by Sam Juliano
There are some high school novels that have maintained their popularity for decades. William Golding’s Lord of the Flies rivals Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird and J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye as a perennial favorite of teachers who regarded it as a perfect devise to project theme in a literature class. The schoolboy cast of characters, the appeal of an uninhabited island, and the story arc that features anarchy and violence immediately pulls in most male readers, though educators will usually want to employ a female oriented title like The Diary of Anne Frank to maintain a gender status quo. The book’s allegory is broad and accessible, and invites a bevy of interpretations, though it certainly is easy enough to frame the work as a parable about the thin pretense between civilization and barbarism. Golding’s prologue asserts that a planeload of boys are evacuated from a public school, but it is subsequently shot down over the Pacific Ocean. Certainly it is stretch to believe that the boys survive such a calamity, washing up on the shore of the island, but there are far worse ways Golding could have concocted to get his schoolboys in the place where the entire story plays out.
Much like Larry Pearce, who opted for non-professionals young actors for his adaptation of John Knowles’ A Separate Peace (another high school book list favorite) the director of the 1963 black and white film version, Peter Brook, went with kids with no prior acting experience. The film was shot in exotic locales on the islands of Puerto Rico and Jamaica, and is in large measure faithful to Golding’s novel. Brook adds the proposition that the threat of nuclear war caused the evacuation, but one would be hard-pressed to find any instances where he altered the narrative. Brook understands that it is a major challenge to transfer literary allegory to the screen, and the complexity of the words the boys speak broadens and enriches this frightening tale of societal disintegration played out without a single adult to serve as a potential guiding force. It is a tall order to properly transcribe the deeper context to a full level of understanding, though it is doubtful that many who come to the film are Lord of the Flies neophytes, or don’t at least know a degree of its thematic underpinnings. The dramatization of the conflict between the civilizing and barbarizing instincts that are part of the essence of all human beings is one that has been examined in literature and film, but perhaps never as vividly posed. one one side according to the author, we have morality, law, culture and civility, on the other anarchy, blood lust, the thirst for power, amorality and narcissism. the latter qualities lead to the violence that dominates the latter half of the novel and film.
The film opens with a group of school boys washing up upon the shore of an island. One boy named Ralph finds a conch shell on the beach and uses it to call the others together. They set up a chain of leadership and vote Ralph as their leader. He sets up some basic rules that they are to follow until they are rescued. One is to order the maintenance of a burning bonfire to signal passing ships and planes. After a while this working arrangement is threatened by the charismatic Jack, who orchestrates a hunting expedition with his own group of boys to find food. Jack soon inspires the kids to thrill over the hunting of pigs and conducted feasts, at which point the bonfire is fully abandoned. The society divides into two groups. The hunters fear a beast that some of the boys believe is lurking on the island. Jack whips his charges into a frenzy and convinces them that the Beast is really Ralph and his group. The other boys hunt them and smear their faces with pig’s blood, armed with spears. Ralph’s closest friend the obese, bespeckled “Piggy” is killed after some of Jack’s boys push a boulder off a cliff onto the boy’s head. Ralph then becomes the sole fugitive and he hides in the jungle. Jack and his hunters set fires to smoke him out. Ralph staggers across the island. Stumbling onto the beach, Ralph sinks to the feet of a naval officer who stares in horror at the painted and spear-carrying savages that the children have become, before turning to the landing party. A small boy tries to tell the officer his name but is confused and can’t remember it. The final scene shows Ralph sobbing as flames spread across the island.
