Posts Tagged George Orwell

Exploring the 1954 BBC Adaptation of 1984: A Classic Review

1954 BBC television production reviewed by Anthony C Green

Cover of the 1954 BBC television adaptation of 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' featuring key characters and cast names in a vintage graphic design.
Click on image to view or buy

Introduction

A repeat showing of this production in 1977 was almost certainly my first exposure, as a largely apolitical fifteen-year-old, to Orwell’s masterpiece. I watched it with my friend Neil (RIP). I can’t vouch for how much of it we understood, and it would be another three or four years before I first tackled the book.

Though I might not have initially ‘got’ the world of 1984 and its political message during my initial viewing of the recording of this live television production, in murky, spotty, unrestored black and white. But it must have had an impact, because every time I’ve read the book since, perhaps on four occasions all the way through, I’ve pictured Winston Smith as Peter Cushing, who played the lead in the play.

Even the great John Hurt, who did a fine job with the role in the film version that was released, somewhat inevitably in the real 1984, didn’t succeed in separating the two in my mind.

As well as Orwell’s iconic novel itself, this production and the 1984 film, I’ve also read and reviewed  the book Julia by Sandra Newman, a retelling of the story from the point of view of Winston Smith’s eponymous lover rather than that of Winston Review: Julia By Sandra Newman, and   an excellent theatrical production by the Bath Playhouse theatre company here in Liverpool last year, which I also reviewed 1984 Play Review: A Dystopian Masterpiece | Counter Culture

So, I can now justifiably claim a decent grounding in the world and mythos of the story, and having picked up the DVD/Blu Ray physical media combo restoration of this first attempt to bring Orwell’s nightmare vision to life visually for the British public, I thought it would be interesting to take a second look, almost five decades after my first, and more than seven decades since it first aired.

1984 Pre 1954

We should perhaps first remind ourselves that this wasn’t an adaptation of some dusty old classic of English literature. The production took place a mere five years after the novel was first published, and only four after the death of Orwell.

The first radio adaptation of the book was broadcast on American radio in 1949, while the author was still around. I don’t know if he ever got to hear it.

The idea of a television adaptation had been knocking around the BBC before even that. They had been quick to obtain the rights to dramatise the novel from Orwell that year, when it quickly became clear that the book was an instant classic.

As it turned out, the Americans once again got there first with a CBS production in 1953.

A limited amount of the footage from the recording of this has survived. Still, the consensus is that it wasn’t great, and with only fifty minutes of runtime, excluding the advertisements of which we were blessedly free in the UK in those far-off pre-commercial TV days, it’s hard to see how it could have been.

The  BBC production, was always going to be a big deal, what today we would call ‘event TV’, ultimately broadcast less than a year-and-a-half after what was almost inarguably the world’s first ever TV event, the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth 11, for which many British families specifically bought their first television set, with many others crowding the living rooms of the only families in their street who had.

A script had been commissioned in late 1953, written by one Hugh Faulks in consultation with Orwell’s widow Sonia, with the hope of airing in April 1954.

However, when Rudolph Cartier was hired as Director/Producer, he rejected Faulk’s script, pushing back the broadcast by eight months.

Cartier was a German Jew who was already a well-established and successful film director when he fled the Nazi regime for Britain in 1936.

It was his work on the Quatermass Experiment in 1953 that secured him the 1984 job. This had served as the British public’s first introduction to television Science Fiction/Horror, and it had been a massive success.

The character of Professor Quatermass had been the creation of Nigel Kneale, who also wrote the script for the six-part series. He and Cartier had next worked together on an adaptation of Wuthering Heights, and Cartier, a man with a reputation for getting his own way, had made it a precondition for accepting the 1984 job that Kneale write the script.

It’s primarily to these two individuals, to their skill, courage and persistence, who we owe a debt of gratitude for the play being as good as it turned out to be.

The Cast

With the BBC having agreed to his demand to have Kneale on board, Cartier assembled a great team of actors, almost all of whom had experience in both film and theatre work, as well as the new-fangled medium of television, which was crucial given the potential pitfalls of attempting to bring such a dark and complex novel to life on the small screen under the technical and financial limitations of the day.

Peter Cushing was still three years away from The Curse of Frankenstein, the film that made him a household name and would forever associate him in the minds of the viewing public with the Horror genre, as well as launching Hammer Film Studios as the home of great British horror.

But even in 1954, though not quite yet a ‘star’, he would already have been a familiar face to cinema goers and the smaller numbers of television viewers.

