Lord of the Flies (1963)

As a student, I wasn't so good at math or science, but English and/or reading were right up my alley. Because of my actual like of reading, I was introduced to a lot of classics -- and generally books held in high regard -- through summer reading lists and then those books read during the school year. They weren't all good, and I truly hated/despised some of them, but for the most part I could at least see why many of the books were held in high regard. One I genuinely liked was William Golding's Lord of the Flies, turned into a film version several times including 1963's low-budget but powerful Lord of the Flies (appropriate title).

It is the rare classic book that can't be interpreted on a bigger level, looking at hidden meanings and symbolism as to what characters, plot lines and dialogue can mean. Years of  taking Honors English and AP classes ruined me for books like this. My head is now trained to look for symbolism in EVERYTHING. I can make jumps where there just aren't jumps. This is one of the few books where it is dripping with symbolism, and the same for the movie from director Peter Brook. Everything here is representative of something bigger and more sinister. 'Flies' (like its novel source) is a dark and even terrifying look at an attempt to survive turned into something much worse.

Sometime in the 1940s (possibly WWII but never directly addressed), a plane crashes somewhere in the Pacific on a deserted island. Among the survivors are Ralph (James Aubrey), a bright, intelligent boy who is quickly thinking of survival, and Piggy (Hugh Edwards), a chubby boy with glasses who quickly bonds with Ralph. The two boys find out there are many other survivors of the crash, but no adults, just 20 or 25 other boys, ranging from the ages of 7 and 8 to their own age at 12 or 13. Ralph is voted 'chief' of the group, and they go about building a signal fire, building shelters and finding food and water. Another boy, Jack (Tom Chapin), bristles at Ralph's authority though and wants to create his own group, one focused on hunting with little rules and generally? Have more fun. Ralph sees the need to stay together if they want to survive, but Jack is getting harder and harder to handle.

There is a lot to be said about this movie (almost entirely positive for me), and I'll get to a lot of it hopefully. But the easiest thing to judge is the movie itself and how good a job Brook does directing it. Filming in Puerto Rico on a smallish budget -- $250,000 -- with a cast full of child actors, Brook directs a true gem. It doesn't feel like a movie. It feels like the story is real, developing in front of us. 'Flies' has a bit of a rogue feel to it without the polish or shine of most movies you're going to see.  Not quite an amateur look, but it certainly borders on it with its grainy, black and white washed out look to it. None of this is meant as a criticism because the movie is the better for it. Realistic, natural, and at times downright terrifying.

For those who aren't familiar with Lord of the Flies, it might sound a little off to think that a story about a group of boys on a deserted island with plenty of fruit and water could be even remotely terrifying.  Well, you'd be wrong (and you should read the book by the way, it is a classic for a reason). It portrays a mob mentality in a frightening sense, Jack's cult-like, even militaristic, splinter group becoming obsessed with 'the beast,' a creature/being that lives on the island and must be paid tribute to. Ralph and Piggy and their shrinking group see Jack's tributes for what they are -- crazy -- but it's too late as anarchy reigns.  These aren't kids anymore, and that's where the symbolism comes in. Kids or adults, they're beyond it as greed, power and even murder shoot up. Is Jack the Devil and Ralph some sort of Christ figure? It is open to interpretation, but that's part of the fun.

What works so surprisingly well with Brook's film is the use of child actors, most of whom make their only acting appearance here.  Brook chose to film with amateur child actors, and the result is impressive. At times the dialogue is stilted and forced but ends up being pretty natural overall.  Aubrey as Ralph and Chapin as Jack are the two leads, both leaving memorable impressions.  Aubrey's Ralph is smart, articulate and a thinker while Chapin's Jack is impulsive, manipulative and most frightening, just as intelligent. Edwards brings the Piggy character to life just the way I imagined him while reading the book. The only other prominent roles -- the group of boys is more a collective mob than different individuals -- are Roger Elwin as Roger, Jack's sidekick, and Tom Gaman as Simon, the young boy who has visions of what the beast terrifying the island really is.

The movie has a lot going for it no matter what the budget was. Like Golding's source novel, it tries to give us a look into human nature that only survival at its most base can bring out. Faced in a life and death situation, how would the individual respond? How would the mob respond?  The novel and the film both take an incredibly cryptic and dark stance on the results, but ultimately it is probably the most realistic. This all builds to the powerful ending, the thing I was looking forward to the most having read the novel. I wasn't disappointed. It sticks to the novel's ending, one that cuts right to the point and brings you back to reality with the snap of a finger.  A great ending to a great movie.

You can watch the entire movie via Youtube, starting HERE with Part 1 of 9. 

Lord of the Flies <---trailer (1963): *** 1/2 /****