Fahrenheit 451 | | Cast : | Oskar Werner, Julie Christie | | Director : | François Truffaut | | Studio : | Universal Studios Ho | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | November 14, 1966 | | DVD Released Date : | April 01, 2003 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | Unrated | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 04, 2005 | | Summary | To Burn Books or to Read Books? That is the Question! | Content
 | +++++
This movie, based on the 1953 novel of the same title by Ray Bradbury (born 1920), is set in a world where reading is forbidden, books and any printed material are burned and, as well, critical thought is discouraged. The movie's title refers to the ignition temperature of paper. (The ignition temperature is the temperature at which something catches fire and burns on its own.) For paper, as the movie's protagonist Montag (Oskar Werner) tells us, is 451 degrees Fahrenheit (or 233 degrees Celsius).
Montag works at fire station #451. The motto of the station is "We burn [books] to ashes and then burn the ashes." He tells us his routine as a "fireman:"
"On Monday we burn [books by] Miller, Tuesday Tolstoy, Wednesday Walt Whitman, Friday Faulkner, and Saturday & Sunday Schopenhauer and Sartre."
Julie Christie is in a dual role as Montag's pleasure-seeking conformist wife, Linda (Christie with long hair), and his rebellious, book-collecting schoolteacher friend Clarisse (Christie with short hair). Some people, especially those not familiar with the novel, might fine this duality confusing.
It's when the regimented, obedient Montag meets this revolutionary schoolteacher who dares to break the law and read that Montag's problems begin. He eventually begins collecting books by stealing them and reads them instead of burning them. Suddenly, he finds himself a hunted fugitive, forced to choose not only between two women but between personal safety and intellectual freedom.
Cyril Cusack as the fire station captain also gives a fine performance. He has no regrets in burning books. His reasoning:
"We've all got to be alike. The only way to be happy is for everyone to be made equal."
The very beginning of this movie is interesting. Instead of having the credits printed on the screen, they are read in keeping with the idea of no printed material.
The movie itself seems at first to be slow-paced and listless. This is the point. The people as a consequence of not reading are dull and empty.
There's only one scene that has special effects that seems out of place by today's standards. But this movie was made almost forty years ago (from the year of this review) when special effects technology was still in its infancy so this can't be held against the movie.
I thought the ending was very interesting. It offers hope for a better future.
The background music is exceptional. It adds to each scene.
This is what the author of the novel, Ray Bradbury, said about this movie (taken from "A Conversation with Ray Bradbury" found in "Fahrenheit 451: The 50TH Anniversary Edition"):
"The movie [directed by Francois Truffaut] was a mixed blessing. It didn't follow the novel as completely as it should have. It's a good movie; it has a wonderful ending; it has a great [musical background] score by Bernard Hermann; Oskar Werner [as Montag] is wonderful in the lead. But Truffaut made the mistake of putting Julie Christie in two roles [as Montag's long-haired wife and his short-haired friend] in the same [movie], which was very confusing [to some people], and he eliminated some of the other characters...Faber the philosopher [a central character to the novel] and the Mechanical Hound [that hunts down people who break the law by reading]. I mean you can't do without those!"
Bradbury continues:
"They're going to make a new version [of my novel] sometime in the next year [2004]. Mel Gibson will produce it, and Frank Darabont will direct it: he did 'The Shawshank Redemption'...I'm looking forward to [seeing this new version]."
I still felt that this movie was quite good despite the missing elements Bradbury mentions.
Finally, the DVD has good picture and sound quality. There are six extras, all interesting.
In conclusion, this is a thought-provoking movie based on a science fiction masterpiece. After viewing it, I could understand why it made the top 100 science fiction movies of all time!!
(1966; 110 min; widescreen; closed captioned; color)
**** 1/2
+++++
|
| Rating | | | Date | August 02, 2005 | | Summary | Much Better Than a Guilty Pleasure | Content
| I'm giving no weight whatever to how well the filmmakers followed Ray Bradbury's original narrative; they essentially left the general premise, outline, and main characters intact.
This film is Francois Truffaut taking on the task of presenting a poetically well-wrought but perhaps purposely unfleshed-out near-future dystopia, presumably at least a generation hence according to cues given in the film, and what cinematic drama and poetry can be wrung from characters who are both "of" and "about" this dystopia.
Narrative non sequiturs abound. This near-future society is one where the written word has been outlawed for reasons pertaining to social order--the task of the "fire department" is to burn books, yet the veteran "firemen" can delineate between novels, philosophy, criticism, etc. As our protaganist Montag (Oskar Werner) states to new fire department recruits in training: "In order to find books, one must first learn to hide them". One assumes the same logic is applied to literacy. Montag is a veteran of five or six years on the fire department (he can't recall exactly) and yet we see that he can still read passably. He must have been educated under a prior administration.
Newer residences are fireproof while older houses are condemned, presumably to be consistent with why firemen now start fires and not extinguish them.