Yvonne Mitchell was given the role of Julia. She’d played Cathy in the recent Cartier/Kneale Wuthering Heights, a role for which she’d received criticism for being too tall, and that this had detracted from the essential manliness of a Heathcliffe played by the relatively diminutive Richard Todd.

 There are relatively few speaking roles in the adaptation, and the minimum number of Extras they could get away with while remaining credible. But there are still several faces and names who are still familiar to viewers of a certain generation to this day, including the great Donald Pleasance as Syme, Andre Morell as O’Brien, and Wilfred Bramble who appears first as ‘Old Man’ early in the play, a decade before he became the Dirty Old Man in Steptoe and Son (and the ‘very clean’ old man in the Beatles A Hard Day’s Night), before reappearing towards the end as ‘Thin Prisoner’ following Winston and Julia’s incarnation.

All involved, cast and crew, played their part in creating a dark, sinister tone that was fully in keeping with the spirit of Orwell’s novel.

The Broadcast

The play was first broadcast on December 12th 1954. As was the norm, the bulk of the production was performed live by the actors, though with some pre-filmed insets. As I mentioned, this was a lavish production by the standards of the time. For one thing, it had a whopping one hour, fifty minutes running time (more than double that of the CBS production), including a five-minute interval, allowing viewers the chance to use the toilet, which in many cases would have involved braving the cold of a British winter in their backyard, or to make a nice cup of tea, the actors an opportunity to catch their breath and perhaps have a quick ciggy, and the crew time to, in the words of Cartier, ‘move the furniture around.’

Although the actors would also have had short breaks during the insets, almost two hours is still a long time for actors to perform with no possibility of a retake, and it took meticulous planning by Cartier and crew to make the whole thing work.

When Mark Gattis produced a live recreation of the Quatermass Experiment on BBC Four in 2005, starring himself and David Tennant, they under-ran by a full twenty minutes, which is an indication of how difficult working in the television medium would have been five decades earlier, when live productions were, by necessity, the norm.

1984 ran to time almost to the second, and, as far as I can tell, nobody once fluffed a line or missed their mark.

The scale of the production is also indicated by the BBC’s agreement to the use of an original musical score, written by John Hotchkis, for which he conducted a 17-piece orchestra in an adjacent studio as the play went out, instead of the customary pre-recorded, canned incidental music.

The composition does its job of enhancing the bleak, sinister nature of the work, and the knowledge that it was being played live by real musicians as the production was being beamed into people’s homes via aerials mounted on chimney pots also adds to our appreciation of how ambitious this project was for the time.

We don’t have precise figures for the cost, but it’s believed the budget rose from an original allocation of around £2000 to an eventual figure closer to £3000.

Credit is due to the BBC  for giving Kneale and Cartier the freedom and the money to do it their way.

The pre-filmed insets include a recreation of Winston visiting the ‘Prole’ sector, where he discovers the antique shop and its owner, which ultimately leads to his downfall. That these were shot on London streets still recovering from the damage inflicted by the Luftwaffe only a decade or so earlier, and the period black and white realist style of the production, plays a big part in establishing an atmosphere in keeping with the book to a degree that has still never been equalled.

It’s also worth noting that wartime rationing had only come to an end in Britain the year before. Viewers would therefore have had direct and recent, and in some cases ongoing, if less severe, experience of the shortages and lack of choice depicted, which can only have added to the play’s powerful impression.

The premise that the nature of the society with which the story is concerned had its origins in the aftermath of a nuclear war would have also been resonant in these early days of the Cold War, only nine years after the atomic bomb was unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was also, of course, only a year or so since the death of Stalin, upon whom Big Brother was clearly modelled.

The familiar picture of Big Brother (actually a member of the design crew who happened to have the right moustache) continues to stare out from the screen during the Interval, which is included in the physical media version.

This was a clever artistic choice by Cartier that still holds power today, perhaps even more so now than then. Even back in 1954, there were dark rumours that the televisions rapidly becoming commonplace in people’s homes were not simply transmitters but also receivers with the ability to ‘watch the watchers.’

Perhaps, that’s not quite so far-fetched now, in the era of ‘Smart’ TVs.

Big Brother is watching you?

The play was initially shown in the Sunday Night Theatre slot usually reserved for classic adaptations like Wuthering Heights, or genteel so-called ‘Comedies of Manners,’ sometimes broadcast directly from actual theatrical performances.

That 1984 was shown in this slot led to controversy, as we will come to shortly.

