There are important differences in Harry Hooke's 1990 film of the Lord of the Flies and William Golding's Lord of the Flies novel that changed the entire outcome of the story. Three differences are: The kids were all from military school, they already knew each other, and the Lord of the Flies didn't really have anything symbolic in the film.
To start off, all these kids were all from military school in the film, which means that they're all well trained and know how to use their surroundings as an advantage. This makes you think, a bunch of 12 year old school kids would react different to being stuck on an island with no adults, as portrayed in the book. This makes the military training a higher chance of survival in the island.
Furthermore, this leads to the fact that they all knew each other when they landed in the sea. This factor is really important because since they know each other, they aren't afraid to speak freely, it doesn't show how the kids got to know each other and that Ralph became immediate tribe leader because everyone knew him. The film doesn't capture the essence of the coming-of-age theme because it doesn't show how the kids interact with each other or some intimite feelings.
Another reason why the film is so different from the book is that the lord of the flies didn't really have a significance. It doesn't even show why it's called the "Lord of the Flies". In the book, the lord of the flies is described as a satanic figure that Simon would talk to, but the closest thing to satanic in the film was the sow head they cut off. It didn't show how such evil can influence a good person to make harmful actions like William Golding's novel did.
All these factors, the fact that they're all from military school, they all knew each other, and the Lord of the Flies doesn'y symbolize anything. Though, they both have the same idea, but if u start to look in depth, you'll notice a huge difference in Harry Hooke's 1990 film to William Golding's novel.
No comments:
Post a Comment