There are several ironies connected to the matter of savagery being exhibited by what many perceive as the most civilized and orderly of all institutions – the British schoolboy. Earlier on in the film Jack declares “After all we are not savages. We are English- and the English are best at everything, Jack of course turns out to be the most demonic of any character in the story, as he orchestrates the hunt to find and kill Ralph after regaling his followers with the stories of the beast on the island. His aim isn’t to cultivate but rather to dictate with an iron hand, making his devilish actions anything but tame and civilized. Initially the boys dabble in democratic principles, conduct votes, and sustain a measure of British rationalism. This philosophy is directly embodied in Piggy, an intellectual who tries to maintain a sense of proportion and dignity in the proceedings. The locale too is supremely ironic in that it is exotic and almost otherworldy, the opposite of a place one would envision as a bastion of structured behavior. Golding’s story makes it clear that without adults there will be an inevitable breakdown. No matter how bright or attuned to the ways of adults some kids are, they don’t possess the ‘life’s experience’ element to overcome a potent strain of immaturity and impulsiveness. Jack’s metamorphosis personifies the descent into anarchy that effectively erases the last vestige of civility. He expertly uses the beast to manipulate the other boys by establishing the beast as his tribe’s common enemy, common idol, and common system of beliefs all in one. He uses the boys’ fear of the beast as a kind of idol in order to fuel the boys’ bloodlust and establish a cult like view toward the hunt. the boys’ belief in the monster gives Lord of the Flies certain religious undertones, for the boys’ nightmares about monsters eventually take the form of a single monster that they all believe in and fear. By leaving the sow’s head in the forest as an offering to the beast, Jack’s tribe solidifies its collective belief in the reality of the nightmare. The skull becomes a kind of religious totem with extraordinary psychological power, driving the boys to abandon their desire for civilization and order and to give in to their violent and savage impulses.
As a contrast to Jack, Ralph and Simon are motivated toward goodness throughout Lord of the Flies. Both boys work to establish and maintain order and harmony with the rest of the group, and are kind and protective in their interactions with the “littluns” (the younger boys in the group). However as the film moves forward we get the sense that Ralph’s and Simon’s motivations for doing good stem from different sources. Ralph behaves and acts according to moral guidelines, but this behavior and these guidelines seem learned rather than innate. To be sure Ralph appears to have darker instinctual urges beneath: like the other boys he gets swept up by bloodlust during the hunt and the ensuing dance. Conversely, Simon displays a goodness and kindness that are not forced on him by civilization, but rather in tune or flowing from his connection with nature. Simon is kind and thoughtful, even while following the moral regulations of civilization. Although Ralph does prove an effective leader, it is Simon who recognizes the truth that stands at the core of the film (and novel) – that the beast does not exist in tangible form on the island but rather as an impulse toward evil within each individual.
Like a stacked deck Lord of the Flies is filled with symbols and motifs, The film honors their literary significance, and Brook gives them cinematic priority. The conch shell -the symbol of order and democratic power; Piggy’s glasses which represent the power of science and intellectual endeavor; the signal fire, which represents both the boys’ tangible connection to civilization and their hope for rediscover; the Beast -the surreal manifestation of the evil within, which of course is a psychological implication, and the “Lord of the Flies” – the bloodied, severed sow’s head that Jack impales on a stake in the forest glade as an offering to the beast. This is the film’s most complicated symbol – a physical manifestation of the beast, a symbol of the power of evil and a Satanic figure who evokes the beast within each human being. The “Lord of the Flies” title is actually a literal translation of the biblical name Beelzebub, a powerful demon in hell sometimes thought to be the devil himself. Christian motifs in the work, purportedly unintended by Golding ran throughout, making documentation a herculean task in a modest review such as this.
The age old question of how a director is to approach a work of literature is most prevalent in this particular instance. The key word is fidelity, though Brook uses all the devises of the cinema to create a film that is at stark and as searing as it bleak and uncompromising. The opening montage is striking, as are several of the most renowned set pieces, like the gruesome murder of Piggy at the foot of a cliff, the hunt and dance, the decapitation of the sow, and the placing of its head on a sharpened stake as a sacrifice to the “beast” and the unforgettable finale when Ralph awakens on the beach to gaze on the British naval officer standing over him. Brook’s manner is to create what nearly looks like a documentary, yet evinces potent naturalism. The director’s command of his long shots and close-ups offer up undisguised accentuation of the film’s themes, and the black and white by Gerard Feil and Tom Hollyman accomplishes unadulterated clarity for a story that doesn’t need tonal interference. The actors are astonishingly good, especially James Aubrey as Ralph, Tom Chapin as Jack, Hugh Edwards as Piggy and Tom Gaman as Simon, though one would expect as much with their center stage roles. Raymond Leppard’s score has long been unappreciated – it is rife with atmospheric sounds and coloring that is fully in tune with the film’s themes.
