O Senhor das Moscas

I read the book when I was a kid, and I found it to be very disturbing. I didn't really care to think why.

Watching this movie as a grown up (especially as a grown up trying to think about anything BUT work) made me ponder several things about human behavior. For instance, what makes one person lead and another follow? Why is there almost always just 2 prominent sides to a situation, even though there are people involved whose opinions may be of varying shades of gray? Isn't it strange that once you commit an act of taboo, that it just makes it so much easier to do the next time? Why is an act that is morally reprehensible to perform individually, become so much easier when it is done in group? Where does one's individualism go when "mob rule" prevails ? I think the movie did a good job of bringing out the "beast", but it didn't surpass my initial impression from reading the book. The acting was commendable, given the age and experience of the actors, and the classic novel they were trying to portray. Ralph was just superb, trying to lead with "reason", but watching his leadership ebb to a much more terrifying alter ego. The relentlessness and inevitability of his fate was captured in all its horror when he is told "They're going to hurt you, Ralph".

Its hard to write a review about just the movie, when the story itself (as told in the book) is what makes the biggest impression. The movie is rich in metaphors - innocence lost, war, society in general, right and wrong, etc. In closing, I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for fear, but not of the sensational variety that 'horror movies' are generally associated with. Its a black and white movie, made in the 60's, and stars a bunch of scrawny kids. The fear is what you have to not watch - but live.

Director Peter Brook delivered a very powerful and artfully done film based upon the classic book by William Golding. To those who have commented here about the differences between the book and this film: these are two very different mediums. Brook did not attempt a straight adaptation, he presented Golding's story through his own vision and emotional lens.

The use of non-professional children is one of the things that make this a brilliant film, and vastly superior to the obnoxious 1990's version. If you pay attention to the opening minutes of Brook's film, you will notice that the world presented is nice, normal, clean, and functional. The boys deliver their lines well and the story flows smoothly. Once the boys are on the island, the scenes aren't nearly so smooth in transition, the speech becomes very awkward and the boys interaction with each other is stilted and unnatural.

That is the point! These children know the direction they are going is wrong, to a boy they know this. Yet as individuals they are helpless to stand up to the group. Their awkwardness flows from their fear of being cast out, while yearning to be rescued and return to their homes. The nightmarish quality of the situation is well reflected in the hesitant speech and graceless movements. The uneasy stringing together of scenes makes the viewer squirm, hopefully making the connection to how ill at ease and unnatural the boys themselves must feel.

I'm sure most of you have been around boys of this age at some point in your life. They are prone to being tongue-tied, have few social graces and lack physical co-ordination. That's what makes this film so utterly believable, the boys are real boys, not pimped-out Hollywood trick ponies, delivering their lines in perfect Shakespearean English, while nimbly doing complicated dance moves and mugging their perfect little faces square at the camera.

Golding's book is a masterpiece that can be taken on several levels. Brook's film offers no fewer interpretations of the deeper meaning while presenting a realistic and horrific vision of the basic story. I know most people simply will not get this film. That's too bad because it is a classic.

After reading Golding's classic novel, my class watched this adaption of "Lord Of The Flies" in our literature class. I found it to be quite good, and a hell of a lot better than the 1990 version, which alters all too many important moments and characteristics of the book. Reading over these comments, I was very confused. 1. The story and moral of "Lord Of The Flies" is so haunting and powerful that it does not need an overly dramatic score. The tune that Jack and his choir sing around the island is just the right touch. 2. Of course the acting wasn't as amazing as it could have been! Everyone seems to be forgetting just how young and inexperienced these boys were. Besides, the character's in Golding's story are just as young, and act their age (however violent and disturbing it may be). I found the camera work to be quite lovely. The film uses beautiful shots, which only enhance it even more. The final scene is one of my favorites. My only bone to pick is how quickly the film goes through the events in the book. I really do wish it would have slowed down a bit, and concentrated more on such characters as Simon, as well as the boys transformation into savages. Overall I found this adaption of "Lord Of The Flies" to be fantastic. My advice to future viewers of this film is to read the book first, definitely watch this 1963 version afterwards,and completely avoid the 1990 version all together.

"Lord of the Flies", a piece of literature written by William Golding and originally published in 1954, is still a very famous novel, and is often studied in schools (many can say that's where they became familiar with it). Nearly a decade later, the first movie adaptation of the book saw the light of day. Adaptations of novels can be excellent, while others may generally be disappointing. This 1963 adaptation of William Golding's famous novel turned out to be sort of a mixed blessing.