As was customary, the cast and crew reconvened for a repeat performance four days later. The reasoning behind this was that the second performance would generally be better than the first, because all concerned would have had the opportunity to learn from mistakes and iron out any logistical problems with the initial production.

Cushing always insisted that the Sunday night version was better, that a certain amount of spontaneity and energy was lost the second time around.

We’ll never be able to assess the validity of this because, as was also customary, only the second performance was recorded for posterity.

Given the common practice at the BBC of reusing tapes for other shows, a practice that continued into the 1970s (and of which Johnny-Come-Lately ITV was also guilty), we are fortunate that this recording survived to be enjoyed by viewers today.

Controversy and Mythology

This controversy arose in the four-day gap between the two performances.

It was real enough, but it has been rather exaggerated over the years, largely through later interviews with both Cartier and Kneale, especially the latter, who became skilled in the art of enhancing reality through the judicious use of embellishment.

The mythologised version of what happened is that the first showing was immediately followed by an outcry in the press at such horrors being inflicted on the viewing public, especially on a Sunday, and in the run-up to Christmas, with questions raised in parliament, and consideration given to cancelling the second performance completely.

The mood changed, so the story goes, when Prince Philip made an offhand comment at some function or other about how much he and his wife, our young and popular new Queen, had enjoyed the production.

The reality is that the critical reaction in the newspapers had been almost wholly positive. The exception was the Daily Worker, the paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain (forerunner of today’s Morning Star), which had long denounced Orwell as a Trotskyist and his works as anti-Soviet propaganda. Their cultural critic attacked the play as portraying a ‘Tory guttersnipe version of socialism.’

There were, however, and this is where the kernel of truth in the myth lies, plenty of letters to the press by outraged viewers, which were duly reported by the newspapers. Most of these did indeed cite the sanctity of Sundays as a day of religious observance, or at least of wholesome family relaxation, not a day for infesting their living rooms with dystopian visions of a nightmare future, especially in the run-up to Christmas.

A small number of MPs questioned whether such horror was in keeping with the ‘Educate, Entertain and Inform’ Reithian values on which the BBC had been founded. But the issue wasn’t formally debated in parliament.

The Daily Express, perhaps sensing an opportunity to capitalise on the response of some of its readers, ran with a sensationalist headline concerning a woman dying whilst watching the play. She had suffered a fatal heart attack while doing the ironing, but it seems unlikely there was any connection between this and what she happened to be watching on TV at the time.

Prince Philip’s remark concerning him and the Queen having watched and enjoyed the play seems to be true, but this had no great impact on how it was regarded.

Certainly, the BBC never seriously considered cancelling the second performance.

However, they did begin the second airing with a few minutes of what we would today call a ‘trigger-warning,’ in which the head of BBC drama, Michael Barry warned that some viewers may find some of what they were about to see disturbing, and concluded with hope that they would retain more hope for the future than was to found in the play. Thankfully, this has also been retained in the physical media release.

1984 After 1954

A film version, also with Donald Pleasence in the cast, but with no involvement from Kneale and Cartier, was released in 1956. That’s available on YouTube. It clearly owes much to its predecessor, but lacks its power and authenticity, and somewhat misses the point of the novel by implying a happy ending for Winston and Julia.

In 1965, the BBC attempted to repeat the 1954 experience with another theatrical TV production, not performed live, but using Kneale’s original script with a few changes.

This was part of a three-play series produced under the umbrella title of The World Of George Orwell. Sadly,1984 is the only adaptation that survives. You can also watch this free online, but again this doesn’t quite hit the mark, and is ruined, for me, early on by making the Goldstein character on the telescreen during the ‘Two-Minute Hate’ look and sound more like a comedic parody than a sinister, counter-revolutionary receptacle for the repressed frustrations of the Party rank and file.

In addition to the version that was released in 1984 itself, there’s also a joint Russian/Finnish film production made in 2023, which I’ve just become aware of, and will be renting on Amazon soon.

Conclusion

The 1954 production is a historical television landmark that, unlike so much vintage television, we are fortunate to have survived for us to view and enjoy today.

I still regard it as the definitive adaptation, with a great script, great acting, and an atmosphere fully in keeping with the original novel.

It is available to rent or buy on Amazon. But I highly recommend the relatively inexpensive DVD/Blu-ray set for its excellent Special Features, from which I gained most of my information for this article.

In whatever form you choose to watch it, watch it you should.