Though another film based on Golding’s novel was made in the 1990’s by Harry Hook -and that film isn’t as bad as some critics have contended- Brook’s work is definitive, and one of the best example’s of how a novel can be “visualized” on the screen. Though there are ample instances of the asy passage, much of the film’s power is psychological, and the successful navigation of that element is no small achievement. I’d dare say that the 1963 version of Lord of the Flies is one of the finest films of its kind in the cinema, and a godsend for high school English teachers and discerning cinephiles.
Stupendous review Sam! Wow. I agree that the director strove to maintain the literary quality of the work, but he left the box still on a number of occasions. One of my favorite high school novels. and a film that completely did it justice.
Thanks so much Frank! The director did indeed strive to maintain that literary quality indeed, and yes he brought some imagination to the table as well!
Sam, I knew this particular film would incite you to a review of this caliber. No doubt you have taught this book during your Jr. High School days. I always admired Brook’s film, and am in possession of the Criterion blu ray. As you note it is never easy to adapt a work of such psychological properties. The film encapsulates the tension and deterioration of law and order superbly. The non-professionals make it all so much more authentic. I personally didn’t care so much for that re-make you mention.
Peter, many thanks for the exceedingly kind words and stellar insights! I just stated to a new commentator here that I did teach the book on several occasions in the late 80’s and early 90’s. I did also use this film at the end of the unit. Great to hear you are a long time fan of both book and film, and yes that Criterion blu ray is a real treat. Your other points about law and order and the amateur acting are dead-on!
I always thought that many read too much into the novel, a fact Golding himself admitted.
Oddly it isn’t the most entertaining book to read but the film effectively condenses the more heady passages. The later film is a joke. Thanks for this exceptional review.
Welcome to Wonders in the Dark Sheila, and thank you for the kind words! Having taught this book several times in my Jr. High School and high school years, I do see where you are coming from. It can be seen as dry and didactic at times. As to the 90’s film I know many have no use for it.
Lord of the Flies is a rich allegorical film that provides students with a great visualization of the myriad themes and idea in the novel. I can attest to its popularity as a career librarian, though I detect over the last five or six years it has lost a little. But I recognize it swings back and forth. This film is better than the one from the 90’s. But I am not a hater, and feel it works well, despite the liberal alterations. The 63 film is very creative and is quite powerful.
Sam, your review is comprehensive and brilliant.
Brilliant comment here Celeste! Can’t thank you enough! Yes, your position would indeed shed some added light to the book’s reception. Interesting that you feel it has lost a little steam, but I do agree that these perceptions swing back and forth. Great to hear you are a big fan of the film and oh so many thanks for the kind words!
A very fine review, although my own take on the movie is — but of course! — a bit different.
In the first place I think it belongs to a group of movies, along with Whistle Down the Wind, Celia and a few others, even E.T., that are concerned with the power of childhood mythopoeia. In Lord of the Flies the kids are physically separated from adult influence; in most of the other examples the separation is more of a psychological one, the kids living in the same world as the adults, yes, but also within their own bubble universe. I find such movies intellectually very exciting, because spontaneous mythopoeia is such a fascinating topic. (Deliberate mythopoeia, as in fiction writing, is I’d contend of interest too.)