A large group of English schoolboys find themselves stranded after a plane crash, without any surviving adults. Shortly after the crash, two of them meet for the first time. One of them is Ralph, and the other's real name remains unknown. The other boy tells Ralph about his undesired nickname, Piggy, and unfortunately, that is what he is called from then on. Ralph and Piggy don't see any other boys around, so Ralph uses a shell (or a conch) to call them. With all the boys gathered, Ralph is elected as the leader for the time they are stranded, and it is soon discovered that they are on an island. Ralph tries his best to keep the rest of the boys civilized, and tells them that a smoke signal must be kept going in order for them to be rescued. However, a rivalry soon begins between Ralph and the power-hungry Jack, and many boys end up on Jack's side, creating a group of savages!

The first thing you may be wondering about this movie is how faithful to the novel it is. Quite a bit of detail from the story was removed for this movie (which often happens with adaptations of novels), so if you've read the book, remembering some parts that you found really interesting, and you'd like to see how they're done in this movie, you may be disappointed to see that some of them are not included. However, apart from that, I would say the movie tells the original story very well, but it definitely has some other problems. The cinematography is pretty amateurish, and the cast is, well, not terrible, but not great. Personally, I found some of the movie dull, so I had trouble getting into it at times, but also found certain parts interesting or somewhat moving (though not as much so as I was expecting).

This "Lord of the Flies" adaptation definitely hasn't impressed every admirer of the book, which I can understand. I was a tad disappointed myself (certainly not as much as some people, but still a tad disappointed). However, many other admirers of William Golding's piece of literature like this movie. For fans of the book who haven't seen this movie, if you want an adaptation that is faithful to the book (despite the unsurprising fact that the story is shortened), and you can get over the shortcomings I've mentioned, I recommend this movie. You just might not want to expect a work of genius.

What kid did not fantasize, at one time or another, being left alone, completely unsupervised, for a long, long, LONG period of time? To be allowed to say or do whatever he pleased, whenever he pleased. To eat anything he wanted, to go to bed late, to not go to school, to act or behave as he pleased without reproach. To be his own adult. Usually those kind of thoughts permeated our little minds right after a heavy-duty punishment. In 1990's "Home Alone," we saw a broad, comical take on this fantasy. With 1963's "Lord of the Flies," we get to experience the flip side.

"Lord of the Flies" was required reading in junior high school. William Golding's dark, sobering allegory, set during wartime London, tells the story of a large group of young schoolboys airlifted out of England who are left to their own devices after a plane crash leaves them marooned on an uninhabited isle with no surviving adults. As the boys struggle to adapt to their crude but strangely exotic "Robinson Crusoe" existence, the troop begins to splinter into two opposing sects after failing to come to terms on an autonomous code of ethics. Most of the boys decide to revel in their unsupervised freedom, reverting to primitive, animal-like behavior while resorting to barbaric acts and ritualistic practices. A conch shell becomes the embodiment of power; a boar's head a symbol of lordly conquest. On the other side, a minority group try to repel the tempting force of evil by forming a more civilized commune. Eventually the "survival of the fittest" factor sets in as the anointed leader of the hostile group incites violence to force an autocracy.

Golding's fascinating premise certainly does not hold much hope for the future of mankind. We are conditioned as a people to be civilized; it is an acquired trait, NOT an inherent trait – according to the author. And if and when the shackles of goodness and purity are at any time removed to the extent that we are allowed to become our own social and moral dictator, we will invariably revert back to what comes naturally. And with a child, who has been less-conditioned, it will take little time at all. Evil is stronger, easier, and much more seductive. When playing "good guys and bad guys" as a kid, which did YOU prefer to be?

Boasting a surprisingly natural cast of amateur actors and directed by radical stage director Peter Brook ("Marat/Sade"), this lowbudget British effort impressively captures much of the novel's back-to-nature symbolism that I found so powerful and fascinating. The young masters representing good and evil, James Aubrey ("Ralph") and Tom Chapin ("Jack"), effectively portray the resolute leaders of the two disparate tribes, while butterball Hugh Edwards as the bespectacled, philosophical "Piggy" and towheaded Tom Gaman as the quietly sensitive "Simon" are touching as two of the weaker followers who become likely targets of the surrounding chaos and burgeoning brutality. What I love most about this cast is that they act like little boys, not little actors, grounding their often awkward actions and behaviors in reality. Trivia note: one of the secondary boy players is none other than Nicholas Hammond, who went on to play young Friedrich in the film classic "The Sound of Music" two years later.

Brook's use of grainy black-and-white photography, plus the lack of any comprehensive musical score (remember Tom Hanks' "Castaway"?), accentuates the bleakness of its surroundings and feelings of isolation. The movie can hardly be expected to capture fully every single intention of this highly complex novel (most don't), but it does respect Golding's words and captures the very essence of what he wanted to say. For that alone it should be applauded.

By the way, don't waste your time on the 1990 color remake featuring "professionals" like Balthazar Getty. The poetic beauty is all but dissipated in this haphazard, jarringly Americanized update. It makes me worship Peter Brook's version even more.

And what story could BE more disturbing yet topical than "The Lord of the Flies" as it applies to today's "latch-key" society?