Anthony C Green, August 2025

PS This satire of the production from January 1955 is worth a listen. The popularity and importance of The Goons, and their influence on artists such as John Lennon and the Mony Python team, is hard to understand today. Their humour hasn’t dated well, but this works well as an entertaining and affectionate dig at the BBC itself, and it adds a little more to our knowledge and understanding of how the Cartier/Kneale play was regarded at the time.

Leave a Comment

1984 Play Review: A Dystopian Masterpiece

3,648 words, 19 minutes read time.

I’ve read Orwell’s classic novel 1984 three times, starting in my late teens or early twenties, and I’m now on my fourth. My first encounter with the story was a showing of the 1954 live television production with Peter Cushing in the lead role when it was repeated sometime in the mid-seventies. I was pleased to rediscover this on a nicely restored DVD last year, and I regard this version as the definite film adaptation of the book, far superior to the version starring Richard Burton and John Hurt which was released, predictably enough, in 1984. The 1950’s American ‘CIA’ adaptation which can be easily found for free online, is best forgotten, though worth a single watch for comedic purposes. I’ve also read and reviewed (link at the end) Sandra Newman’s 2023 novel Julia, a retelling of the story from the point of view of the main female character.

So, I’m well-versed in the events, themes and lore of Orwell’s perhaps definitive tale of dystopia. I regard it as a genuine masterpiece, one of the greatest works of the English literary canon and love how its meaning mutates and adds extra layers of depth with each new visit, as both I, the reader, and the world around me change.

But I’d never seen a theatrical production, so I approached this performance by the Bath Theatre Royal Players with anticipation and with little idea of what to expect. As is usual with my visits to both the theatre and the cinema, I avoided reading any reviews before I’d seen it for myself.

The first thing I noticed as I took my seat, well placed at the end of the third row from where the action would take place, was the huge telescreen mounted at the back of the stage, with cameras silently panning the audience, giving us an immediate sense of being under surveillance. This was suitably disconcerting, and I made sure I wasn’t visible on the screen as I sneaked a pre-performance pinch of snuff.

This screen has a big role in the production, becoming almost an extra cast member/character in its own right. Its functions include text information regarding changes in location, from the Ministry of Truth (‘Minitruth’) to Winston’s flat, to the canteen, to the Golden Country where Winston will begin his secret erotic liaisons with Julia, to the ‘safe-house’ where they will continue after their fateful ‘recruitment’ by the sinister O’Brien and, after the interval, to the Cell and the dreaded Room 101. The screen also blares out triumphant announcements by the Party, praising the achievements of Ingsoc, such as rises in munitions production for use in the war against Eastasia or Eurasia, whichever has currently been designated the enemy of Oceania, the latest victories of ‘our’ glorious troops or latest atrocities by those of the ever-shifting enemy. These announcements are accompanied by a still image of the benevolent, moustached, Stalin-like leader Big Brother himself, an image with which most of us are familiar. During the fabled ‘Two Minute Hate’, the image of Big Brother is replaced by that of Goldstein, the Trotsky of the story, the once revolutionary leader turned ultimate counter-revolutionary, responsible for, through his mysterious underground group The Brotherhood for all manner of acts of sabotage against the loyal people of Airstrip One and the heroic soldiers of Oceania.

We are gripped from the moment Winston Smith appears on a stage that is bare apart from the screen behind him and a bed and chair to his far left, seemingly breaking the Fourth Wall as the cast will do throughout the performance, addressing us directly as he goes about his daily work, reciting his latest amendments to the historical record, consigning events and people to the Memory Hole to fit with the current needs and thinking of Big Brother and the Inner-Party.

The process by which history is amended had been updated, the pen and paper of Orwell’s original digitalised. This makes sense, allowing us to see this process at work directly on the screen as individuals are ‘disappeared’ from history so that no tangible record of their former existence remains. It also forces us to reflect upon how modern technology has made it far easier for the truly totalitarian system Orwell envisaged to become a reality, and perhaps is becoming all too increasingly real. ‘1984’ as a point in time may be forty years in our past, but as a textbook for absolute control it doesn’t seem so far in our future, or even so distant from our present.

Soon he will be joined by his neighbour and ‘friend’, to the extent that friendship can exist in such a world, the cheerful but vulnerable Parsons, who expresses his pride in his seven-year-old daughter’s ability to identify and keenness to report ‘criminals’ to the secret police. Most of us will be all too aware that he himself will soon enough fall victim to this public-spirited ‘keenness’.

We next get to meet Julia for the first time. She is wearing the regulation Party boiler suit but with the red sash of the Anti-Sex-League tied around her waist. Those of us with a decent prior knowledge of the story, of course, knew that Julia would soon be revealed to be rather more pro-sex than was fitting for a member of such an organisation.

