How effective is Peter Brook’s film version of Lord of the Flies?

â€Å"My devil had been long caged, he came out roaring. † This quotation, originating from Stevenson's novel Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, beautifully portrays the point that is focused on by Golding's novel Lord of the Flies. The slow regression from being ‘civilised' schoolboys to truculent savages is compacted into an allegorical story that includes many symbolic objects and stages, which could all be interpreted and presented differently. Peter Brook's film enlightened me of a whole new way of interpreting the novel. All films include certain aspects, such as, casting, location and music. Brook has used these basic building blocks to develop an innovative analysis of Golding's novel. Although Brook had added and taken out certain occurrences in his film version it still contains the original message of the novel, it is however presented in a different light. The setting of the film is on Puerto Rico, is an island off the coast of the Dominican Republic. This setting included all of the major places talked about in the novel, for instance the mountain, the fort, and the jungle. The location is includes nearly all the features that are mentioned in the novel and in this respect is very orthodox in its interpretation of the novel. The filming took place a short time after the writing of the book and the film was out by 1963. This suggests that the version shown as a film was formed whilst opinions about the book were still mixed and forming. Although Golding leaves us in some doubt to why the boys end up stranded on a desert island Brook tells us straight away that the boys are being evacuated at the beginning of a nuclear war Not all of the film concurs with the book. There are many scenes including the discourse between Simon and the Lord of the Flies, Ralph's conversation with the sailor and the scene where Jack refrains from killing a piglet. These scenes are key points in the book. I think the scene where Jack refrains from killing the piglet is not added so that the audience feel no empathy with Jack. However I think that the conversation between Simon and the Lord of the Flies is not added as it allows the audience to still keep a very tense part of the novel personal. Ralph's rather ironic conversation with the sailor is replaced by sheer emotional stare. I believe this not more effective than the conversation, however, it is almost equally as gripping. There were a few other scenes that were cut, but the three mentioned above were the only crucial points in the film where I could feel that a big part of the story was missing. There were also scenes that were added on like Piggy talking about post offices and Jack seeing a boy get whipped. Both of these new scenes helped to draw a clearer picture of both characters. The casting is an area where I doubt some of Peter Brook's judgement. Although I believe that Hugh Edwards playing Piggy is a perfect match, and that he portrays â€Å"the fat boy† well. However, Tom Chapin is not the ginger boy who's â€Å"ugly without silliness† that I was expecting. James Aubrey also doesn't fill the expectations that I thought were in the novel of Ralph being â€Å"built like a boxer. † Roger Elwin however was perfect for the role of Roger, â€Å"the slight, furtive boy whom no one knew. † Another major fact was that the all of the boys were amateur actors. This brought an idea of innocence in my mind, which the boys lost towards the end of the film but it did make some parts of the film disjointed and in coherent. However, I feel that if the boys were trained actors the emotions felt by the boys would have been more evident and therefore the regression of the boys into savagery would have been more exciting and understandable. This version being filmed in the early sixties is in black and white. It also contains many old pieces of music and terminology. I think this adds to the film as it was the era that Golding was writing in and therefore its probably close to what Golding himself might have been thinking. The contrast between black and white also shows up the stark contrast between good and evil. And in the jungle the black and white imagery enhances the mood even further. But, in the novel Golding refers time and time again to colours, textures and tones this part of the novel could only be captured in a colour version if the film. A modern setting for the film would help it to relate to modern people. If the setting was modern more people would be able to understand and enjoy the film, because some of the original terminology such as, â€Å"sucks to your†¦ † would not be effective with an average audience. When Golding wrote the novel it related fully to the environment it was written in. However now the socio-historic setting has changed and Britain no longer has the threat of the Cold War above it's head, so the threat could possibly be changed to the threat of â€Å"terrorism† or â€Å"tyrants. † Music is used many times in the film. During the introduction we hear the stark difference between the melodious hymns of a school choir and some loud music that draws a picture of bombardment. As I had read the book this symbolised in my mind how the boys who were originally ‘civilised' were going to be corrupted. We hear the choirs chant on Jack's arrival. This seems to bring hope to the boys initially but when Jack arrives the story changes. We hear this same chant from the Jack's ‘tribe' when they are regressing to savagery and ironically when the sailors arrive. This was very effective and made the point that although there was savagery on the island, the savagery in the rest of the world is even greater. The most emotive scene in the film is when Piggy is killed. During this scene Peter Brook brings together all the different factors he has been using throughout the film to reach a climax at this moment. The â€Å"loud derisive cheer,† of the savages was portrayed as World War Two air raid sirens. This was an excellent choice by Peter Brook, as it captured not just the savagery of the boys on the island but also savagery throughout the world as a whole. As the crescendo of the boys gets louder we see the fight between Ralph and Jack portrayed to softly really. There's not enough emotion on James Aubrey's face when he lunges at Jack, however you have to remember this is two twelve year-old children who are fighting and therefore the fight would have been jumbled up. Finally we see Roger, who's not shown fully in the light, using a lever to move a rock. Whilst this is going on we see where Ralph helps Piggy when Piggy shouts, â€Å"Don't leave me. † Then suddenly the audience hears and sees the rock thundering down and the last we here of Piggy is a high-pitched yelp. If Brook had shown Piggy strewn on the ground, I think it would have taken some of the imagination away. I think that Brook has left out some scenes from the film because he wants the audience to use their imagination. All in all I thought that watching this film gave me another way of thinking about the novel. Peter Brook's version of Lord of the Flies was effective up to the point that it gets the audience to use their imagination and also to think carefully about the film. However, in this day and age, where people like to use their imagination as little as possible it cannot be fully appreciated by all. The ending for instance contains an ironic appearance that can be grasped by all. However, the deeper meaning of civilisation being ‘corrupted' needs to the worked out. If a modern equivalent was made many of the scenes that Brook left out would be added in and although the film would be less disjointed it would have lost the great deal of stress on imagination that Brook's version did have. This film presents a version of Lord of the Flies that is highly effective in retaining the message of the original novel and enhancing it.