The British film industry during the thirties, forties and fifties had a fairly varied output, but there were a few genres in which we were unable, or unwilling, to compete with the Americans. Westerns, of course, were the most obvious example, but we also produced relatively few musicals and, until 1954, no feature-length cartoons, even though Disney had led the way in this area with "Snow White" in 1937 and a number of other countries had followed suit during the intervening period.
We eventually broke our duck with "Animal Farm" (and even here we needed some help from across the Atlantic. More of that later). George Orwell's story is too well-known to be set out in any detail. It is essentially an allegory of the Russian Revolution. Inspired by the teachings of a pig named Old Major (Karl Marx) the animals of Manor Farm (the Russian people) rise in revolt against their cruel, drunken and incompetent owner, Mr. Jones (the Tsar). Led by the pigs (the Bolshevik party) they drive Jones from the farm, which they rename "Animal Farm", and proceed to run it on the basis of Major's philosophy of "animalism" (communism). Dissensions arise, however, between the two leading pigs, Snowball (Trotsky) and Napoleon (Stalin). Eventually Snowball is driven out and killed and Napoleon becomes a barnyard dictator. (The allegory is somewhat simplified; there is, for example, no figure who corresponds precisely to Lenin).
The style of Halas and Batchelor's animation is quite different from that of a typical Disney cartoon. The animals are drawn in a stylised way, but are far less anthropomorphic than most Disney cartoon animals. Unlike, say, Micky Mouse or Goofy they walk on two legs, not four. The main difference is that their faces are stylised to make it easier for them to express emotions. Whereas Disney cartoons are typically dominated by vivid primary colours, Halas and Batchelor make use of a much more muted palette, especially in depicting the English countryside which forms the backdrop to the action. These differences probably reflect the fact that the film was primarily intended for an adult audience (who would understand the political references) rather than a family one. Indeed, some of the scenes could be quite upsetting for children.
The one major discrepancy between the film and Orwell's original story is the ending. Orwell's book ended with Napoleon and his fellow-pigs still firmly in control of the farm, having become virtually indistinguishable from the humans who still run the other farms in the district. In the film, however, the pigs' tyranny and hypocrisy so enrage their fellow-animals that another revolution takes place, led by Benjamin the donkey, and the pigs in their turn are driven from power. (In the book Benjamin is a much more passive, pessimistic character; he can be seen as representing that part of the Russian population which neither actively supported nor actively opposed the Soviet regime). The reason for the change is that the film was funded by the CIA for propaganda reasons; they wanted to see a film which not only criticised Soviet Communism (as Orwell had done) but also predicted its downfall (which he had not).
Orwell ended the book on a downbeat note for two reasons. Firstly, he wanted to make the point (as he was to do even more forcefully in "1984") that dictatorships, once established, are not easy to get rid of. Secondly, he was using the book to make a prediction about Stalinist Communism, which he believed would eventually become indistinguishable from capitalism. As regards the Soviet Union, in fact, Orwell was not quite right; it remained an essentially collectivist society rather than a capitalist one until the system collapsed in the early nineties. As regards the other communist superpower, however, Orwell was spot-on, even though Mao's revolution had not yet occurred at the time he wrote the book. In recent years China has transformed itself from a left-wing Marxist dictatorship into a right-wing capitalist one, without a revolution or even a change in the name of the ruling party.
Orwell had died before the film was made, so we cannot know what he would have thought of it. My guess is that he would have disliked the change in the ending, which he would have seen as a distortion of his message. Yet in other respects this is a very good film. It is visually attractive, the story is told fluently and clearly and Maurice Denham copes well with the task of providing the voices for all the in the film. I think that Orwell would have liked the film's version of Napoleon, a particularly well-developed character, reducing Stalin from a fearsome dictator to merely the biggest pig in the barnyard. Without the CIA's involvement I might have given the film a nine or even one of my rare tens. It just goes to show that entrusting film-making to intelligence agencies makes about as much sense as entrusting intelligence work to film-makers. 8/10
We eventually broke our duck with "Animal Farm" (and even here we needed some help from across the Atlantic. More of that later). George Orwell's story is too well-known to be set out in any detail. It is essentially an allegory of the Russian Revolution. Inspired by the teachings of a pig named Old Major (Karl Marx) the animals of Manor Farm (the Russian people) rise in revolt against their cruel, drunken and incompetent owner, Mr. Jones (the Tsar). Led by the pigs (the Bolshevik party) they drive Jones from the farm, which they rename "Animal Farm", and proceed to run it on the basis of Major's philosophy of "animalism" (communism). Dissensions arise, however, between the two leading pigs, Snowball (Trotsky) and Napoleon (Stalin). Eventually Snowball is driven out and killed and Napoleon becomes a barnyard dictator. (The allegory is somewhat simplified; there is, for example, no figure who corresponds precisely to Lenin).
The style of Halas and Batchelor's animation is quite different from that of a typical Disney cartoon. The animals are drawn in a stylised way, but are far less anthropomorphic than most Disney cartoon animals. Unlike, say, Micky Mouse or Goofy they walk on two legs, not four. The main difference is that their faces are stylised to make it easier for them to express emotions. Whereas Disney cartoons are typically dominated by vivid primary colours, Halas and Batchelor make use of a much more muted palette, especially in depicting the English countryside which forms the backdrop to the action. These differences probably reflect the fact that the film was primarily intended for an adult audience (who would understand the political references) rather than a family one. Indeed, some of the scenes could be quite upsetting for children.
The one major discrepancy between the film and Orwell's original story is the ending. Orwell's book ended with Napoleon and his fellow-pigs still firmly in control of the farm, having become virtually indistinguishable from the humans who still run the other farms in the district. In the film, however, the pigs' tyranny and hypocrisy so enrage their fellow-animals that another revolution takes place, led by Benjamin the donkey, and the pigs in their turn are driven from power. (In the book Benjamin is a much more passive, pessimistic character; he can be seen as representing that part of the Russian population which neither actively supported nor actively opposed the Soviet regime). The reason for the change is that the film was funded by the CIA for propaganda reasons; they wanted to see a film which not only criticised Soviet Communism (as Orwell had done) but also predicted its downfall (which he had not).
Orwell ended the book on a downbeat note for two reasons. Firstly, he wanted to make the point (as he was to do even more forcefully in "1984") that dictatorships, once established, are not easy to get rid of. Secondly, he was using the book to make a prediction about Stalinist Communism, which he believed would eventually become indistinguishable from capitalism. As regards the Soviet Union, in fact, Orwell was not quite right; it remained an essentially collectivist society rather than a capitalist one until the system collapsed in the early nineties. As regards the other communist superpower, however, Orwell was spot-on, even though Mao's revolution had not yet occurred at the time he wrote the book. In recent years China has transformed itself from a left-wing Marxist dictatorship into a right-wing capitalist one, without a revolution or even a change in the name of the ruling party.
Orwell had died before the film was made, so we cannot know what he would have thought of it. My guess is that he would have disliked the change in the ending, which he would have seen as a distortion of his message. Yet in other respects this is a very good film. It is visually attractive, the story is told fluently and clearly and Maurice Denham copes well with the task of providing the voices for all the in the film. I think that Orwell would have liked the film's version of Napoleon, a particularly well-developed character, reducing Stalin from a fearsome dictator to merely the biggest pig in the barnyard. Without the CIA's involvement I might have given the film a nine or even one of my rare tens. It just goes to show that entrusting film-making to intelligence agencies makes about as much sense as entrusting intelligence work to film-makers. 8/10