It wasn’t long before we met O’Brien. It was then that I realised O’Brien had always been with us, sitting silently on the chair by the bed in the near-darkness, a location to which he would return whenever he was not required front and centre. This was a clever decision, which powerfully underscored the theme of the omnipresence of the Secret/Thought Police.

Now, the full cast was in place, though there are also a handful of silent supporting characters who blare the role between performer and prop assistant, appearing as unnamed minor Party functionaries in the standard issue boiler suits whilst also quickly and efficiently moving the bed and chair from the side of the stage to the centre and back again, a move which assists the on-screen text in denoting changes in location.  

The first half, lasting precisely one hour and eight minutes, takes the story through Winston and Julia’s illicit assignations, their fateful meeting with O’Brien who sinisterly tells Winston that ‘We will meet again in the place where there is no darkness,’ the meaning of which will be well known to those familiar with the book, and which is made all too clear to even those who aren’t after the interval, and concludes with their arrest at the Safe House.

For me, the highlight of that first half, and the greatest use of faux-location change was Winston and Julia’s first sexual encounter in the Golden Country. The sudden appearance of vibrant colour, of sun, trees and sky on the screen, plus the sound of birds singing freely and the windy rustle of nature, attacked the senses wonderfully, marking a fabulous contrast, for the first and only time in the play, with the stark, grey drabness of life within the rooms of the Party. I will assign my credits at the end, but this is perhaps the best place to mention the valuable role that both set and video designer Justin Nardella and sound designer Giles Thomas, for what was a very loud play sonically, adding much to the unnerving feel of the whole.

The fifty-minute second half utilises just three locations, The Cell, the notorious Room 101, and the canteen for the short, sad, final meeting between Winston and Julia. It begins with Parsons alone on stage, blooded and almost broken, his despair briefly lessened as he is joined by the familiar face of Winston. Despite everything he must know about the workings of his master’s by this point, he still clings to the hope that they will be lenient with him, ‘maybe five or ten years’ in a labour camp. He also retains his pride in his seven-year-old daughter whose actions have brought him to this point, seeing in them confirmation that he had ‘raised her right’.

Soon, any hope for mercy Parsons retains disappears as he is taken away by the uncredited supporting players/crew, to meet his fate in Room 101, a room with a reputation that has proceeded it.

The rest of the play becomes essentially a two-hander, a one-sided duel, between the characters of O’Brien and Winston I do think, however, that the young girl who stood silently inscrutable, close to the action throughout as a young functionary who had been desensitised through repeated exposure to the brutality that unfolded before her, and our eyes, deserved a credit for her admirable stillness and blankness of expression.

Other ‘none-speaking characters’ also appear at one point to beat Winston with clubs, a naked, completely naked Winson, stripped of all clothes and humanity.

Almost to the end, Winston remains unbroken, in spirit if not in body, desperately fighting to retain something, something to cling onto, a faith that the ‘human spirit’ will, somehow, assert itself over tyranny, and the belief that reality is, in some areas at least, an absolute that exists and must continue to exist, regardless of the power that some human beings have abrogated to themselves to redefine and amend it at will. Two plus two must always equal four, even if the whole world insists this is not necessarily the case.

This is the crux of the story and the question that is left for any serious person who engages with it, that of how can an individual retain belief in any absolutes when those with the power show moment by moment, day by day that they can simply expunge from history anything that contradicts whatever is their latest, expedient version of ‘truth’? The irony is, of course, that Smith, in his job within the Minitruth was himself complicit in this ongoing act of historical amendment, knowing as well as anyone the relevant quotation from the Handbook of Ingsoc: ‘He who controls the past controls the present. He who controls the present controls the future.’

For O’Brien, as a True Believer, it is not enough to simply break Winston, or those like him who dare to think differently, to doubt and to hope. It is not enough that he will submit, through beatings and electric shock treatment, that he will say that he sees five fingers when O’Brien demands it. He must also believe it, must see five fingers, even though we, the audience, know he is holding up only four.

Not only must we imagine a ‘Boot stamping upon a human face, forever,’ but we must also imagine the human underfoot as accepting this as a normality that can never, and should never, be changed.

In this sense, we then, as the audience, through our senses become the arbiters of true reality. But what if there is no audience, if O’Brien, the powerful, and Smith, the powerless were up there on stage alone, or really in a dungeon as far away physically from humanity as it is morally (as we understand it) or what if we too could be made to see four fingers, all of us: in what sense could it remain true that O’Brien was only holding up four? 