Second, in my own mind the religious implications are far more foregrounded. Once the new religion of the Lord of the Flies has been established, Jack, not believing in it himself but knowing that his followers do, cynically uses their belief as a means to persuade them to persecute the “other” — which is to say, Ralph and Piggy. His purpose in so doing is of course the sordid one of further establishing his own power. We can see plenty of examples of this not just in the histories of the major religions but in the way they’re often used as a means of manipulating people today, whether it be the likes of Osama bin Laden using religious belief to persuade simpletons to be suicide bombers or equally cynical extreme rightwing conservatives in this country convincing the ignorant that, despite what it says in the Gospels, it’s their Christian duty to vote for hatred.
In the context of this allegory, it’s no accident at all that Piggy symbolizes the intellectual. The intellectuals have been, throughout history, frequent targets of those who choose to use manipulation of the religious impulses of their followers as a way of stamping their own power.
I do think that the movie is a very good screen adaptation of the novel and I do love the novel very greatly. At the same time, I’m not 100% convinced the movie is top-drawer as a movie.
the matter of savagery being exhibited by what many perceive as the most civilized and orderly of all institutions – the British schoolboy
I had to laugh here. I’m a product of the British public (i.e., private boarding) school system and, lemme tell you, they are — or, at least, were in my day — absolute cesspits of barbarism.
John, this is of course a Hall of Fame comment, and one of the longest and most extraordinary you have ever posted at this site. Obviously -and you corroborated this during the course of your discussion- you go a long way back with this book and film, and it has long intrigued you.
Your “mythopoeia” defense is superbly argued. I am not so sure I am on board with that framing or interpretation, but it matters little – the bottom line is that it is a compelling piece of scholarship. I don’t think Golding wrote it in that vein not would have necessarily welcomed that categorization, but heck, there were and are so many interpretations of this book that anything argued so well will attract followers. I have always bought it as an allegory about good and evil, and how civilized people under adverse circumstances could descend into savagery. I do think the theme is clear and has been interpreted as such by academics and students over decades.
Yes I know that Brits like most other races are “barbarians” as you contend in your closing line, and that does make the point I made in conjunction with the accepted framing somewhat ironic. But Golding was not trying to make an accurate statement about his nation’s schoolboys being privileged and beyond anarchy, rather he was reacting to the general views of the outside world based on conceived notions of civility associated with Britain’s culture. If we go back hundreds of years their savagery parallels any other of course
Is the film a cinematic masterpiece? Absolutely not, and if I implied otherwise I stated it wrongly. It is not to be confused with the work of Bergman, Bresson, Renoir, De Sica, Ozu, Chaplin, Welles, Reed, Lean or others. It is not of the very first rank. But it is of the first rank of films within the realm of this genre, and that of novel-to-film adaptation as I explained in the review.
Again many thanks for committed so much time and effort into such a response my friend, and thanks for the mighty nice words!
Sorry, Sam: I must have written unclearly. As to whether Golding was commenting on childhood mythopoeia is outwith my competence to discuss, or at least to insist upon: I was saying that the 1963 movie Lord of the Flies was one of an interesting group of movies that focus on the issue. I talked about this topic in a little more depth when I was working on The Encyclopedia of Fantasy where myth-creation is, obviously, a more central concern.
John, thanks for that clarification, which does indeed make a lot of sense when broaching its inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy.
It’s a great book and a solid film. I do like the book better, however it’s hard to imagine a film version being pulled off better than this. The stark black/white imagery was a good choice for this film. It gives it a more contemplative nature and reflective tone. I always find the ending of the film to be the most impactful. With ‘civilization’ returning to the boys as a severe dichotomy of what has been going on. Just a stunning juxtaposition and never fails to be impactful. Great job Sam.
Another great comment from you Jon, which is deeply appreciated here! Yes the book is an all-time literary classic, so true that no film could really replicate that. Saying it is “solid” is certainly fair enough, methinks, and what you say about the use of the stark monochrome is superlative! And true the ending was striking! So well said here my friend. Thank you!