sense of danger or tension, as he cannot seem to bring any life into the actor's performances, though that scene at the end where Ralph starts to run away was the only time that I felt something.

The film's director of photography was Tom Hollyman. This would be Hollyman's only credit of being a cinematographer. Hollyman's photography was also disappointing with shots that never seem to show more from it's subjects, leaving them to feel one-dimensional and dull. The camerawork also wasn't able to make any scene feel special or with a sense of weight, with only one scene, which I have mentioned, that really created an emotional response from me. The choice of having the film be shot in black and white was not a bad one, as it has the ability to create some sort of connection with the film's themes and ideas, but again that also didn't do anything for me. There were multiple shots that squeezed in views of the island that was supposed to come off as beautiful and artistic but instead it reeked of amateurism.

The film's score was composed by Raymond Leppard who, like Tom Hollyman, doesn't have a lot of credits to his filmography. Leppard's score was decent, with some moments that worked with the scene. There were a couple of times where it did come off as trying too hard but not enough to label his work to the point of bad or abysmal.

The film's acting was overall loathsome as these children seem to try so hard in delivering their lines and give them a sense of impact. Sometimes, less is more, and someone should have told these kids that, particularly the one who played "Piggy". I'm not even gonna criticise the actors individually because they all were the same; boring, over-the-top, and cringe-worthy. Though there was one actor that did stand out a bit, and it was the one that played Simon as I felt he was natural on the scenes he was in.

I think Lord of the Flies would appeal to those who are fans of the source novels, because pre-conceived emotions can give this film more impact. I cannot say that one should completely avoid this film, because the film does contain interesting themes and ideas, and it's impact would depend on how heavily on the viewer's perception.