Many citizens are shown to be psychologically averse to books (one of Montag's wife's friends inexplicably begins sobbing upon hearing him openly but subversively reading from one); instead they're dependant for mental stimulation on a plethora of sanctioned drugs and the interactive "family" presented on state-run television. The upshot is that many, eventually including Montag's wife Linda (Julie Christie in one of her dual roles), are so starved for "alternative" stimulation that they pathetically savor the touch of their own clothes on their cheek, or in Linda's case, the touch of her own hand on her breast.
Thus, we're lead to believe that "readers" are deemed to be a socially deviant minority; i.e. in their quest for "alternative stimulation" through the written words of others (The Truth?), they are either making an aberrant attempt to better themselves, or worse, differentiate themselves in a society that desires sameness for the sake of order and social well-being.
Given these precepts, it seems that either the "authorities" are in the midst of a mass indoctrination effort doomed to failure (including wordless newspapers and strictly math-oriented schooling) or we're being asked to make the giant leap and accept the entire narrative as pure allegory. It would be wise to lean toward the latter as the film works quite well as such.
Clarisse (Julie Christie's other role) represents an innocence in this bookless society, a first-generation young adult citizen of the "new order" who has been covertly influenced by the literate uncle with whom she resides and an elder "book lady" who lives on her block. Her attraction to Montag is one of intense curiosity; in fact, great pains are made not to overtly suggest this is a sexual attraction, though Ms. Christie's dual casting as both Clarisse and Montag's wife subtly suggests otherwise. The fact that Montag is willing to outright dismiss his imminent promotion upon Clarisse's questioning suggestion: "Do you ever read the books that you burn?", combined with wife Linda's socially-induced fear and inherent shallowness, makes for an interesting if not entirely convincing turning point in the story. But once again, it works as pure allegory.
Granted, the film can be clunky at times. Whatever cinematic talents Truffaut brought to the film, dialogue (he was co-screenwriter) and conversational pacing weren't among them. It's been written that his directing in the English language was problematic and ultimately the film's critical undoing. Perhaps.
Though some of the shots and editing left me perplexed, especially in the school hallway, I really liked the monorail transport scenes, the firetruck and book-burning scenes, and the shots displaying the sterile tract housing. There's nary an obvious special effect to be found, except for a cheaply shot and chromakeyed hovering "police quartet"--it's so bad its good. The entire mise en scene, casting, and direction certainly do lend a captivating '60s European "New Wave" flavor to the proceedings. And not to belabor the point brought up by other reviewers, but Bernard Herrmann's marvelous score makes up for a multitude of sins!
I return to this film quite often: It's a compelling combination of style and thought-provoking substance. The final scene and ending is filmed allegorical poetry at its best!
The widescreen presentation on this DVD release is marvelous; the colors are vibrant and the digital transfer beautifully transparent. Of the special features, the brief interview with Ray Bradbury is probably the most interesting. There are also a couple "making of" featurettes. The running commentary track during the film is marred by the constantly intrusive verbal introductions of the various speakers. I didn't find any of the speakers particularly insightful, except perhaps for their take on the film's history and some of the decision-making. If one were to avail themselves of the commentary, I would suggest doing so only for particular scenes of interest or curiosity.
This DVD is a keeper and worth the investment for Truffaut's stylish poetic rendering of Bradbury's story, and especially for Herrmann's scoring. Maybe this is close to how Hitchcock would have done it. ;-) |
| Rating | | | Date | July 09, 2005 | | Summary | Utterly boring and uninteresting. | Content
| Okay, I saw this movie at home on DVD. I've read the book before and have to say that I did not enjoy it. It was a quick read, but a little too slow and preachy. I was expecting a much more interesting movie, but it was just as slow, if not slower, as the book. Maybe it's because I knew what was going to happen, but I just could not stay awake for the whole thing.
I think the book made Clarisse seem much younger and charming, but in the film, she's a little annoying. The relationship between her and Montag seems to just start out of nowhere and it doesn't really seem plausible. I found it hard to find any likable characters in the movie, and it was just too slow for my liking.
Yeah, there were some thought provoking and innovative scenes such as what happens to people after they have their stomaches cleaned out and the scene with the boy in the school running away from Clarisse was eery and fit the tone of the movie well. But overall, I found it hard to enjoy or even finish. Too slow and tedious. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 19, 2005 | | Summary | Looking forward to Darabont's new adaptation | Content
| Let's get one thing straight: 451 degrees Fahrenheit is NOT the temperature at which paper burns, as Ray Bradbury readily admits - he just loved the look and sound of that title.
