A Revolução dos Bichos

The ending in Animal Farm was not only a travesty to Orwell's original work, but made no logical sense. Certain animals supposedly had the sense and wherewithal to go into hiding on the farm until Napoleon's reign came crashing. Where did they hide? How did they survive? Most of all, why weren't they hunted down as traitors by Napoleon's dogs?

But the real incongruity comes after Napoleon's fall. "The walls have now fallen," (a post-Reaganistic interpretation of the Berlin Wall) and now there is hope in the future. "There are new owners. We will not allow them to make the same mistakes."

What new power and insights do the animals now have to prevent the same mistakes? And just who are these new owners, anyway? Why do the animals (who have proven themselves capable of running a farm, if they are not mismanaged) have to revert to human owners to be their masters again? And why are we to believe these new human owners are better than Jones or Pilkington? Is it because they look more "American," drive a sleeker, newer car, and play rock-n-roll?

Orwell wrote this classic tale as an allegory of modern totalitarianism in general, and Stalinism in particular. TNT's production reeks of a post-modern, imperialistic, corporate-American view of Russia and Eastern Europe today, whose troubles would be over if they would just fully embrace their new owners, American multi-national corporations, with their hip technology and rock-n-roll culture.

I was disappointed to find that this version of Animal Farm completely fails to convey the fundamental message of Animal Farm.

George Orwell's novel is about the deception, the cruelty, and the hypocrisy of the pigs' control of the farm. The reason it is such a good book is that it shows the reader how the situations slides from a seemingly democratic revolution to a bloody tyranny.

The 1954 animation of Animal Farm portrays this excellently; the scene where Boxer is carried away is often mentioned as being absolutely heart-wrenching. However, in the new edition, I remember trying to feel the same abhorrent turmoil but finding that it just wasn't there.

The story seems to be told as if it were from a children's adventure book. It most certainly is not. Admirable filming with real animals counts for nothing when the whole reason for being of the story is not expressed.

If you want to experience the sheer force of the story of Animal Farm, watch the old version.

George Orwell's book Animal Farm had a dark, bleak atmosphere, but it still left room for some sly comedy and satire on Communism, as well as an absorbing, interesting story. The new film version doesn't really have these redeeming qualities. I'll admit those films that show the geese singing the praise of Napoleon, the Stalin-esque leader of the pigs, are a hoot, but otherwise there isn't much dark comedy. It also isn't particularly bleak; the music was really what ruined the atmosphere. Yes, I know people want everything to be more upbeat, but it just doesn't work with this kind of story. The film itself merely skims the surface of the story, floats through it really, and never goes below the surface to explore the deeper meanings. Everything just floats along, and you don't really get to know anyone, hear their stories or get much sense of what their motives are.

The filmakers also really did not need to cut back and forth between Old Major's speech and scenes of the human farmer asking his neighbor for money, not getting it, and finding comfort under the sheets in the arms of the wife of the very same neighbor. There's no point to it (It wasn't even in the book!), and it downplays the impact of what Major's saying drastically.

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is downplayed, and it ruins the whole thing. You're much better off reading the book, believe me.

I would have liked to have seen this version of George Orwell's classic, Animal Farm, to be animated rather than a live action film. I am not saying that the film is not worthy but I liked the older one with animation. I think anything with animals would be better off animated in the first place. They have a first rate cast including Kelsey Grammar, Julie Ormond, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Peter Postlethwaite as Mr. Jones in a noteworthy performance. I can see why Spielberg claims that Postlethwaite is one of his favorite actors or one of the best under-rated actors around. The film is satisfactory and updated enough for today's audiences.

I really do wish people would get that into their heads. Just because it's about barnyard animals with no sex or adult language, doesn't mean that's necessarily for kids. It's, as many people well know, a metaphor for the atrocities of the Soviet Union under Stalin. It's bleak, nasty and upsetting, but it speaks the truth on the hypocrisy of leaderships, corruption and fascism.

And yet they decide to portray the story as though it's a children's film, with live action talking animals, with a special lighting to make it look child-like and family friendly. No! This is not what George Orwell's tale is about. The book is extremely depressing, but in this film, and especially the ending, they made it look like the things that happened were no big deal.

It's true that in real life, Stalin's regime collapsed on itself, "a victim of its own malice" in the end, but it would have been better if it wasn't depicted in the movie. Jesse, the sheepdog, serves as a narrator, and seems to predict and see through the evils of Napoleon, and yet does nothing about it. All the animals in the book apart from the pigs could not see what was going on due their myopia and little intelligence. And the violence was also very subdued.

If another adaptation should be done, it should be more gritty and truer to the novel, and to get the point the Orwell was intending point out.