Ultimately, in the world of 1984, through the constant refinement, amendment and shrinkage of language (which may strike a chord with some members of a 2024 audience) the aim is not only to punish and reform those minds that are guilty of ‘wrongthink’ but to make wrongthink impossible. How can you dream of freedom if the word and the concept of ‘freedom’ no longer exist?

In the end, of course, Winston does break, his suffering as he is tortured with increasing savagery towards this moment of breakage, literally made large to us by the projection of the physical Smith, battered, bruised and wracked by the ever-increasing power of the shocks being fed directly into his brain through electrodes attached to his head, onto the big screen.

I’ve already included too many spoilers for anyone wishing to see the play who is unfamiliar with the source material, but I will leave at least one aspect of the production unspoilt, the original manner which the writer and/or director chose to portray the penultimate, climatic scene in Room101.  

The scenes between O’Brien and Smith utilise dialogue which is more or less lifted and adapted straight from Orwell’s original text, which is only right as little can be done to improve on such a master of the English language.

In spirit, the production as a whole is also faithful to the book, though there are one or two omissions worth mentioning. We lose the junk shop where Winston buys his little snow globe, a miraculous relic from past times, and its owner Charrington. It is however alluded to, and that is perfectly fine.

We do, however, also lose Winston’s belief that ‘If there is hope it lies in the proles,’ and I think that’s a pity. It reduces hope to nothing more than an individual endeavour. It may be possible for isolated individuals to hold out to the very end, to go to their grave still quietly secure in their knowledge that two plus two must always equal four even if the exercise of sheer brute power has made them say otherwise. But aside from the intervention of a power from outside of the universe, acting as the guarantor of Absolute Reality, or God, then it’s difficult to see where hope for the defeat of tyranny can be found if it is not to be found in collective action, whether we want to call that collective the ‘proles’ or the ‘masses’, or the ‘people’ or something else.

This is one of my few minor criticisms of the play, along with one plot device involving the printing of a certain photograph from his home telescreen by Winston as a means of retaining a concrete record of a historical event. This isn’t in Orwell’s original novel, written at a time when remote printing from a screen was impossible and perhaps seen as too far-fetched even for Science Fiction. But even if it had been possible, I think Orwell would have seen such an act as something too risky for Winston to attempt for it to be believable.

There was also one reference by Parson to watching newsreel footage of ‘Eastasian women and children in small boots’ being machine-gunned at the coast. This seemed shoe-horned into the script and was also glaringly incongruent in almost telling us what to think about a certain issue, current in our society, that is being played out around our own shores.

There’s another modern reference, to information covering the whole of Winston’s life being stored by and known to the ‘Algorithm’. This is relevant and pertinent and thus a worthwhile inclusion.

These are minor gripes. I’ve mentioned the superb visual and audio design of the production, and will add to this that it’s tightly written by Ryan Craig. Lindsey Posner’s pacy direction is also a big factor in its success. Both halves of the play were fully absorbing. No one was surreptitiously checking their phone that I noticed, though it might have added a new layer of irony if they were, and I forgot all about snuff, apart from at the interval.

On to the actors, none of whom I can find any major criticism at all.

David Burrell portrays Parsons more or less as I imagined him from the novel, as a minor functionary who is not a rebel like Winston, but rather a true-believer-wannabe, as someone who wants very much to not only do whatever is asked of him but also to believe that it is also for the best, for himself and for the whole. Unable to manage this, and finally seeing himself punished for his unconscious transgressions, he takes refuge in the idea that at least the next generation, as represented by his unseen daughter, will be fully able to dissolve their individuality for the greater good. It’s a fine performance by Burrell.

Ryan Craig’s Winston is perhaps a little more humorous and less worldly, at least initially than I remember from the book, and also younger, the image of the character forever fixed in my mind as Peter Cushing. But it’s still an impressive portrayal of a quiet rebel, content with the small victory represented by being able to scribble his ‘notes from the present to the future’ in his diary, at a location in his flat that is, or so he believes out of site for the omniscient telescreen. But when this small victory is joined by the thrill of his sexual encounters with Julia, he becomes intoxicated by hope, manifested by his belief that Goldstein and the Brotherhood exist, that O’Brien is part of it and is inviting him to be part of it, acknowledging openly that he is prepared to do anything to bring down Big Brother and the Party, up to and including throwing acid into the face of an innocent child, words that O’Brien with throw back at him – ‘So much for the human spirit!’ – as he is systematically broken down by pain, by irrefutable ideological logic, and by the knowledge of what lies in store for him beyond the permanently illuminated Cell, ‘The place where there is no darkness’, in Room 101. Craig plays this character arc beautifully, really coming into his own in those final chilling scenes.

