How Does Peter Brook(TM)s Film Adaptation Of The Book, Lord Of The Flies, Differ From The Modern Version?

Authors Avatar

How Does Peter Brook’s Film Adaptation Of The Book, Lord Of The Flies, Differ From The Modern Version?

The novel, Lord Of The Flies, has been adapted for film twice, once by Peter Brook and his 1963 film adaptation and in 1990 by Harry Hook. The two films are, although based on the same book, entirely different. The obvious differences are the time in which they filmed, but there are more differences that allow the audience to, providing they have seen both films, interpret the book differently, perhaps because of the social change and advances in technology based on the years they were filmed.

Of the two, it is clear to see that Peter Brook’s interpretation is a more accurate version of the novel and is reputed to be an excellent reflection of the book. The film, captured in black and white, shows excellently the downward spiral in which the boys question their own sense of right and wrong. The film’s introduction is basic, just pictures with sound, however it shows a graphic representation of the ‘war’ the world has found itself in once again and the crash of the plane. When the film begins and we see Piggy and
Ralph crawling through the undergrowth, what can be noticed instantly is the fact that the camera angles play a large part in the film. This is in stark contrast to Harry Hook’s 1990 version, where we see, most importantly, a group of American schoolboys, who seem to belong to a military school, swim in from the wreckage of the plane, while pushing a raft ashore, with the wounded pilot inside. It is important to note, that while this may have provided a more realistic start to the film, it ruins the fact that they come together with the sound of the conch, something extremely symbolic in the book. Moreover, the presence of an adult on the island effectively defeats the object of the books ideology – (children’s lack of authority with no adult presence).

Join now!

The filming of Brook’s version of the film could be described as amateurish, but this enhances the level of reality. The actors also, are non-professional providing a realistic, visceral effect. An interesting point is the way in which the cameras operated during filming. Brooks specifically used a type of lens which gave a ‘documentary’ feel to the film. In places, the scenes was entirely unrehearsed, and over sixty hours of film was produced, much of it improvisation and, after the editing process, it was reduced to a ninety minute film. The young actors were encouraged to improvise, especially where ...

This is a preview of the whole essay