IMDb RATING
6.9/10
4.2K
YOUR RATING
In a totalitarian future society, Winston Smith, whose daily work is re-writing history, tries to rebel by falling in love.In a totalitarian future society, Winston Smith, whose daily work is re-writing history, tries to rebel by falling in love.In a totalitarian future society, Winston Smith, whose daily work is re-writing history, tries to rebel by falling in love.
Donald Pleasence
- R. Parsons
- (as Donald Pleasance)
Kenneth Griffith
- Prisoner
- (as Kenneth Griffiths)
Barbara Cavan
- Woman
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
Walter Gotell
- Guard
- (uncredited)
Anthony Jacobs
- Telescreen
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
Barbara Keogh
- Special Woman
- (uncredited)
Bernard Rebel
- Kalador
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaSonia Orwell, widow of George Orwell, objected to the changed ending, and had this movie withdrawn from circulation.
- Quotes
R. Parsons: Maybe we shouldn't have stopped here. I get pretty uneasy when I'm near people who aren't... healthy, if you know what I mean. Oh well. Long live BB!
Winston Smith of the Outer Party: Long live BB!
- Alternate versionsThere are two endings to this film. The UK version ends with a defiant Winston Smith and Julia being executed by the authorities. The US version is more faithful to Orwell's book and concludes with Winston and Julia being brainwashed into becoming loyal followers of "Big Brother."
- ConnectionsFeatured in Hollywood and the Stars: The Angry Screen (1964)
Featured review
A Cold War 1984
It's been too long since I read the book, so I'm just concerned with the movie as a movie. And what a downer the 90-minutes is for the generally sunny 1950's. Hard to think of a grimmer storyline or more downbeat ending for that period. I take the film's anomalous presence as a useful Cold War commentary on the Soviet Union, the rivalry then at its peak.
Anyhow, the sets are grim, even the one outdoor scene is drained of any natural beauty, while the photography remains dull gray, as it should be given the dystopian subject matter. Then too, the two leads, O'Brien and Sterling, are not exactly marquee names. However, they are excellent actors, as the storyline requires—you don't want "movie stars" competing with the plot-heavy symbolism. In short, the production, though clearly economical, is pretty uncompromising.
Story-wise we're plunged into the middle of the dystopian society without much explanation of how it got that way or why. Instead, the narrative emphasizes the tools of thought control among Party members, who are subjected to all sorts of thought conditioning techniques, such as the histrionic hate sessions. Just how the non-party people live is not really portrayed. However, love may be forbidden among Party members, but I doubt that it was among the common people, otherwise how would re-population take place.
Besides dwelling on Winston's (O'Brien) efforts at contacting the political underground, the script dwells on the forbidden love affair between Winston and Julia (Sterling). And I had to laugh when Julia sheds her shapeless Party uniform for a flowing white gown right out of the Loretta Young Show of the time. This may be the movie's one concession to 1950's norms. The film does manage a few twists, one of which I didn't see coming. But, if I have one complaint, it's that Redgrave's high Party official lacks subtlety, in pretty much a one-note performance. This can be seen as a defect if you think about his official's changing roles.
Anyway, the film remains a visual oddity for then as well as now. However, its thought- control message, though crudely put, may be more relevant in our digitalized age than it was then. At the same time, this is one of the few subjects that I think needs a bigger budget remake to do it justice. I haven't seen the latest remake from 1984, so I can't comment on its worth. All in all, this version maintains a grimly narrow, but thought-provoking focus.
(In passing—having seen the movie on first release, I seem to remember the "rat cage" sequence as being longer, more detailed with glowing eyes, and much scarier than my DVD version. But then that was well over 50-years ago.)
Anyhow, the sets are grim, even the one outdoor scene is drained of any natural beauty, while the photography remains dull gray, as it should be given the dystopian subject matter. Then too, the two leads, O'Brien and Sterling, are not exactly marquee names. However, they are excellent actors, as the storyline requires—you don't want "movie stars" competing with the plot-heavy symbolism. In short, the production, though clearly economical, is pretty uncompromising.
Story-wise we're plunged into the middle of the dystopian society without much explanation of how it got that way or why. Instead, the narrative emphasizes the tools of thought control among Party members, who are subjected to all sorts of thought conditioning techniques, such as the histrionic hate sessions. Just how the non-party people live is not really portrayed. However, love may be forbidden among Party members, but I doubt that it was among the common people, otherwise how would re-population take place.
Besides dwelling on Winston's (O'Brien) efforts at contacting the political underground, the script dwells on the forbidden love affair between Winston and Julia (Sterling). And I had to laugh when Julia sheds her shapeless Party uniform for a flowing white gown right out of the Loretta Young Show of the time. This may be the movie's one concession to 1950's norms. The film does manage a few twists, one of which I didn't see coming. But, if I have one complaint, it's that Redgrave's high Party official lacks subtlety, in pretty much a one-note performance. This can be seen as a defect if you think about his official's changing roles.
Anyway, the film remains a visual oddity for then as well as now. However, its thought- control message, though crudely put, may be more relevant in our digitalized age than it was then. At the same time, this is one of the few subjects that I think needs a bigger budget remake to do it justice. I haven't seen the latest remake from 1984, so I can't comment on its worth. All in all, this version maintains a grimly narrow, but thought-provoking focus.
(In passing—having seen the movie on first release, I seem to remember the "rat cage" sequence as being longer, more detailed with glowing eyes, and much scarier than my DVD version. But then that was well over 50-years ago.)
helpful•114
- dougdoepke
- Dec 27, 2013
- How long is 1984?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Neunzehnhundertvierundachtzig
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 30 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content