In this golden age of home viewing, the Criterion Collection still provides some of the best editions of the best movies ever released, usually with a rich selection of extras and often including audio commentaries (a feature they pioneered, and perhaps the greatest gift ever to film students and cinephiles alike). This column features one Criterion release per week, based entirely on where my interests lead me.
I started making a list of “films for our times” recently, and among English-language titles there’s one that demands to lead the queue: Michael Radford’s take on George Orwell’s novel 1984, which sadly is more relevant than ever today. I read the book in high school (a loooong time ago) and it seemed a bit over-the-top to the callow student I was then. Now it seems like it might be an understatement, given all the new technologies developed since the novel was published in 1949 and the many ways they can be used for evil.*
Michael Radford got his start making documentary films for the BBC, which set him up well for making this film: when the content is as hyperbolic as is the case with Orwell’s novel, Radford’s straightforward approach is more effective than trying to amplify the story’s content. The film opens with the subjects viewing a propaganda film that crosses Soviet realism with Movietone News, and the reactions of the audience seem as pre-programmed and unnatural as what they’re watching on screen. Cinematographer Roger Deakins’ muted palette even mimics the sepia tones of the newsreel, and the distorted faces of the audience mimic those on the film.
Such is life under Big Brother, where having a mind of your own can lead to very unpleasant consequences and outer submission is not enough. In Foucault’s terms, not only are people under constant surveillance, most have internalized Big Brother’s values to the point that they police themselves, so that violence is not usually necessary to force compliance. It’s a fascist’s dream and you can make your own judgment about how much of the fictional world created by Orwell (which he described as a satire) applies to present-day America.
In case it’s been a while since you read or watched 1984, the action takes at an unspecified time in the future. Britain is ruled by the fascist state of Oceania, overseen by Big Brother (the Party leader, who is never seen in real life but is a constant presence on billboard and TV monitors), with citizens constantly surveilled by the Thought Police. Winston Smith (John Hurt) works in the Ministry of Truth, which like much in this world does the opposite of what its name suggests: his job is rewriting history to suit the current whims of the Party. Life is drab and unpleasant: people dress in dingy coveralls,** the food is slop, most buildings are in ruins, forced confessions are broadcast regularly, and the only escape available is synthetic gin which seems to be the sole consumer product not in short supply If Winston pours it with a heavy hand, can you really blame him?
The oppression in 1984 is not just material, it’s also psychological: normal human relationships would be a threat to the Party’s absolute power, so they must be discouraged and punished. Winston’s problem is that he hasn’t completely succumbed to the propaganda of Big Brother and maintains hope for something better. He makes furtive visits to an antique store run by Charrington (Cyril Cusack) and then falls for a co-worker, Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), who offers respites of light and color and love. Winston also learns more about the world in which he lives, but iyou can only fool Big Brother for so long, and getting red-pilled in this world can lead to some seriously unpleasant consequences. Richard Burton, in his final film appearance, gives a truly scary performance as undercover agent O’Brien, made all the more effective because he appears so calm and reasonable throughout (Burton’s resemblance to Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter is uncanny and lends an extra creep factor).
Few movies from 50+ years ago retain their original power: instead, you often have to watch them through a lens of charity based on your intellectual understanding of outdated conventions and inferior technology. Radford’s 1984 is the rare exception—it’s so powerful and so relevant that I had to stop watching a few times and take a minute to recover. So you’ve been warned, but if you’re up for it, this is a film that’s well worth the discomfort it causes. | Sarah Boslaugh
*For good also, but this is a movie about a totalitarian state and its evil effects on human life.
**Except the children, whose Young Pioneer-like uniforms are much newer and spiffier than what the rank-and-file adults have to wear. Clearly the state made production and distribution of those uniforms a priority, alongside the elaborate surveillance and punishment apparatus. Show me your budget and I’ll show you your values and all that.
Spine #: 984
Technical details: 110 min; color ; screen ratio 1.85:1; English.
Edition reviewed: DVD (1 disc).
Extras: two soundtracks, one by Eurythmics (Annie Lennox and Dave Stewart) and one by composer Dominic Muldowney; 2019 interview with Michael Radford; 2019 interview with cinematographer Roger Deakins; 2019 interview with David Ryan, author of George Orwell on Screen; featurette with behind-the-scenes footage and interviews with director Michael Radford and actors John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton; trailer; illustrated booklet with essay by writer and stand-up comedian A. L. Kennedy
Fun Fact: Not only was this film released in 1984, it carries the spine number 984 (even in 2026 there aren’t enough Criterion releases to justify a spine label of 1984). When it comes to calling out fascism, maybe there’s no such thing as being too on the nose.
Parting Thought: In my experience, it’s rare for a non-talkie to have more than one soundtrack, although there have been some famous examples with no soundtrack. How does the choice of soundtrack change the experience of watching 1984?