Eleanor Wild’s Julia is a revelation. Even in Orwell’s original, it was always Julia who took the lead in seducing Winston and introducing her initially shy prey into carnal delights beyond his imagination; and it’s inevitable that in a modern production, in the era of the Strong Woman/Girl Boss this should be ramped up further, themes I already touched upon in my Julia novel review. She is the one with the sexual experience, proudly announcing that she has ‘known’ hundreds of men, later amended to forty or fifty in the Golden Country, after first successfully pleasuring ‘pleasuring herself’ there as a means of testing out its safety. For Julia, this Julia, the pursuit and satisfaction of physical desire away from the sexless void of the Party is victory enough in itself. She is almost nonchalant, resigned to the knowledge that this will end one day, but while she can, she’ll take her moments of joy where she can find them.

And we do get to see that joy. We don’t get to see anything overtly sexual, though the language is much more ripe than Orwell could have got away with, but we genuinely do feel the pair’s sense of liberation as they frolic together on the bare stage floor, exploding at one point into riotous shouts of ‘Fuck Big Brother!’ as the beauty of the Golden Country, of Nature, provides the ideal backdrop on the screen behind them.

But, ultimately, she herself is seduced, carried away by Winston’s hope, by his dream of a future more long-lasting freedom, though I suspect she always knows that this hope is nothing more than a blind faith that is leading her to a place that she may not necessarily have needed, at least not yet, to go. Again, this is a character arc impeccably written and impeccably realised by the performer.

Kieth Allen is, of course, the marquee name among the cast, known to me best for his role in the Comic Strip series of comedy television films in the eighties and nineties, as one of the writer/performers of ‘Vindaloo’, the third best England football team song ever, and for an excellent Channel 4 documentary casting doubt on the official narrative on the death of Diana Princess of Wales, which definitely wouldn’t get made today. Those of a younger generation may know him best as the father of pop singer Lily Allen.

Allen doesn’t disappoint. As I mentioned, when he’s not centre stage, he sits silently menacing stage left. When he is, he dominates, though not in such a way that he does not allow others, principally Craig’s Smith with whom he shares most stage time, to also shine.

For this character, there is no arc consisting of distinct phases. He is what he is at the beginning as he is at the end, the perfect ideologue and Inner-Party-man, who does what he does, be it lying about his involvement with the underground resistance or effortlessly switching between Mr. Nice and Mister Nasty as he breaks down Smith bit by bit through a combination of physical and psychological measures whilst calmly outlining the philosophical incoherence of holding on to hope in a world where power is everything, not out of any sense of self-preservation or even material gain, but because he believes, or rather he knows that it is right. You know that O’Brien has been through this same process, suitably amended for each individual ‘case’ many times and will do so many times more.

Another character brilliantly brought to life, but it would be wrong to single out Allen, or any of the cast as the ‘star’ of the show. This a real ensemble performance, and one where the word ‘ensemble’ extends to everyone involved, speaking or not speaking, on stage or behind the scenes.

The sombre, thoughtful mood of the packed audience as they left the theatre said it all.

A triumphant production.

The play is still touring, and a must-see if you get an opportunity.

Produced and Performed by the Theatre Royal, Bath
Seen at the Liverpool Playhouse
Reviewed by Anthony C Green

Written by Ryan Craig
Directed by Lindsey Posner

Cast List:

Winston Smith: Mark Quartly
Julia: Eleanor Wild
O’Brien: Keith Allen
Parson’s: David Birrell

My review of the Julia novel by Sandra Newman Julia by Sandra Newman: A Page-Turning Feminist Perspective on Orwell’s Classic | Counter Culture

Green, November C 2024 Anthony

Leave a Comment

Counter Culture : Words Of Wisdom : George Orwell

countercultureGO

Leave a Comment

1984

1984

A passionate production of this dystopian nightmare by Close Up theatre

theSpace @ Jury’s Inn (Venue 260)

17:40
Till August 27
45 minutes
 
This abridged version of the classic dystopian nightmare by George Orwell from Close Up theatre is gripping. It can’t have been easy to condense the themes into 45 minutes but somehow they did it. Just three central characters Winston Smith (Geraint Downing), Julia (Lara Deering} and O’Brien (Harriet Thomas) interact to show the reality of life under a ruthless and confident totalitarian State. A State in which your every gesture, act and expression is monitored for signs of ‘disloyalty’. Of course Orwell was influenced by his understanding of Stalinism but the attempt to deny any objective reality beyond power has never been confined to one ideological or political tendency. That’s why, though Stalinism has thankfully long bitten the dust, the warnings Orwell gives are still very telling.
 