Perhaps taking such looseness as his inspiration, Truffaut's free-wheeling adaptation of Bradbury's classic novel is intriguing, but doesn't quite work. By conflating the Clarisse and Faber characters, it halves the exposition but it also halves the story's power. For me, Faber is the novel's central character, and without his insightful defense of literature and freedom we only get one side of the argument. No one explains why books are important, why they matter. So given that Montag only becomes violent after he starts reading, Truffaut's version comes dangerously close to supporting Captain Beatty's argument that an ignorant society is a safe one. It becomes less a story about censorship and "the forgetting of history" as a means of social control, and more about the repressed emotions that reading might unlock. While this does pick up on one of Bradbury's minor recurring themes (the importance of "the natural") it isn't "Fahrenheit 451". Moreover, the relentlessly miserable look of this film misses Bradbury's point. His dystopian future isn't grim on the surface: it's a hyper-real America of neat green lawns and porch-less houses, a facade of state-sanctioned happiness masking the horror within. Truffaut's just looks like East Germany.
Of course, adaptations don't have to be literal. The best ones are never a simple translation from page to screen, but a transposition from one register to another, making the film the occasion for a new imaginative experience without losing the qualities for which the novel is so loved. But Truffaut's film fails on that count. At the very least, an adaptation should be faithful to the spirit of its source, but Truffaut's fails there, too. He doesn't do the novel justice, nor give us anything better. It's even more disappointing because it lacks the style and skill which distinguish so many of Truffaut's other films (and I love many of them). So I'm left wondering why he bothered. If you don't respect the source material as anything more than a vague inspiration, why adapt it? Why not just write your own story about book burning and call it something else?
Adapting this novel isn't difficult. I wrote an adaptation of it as a college screenwriting assignment and found that if you stick with the book's characters and structure, it pretty much falls into place. Bradbury himself has said: "My books are movies already. Just take out the pages and stuff them in the camera." While that isn't quite true (there are huge slabs of melodramatic dialogue to be culled, and plenty of anachronisms to weed out), there is a lot to be said for faithful adaptations of his work, especially this one: there are few writers in sci-fi, or in any genre, who combine Bradbury's native talent for visual storytelling with such an intelligent and abiding interest in big themes.
"Fahrenheit 451" is crying out for a remake. The case it puts is resurgently relevant, and our digital technology makes screening its disturbing and beautiful images entirely possible, even easy. Frank Darabont is slated to write and direct a new version for Castle Rock sometime soon. The project has been delayed so many times now, I'm starting to get the impression he's waiting for Bradbury to die so he can butcher it with impunity. But Darabont has a good eye and a strong sense of story. If he can just resist his irritating tendency to "go Capra" and turn this into some kind of sappy, futuristic Norman Rockwell painting, I'm confident he'll pull it off. With its memorable characters, compelling plot and powerful themes, it has Oscar® written all over it. I can see it now... Keanu Reeves or Colin Farrell as Montag (both of whom can portray strength and the requisite sensitivity), Anthony Hopkins as Faber, Robert De Niro as Captain Beatty (although I guarantee Darabont will cast James Whitmore and Jeffrey DeMunn respectively), music by John Williams (with a nod to Carl Orff), and cinematography by Dante Spinotti or Darius Khondji.... Oh, in the right hands, it's a cross-category winner just waiting to be born. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 13, 2005 | | Summary | "What if you had no right to read?" | Content
| Fahrenheit 451 is a strange film, hard to describe. No other director could or would have interpreted the classic Bradbury novel in the same bizarre, fascinating manner as Francois Truffaut. It's a book, and a film, about freedom, choices, individuality, and intellectual repression in a future where books are forbidden; where Firemen are men who start fires...fires in which they burn books.
It was also the first color film directed by Truffaut. Although he by all accounts was not happy about making a color film and found it a bit unsettling, color is used to great effect here; sparingly, except for the extreme shade of red that is seen throughout.
"Fahrenheit 451" is supposed to be the temperature at which book paper catches fire, as the protagonist Guy Montag (Oskar Werner) explains in a scene at the beginning. Guy is a Fireman who seems happy enough with his life until he is approached by a young woman named Clarisse (Julie Christie) on his way home from work one day. She starts up a conversation with him, and the two become friendly. She bewilders him but challenges him to think and feel....and read. And when he arrives home we see his wife (also played by Julie Christie, with long hair), sedated and watching the wallscreen (TV of sorts)...we see what his life is really like, although he had told Clarisse he was "happy"...he is not.
As his friendship with Clarisse grows, he starts to secretly take home, hoard, and read some of the books he finds in the course of his daily work, and as he reads, he becomes obsessed with the books. They become his mistress, and are what finally make him feel affection and warmth. And when he starts to feel and care, so do we.
The two single best scenes are a passionate one involving an old woman who refuses to leave her books, her "children" as she calls them; and the wonderful ending of the film. The countless, painful closeups of books as they are being burned are beautifully done, and difficult to watch.
Truffaut was a well-known disciple of Alfred Hitchcock's films, so when Hitchcock fired his long-time music collaborator Bernard Herrmann during the filming of "Torn Curtain", Truffaut was thrilled to acquire his talents for his own film. The score for "F451" is beautiful, and the film would not be nearly as effective without it.
Writer/producer/director Frank Darabont ("The Green Mile", "The Shawshank Redemption") is working on a new film of "Fahrenheit 451" this year. He says it won't be a remake of the original film. |
|
