Burnin’ Up at “Fahrenheit 451”
“Fahrenheit 451,” by Ray Bradbury, tells a cautionary tale of government censorship and overreliance on technology and stands as one of the greatest stories published by Bradbury over the course of his prolific career. It is still read today in high schools and colleges across the nation and, love it or hate it, has become a part of our culture. The 1966 film adaptation of the book is, on the other hand, easily forgotten. If not for a recent showing in the Procrastinator Theater, I doubt I would have ever known it existed.
The movie itself is intensely flawed, and some of the most important elements of the book are missing. The Mechanical Hound, a horrifying beast that haunts Montag throughout the novel and symbolizes his fear of the state, is entirely absent from the movie. Similarly, Faber, the retired professor who assists Montag in rebelling against the fireman system, is conspicuously absent. These missing elements came together to make the movie’s plot far more disjointed and confusing than it needed to be.
The movie also unfortunately expands the role of Clarisse. In the book, Clarisse is a high school student self-described as “seventeen and insane.” She is one of the few people in Montag’s world that truly understands the oppression of state control. Her fate is left ambiguous in the book after she vanishes, which gave her brief appearance more weight and depth. The movie, on the other hand, makes Clarisse into a central character, hints at a romantic relationship between her and Montag and shows her alive and well at the conclusion of the movie.
In addition, “Fahrenheit 451” sacrifices coherency for the sake of aesthetics. There are multiple artistic scenes of books burning for several minutes, yet Captain Beatty is only permitted to speak on his firm belief that books are useless for a few moments. There are long, drawn-out portrayals of Montag reading, but there is no depiction of him slowly becoming more erratic and fearful within his media-controlled life. Scrambled and confusing transitions are rampant throughout the film, and the voiceovers never seem to quite match up with the action.
All in all, the movie is like viewing the book through the lens of a vaguely terrifying fever dream. It does no justice to Bradbury’s seminal classic. Rather than forcing us to examine state control and repression within modern society, it compels us to wonder who created such a mess of a film. However, if you invert your perspective on the movie, it becomes a stunning example of a serious topic turned to comedy.
The sheer ridiculousness of firemen gliding through the sky with jetpacks brought a wave of giggles from the audience, and the awkward line delivery throughout the film left students howling with laughter. Out-of-place and entirely random German accents, attempts at sexy versions of 50’s-style nightgowns, a completely red-and-yellow color scheme and wooden portrayals of characters added even more silliness to the movie. As a result, I spent the majority of the film attempting to stifle waves of laughter.
As an accurate rendition of the book, “Fahrenheit 451” is a massive, unqualified failure. As an unintentionally comedic parody of the book, it is a spectacularly funny romp. If you’re looking to enjoy Bradbury’s work, always turn to the book. However, if you want to experience one of the most lunacy-laden films I’ve ever had the pleasure of viewing, take a crack at the movie.
Comments ()