This production is played with great passion and energy. I wouldn’t single out any three of the actors as they are all so good with the material they are working with (though, for me, O’Brien was given the best lines by Orwell!). The torture scene between O’Brien and Smith was harrowing and fascinating – all at once. As with the description of the hanged man in Plato we wanted to look away but we were drawn to it.
 
I believe that there is a connection between this company and the company that did Antigone (Eleventh Hour). I am very impressed by both productions. Both deal with dictatorship in different ways. If you can go and see the two . You will not be disappointed.
 
Five Stars
Reviewed by Pat Harrington
 
Crew
 
Technical Desk: Lucy Elmes
Technical Desk: Gabriella Stills
Producer: Rebecca Vines

Leave a Comment

Review: 1985 – A Sequel to George Orwell’s 1984 by Gyorgy Dalos

This book begins with the unthinkable – the death of ‘Big Brother’. The orthodoxy of the totalitarian system is threatened by this, the ensuing power struggles and the near destruction of the Oceania air force by Eurasia. Using the characters and framework of Orwell’s classic, 1984, Dalos moves the plot further. Elements of the Thought Police recognise the need for Perestroika (Reconstruction) and Glasnost (Openness). Leading secret policeman O’Brien explains:- “Earlier during the rule of Big Brother… we were content if people were afraid of us. Today we want them to support us. And that without pressure – of their own free will and intelligently”. O’Brien sees the need to “create a kind of public sphere – naturally under our control.”  The book gives two reasons for this: – to put pressure on Party cliques through public opinion – to convert the functionaries of the Outer Party to the new policies required by changing conditions. It is interesting to compare this thought process with what Gorbachev (himself a former KGB leader) attempted to practice in the former Soviet Union. As this book was first published in 1982 we should credit the authour with prescience. The decision to create a “public sphere” inevitably leads to a number of consequences which O’Brien had not anticipated. For political activists this book is very amusing. Written through the accounts of the different main players the accounts are highly subjective and often contradictory. The language parodies each character. The most amusing example of this was to my mind, the compromising survivor Julia Miller. Her writings use language to qualify and excuse. It reflects the logic of what she thinks is a dialectical process; in writing of O’Brien, for instance:- “But it is a fact that O’Brien, so long as he was not ruled for a pathological greed for power, played a certain positive part in the beginning of our Reform Movement.” This “misuse” of language is familiar to those of us who still read Marxist publications…. 1985 is different from 1984 in many ways. There is more humour in 1985 and, to begin with at least, less of an all enveloping sense of evil. In 1984 you begin to believe that, as the Daleks would say, “resistance is futile”. In 1985, even O’Brien seems uncertain, worried and hesitant…. Reviewed by Pat Harrington

Comments (1)

1984

EDINBURGH FRINGE 2012

1984

Venue 124, Zoo Monkey House

 

When stories become as familiar as George Orwell’s 1984 it is easy to overlook them because we think we know them.  Big Brother and Room 101 have become assimilated into popular culture through trivial television programmes.

Sometimes a retelling of a familiar story restores its original power to shock us out of our everyday complacency.  That’s true of Matthew Dunster’s simple, but nevertheless powerful adaptation of 1984, presented by EmpathEyes Theatre.

In the oppressive atmosphere of Oceania under the rule of the omnipresent Party Leader, wrong thoughts as well as wrong deeds are treated as crimes. Language has been redefined to design out the possibility of ‘thoughtcrime’. Big Brother sees everything.  Under his rule people have no trust and even fear their children, all of whom are members of the Spies.  People are dragged off in the night and are never spoken of again. One of Winston Smith’s colleagues, Symes, was arrested after one of his children denounced him for thoughtcrime.  He was overheard saying something against Big Brother in his sleep. Although they know that rebellion is futile, Winston and Julia have had enough and decide to resist Big Brother.

This hard-hitting stripped down to basics approach to the story brings home the true brutality of Big Brother’s regime; perpetual war, enforced cheerfulness, ‘doublethink’ and the image of Big Brother’s political power, a boot stamping on a human face forever.

 

EmpathEyes Theatre’s production of 1984

***** Five Stars

 

David Kerr

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment