william golding2

8/6/2019 William Golding2

1/20

1

William Goldings first novel Lord of the Flies , written in 1954, won the Nobel

Prize for literature and was made into two movie versions. Golding wrote the novel in

response to BallantynesCoral Island , which depicts the adventures of three English

boys who are stranded on a tropical island (Rahman 40). Golding said this novel didnt

ring true to him: Their savagery would not be found in natives on an island. As like as

not they would find savages who were kindly and uncomplicated and that the devil would

rise out of the intellectual complications of the three white men on the island itself

(Johnston 10). So Golding recast the boys from Ballantynes tale on a new tropical

island. Lord of the Flies was to be his own study of human behaviour and the darkness of the human heart. However, it remains to be determinedwhose heart was he really talking

about? Goldings novel fails to be a critique of human behaviour because it focuses on

only a small subgroup of the human population. In this essay we will first examine how

Goldings examination of thehuman condition fails due to his androcentrism,

ethnocentrism, use of stereotypes and reliance on biological determinism. The

assumptions made by Golding limit his critique of humanity to a critique of white

arrogance. However, once this critique is properly identified, it is a powerful critique of

Caucasian belief in their moral superiority. Then we will examine the two movie

versions and determine that the Brooks film, made in England in 1963, is faithful to the

text. In contrast, the Americanised version by Hooks (1990), strips the context of war in

the novel, and recasts the struggle; it is no longer a struggle against the evil within

ourselves, but becomes a battle of 'goo guys' against bad guys. Thus Goldings

critique is lost and all that remains is a violent action film.

ASSUMPTIONS OF GOLDINGS LORD OF THE FLIES


2/20

2

Golding wrote Lord of the Flies just after the end of World War II, an event that

caused Europeans to re-examine their construction of themselves as civilised. In the

wake of the atrocities that occurred Golding decided we needed a reworking of our

conception of the human condition and human nature. He set his tale on a fecund tropical

island, a place where the stranded boys would not have to struggle for survival. Thus,

they are free to create their own society in a tropical paradise. In this setting, Humes

idea: that man only needs laws in a world of scarcity and in a world of plenty would live

in harmony (Hume 21), can be tested against Hobbes conception of The State of

Nature in which man is in a constant war of all against all (Hobbes 10). The text islaudable for its attempt to break the stereotype of the pure white heart and reveal the

darkness that resides within us all, and not just in the other whom we make our enemy.

However, it fails to be a complete critique of human nature because it makes several

unquestioned assumptions. Judith Fetterly writes: While women obviously cannot

rewrite literary works so that they become ours by virtue of reflecting our reality, we can

accurately name the reality they do reflect and so change literary criticism from a closed

conversation to an active dialogue (Eagleton 123).

The first problematic assumption made by Golding is that one can studythe

human condition by focusing exclusively on white males, an assumption both

androcentric and ethnocentric. Golding relies heavily on ideas that are specific to

Western culture, without questioning their universal applicability. Furthermore, despite

his claim that he is breaking with stereotypical views of savages, Golding reverts to

stereotypes in order to make his audience understand that the boys have thrown off their


3/20

3

social conditioning. Finally, Golding naturalises behaviour and assumes that violence1 is

an in-born trait. We will examine these assumptions and discover that, although they do

not erase Goldings critique of human nature, they limit this critique to a specific group:

white males.

Androcentrism in Lord of the Flies

Khandkar Rezaur Rahman calls Lord of the Flies , an anthropological study of

human society (37). However, Goldings examination of whathumanity would do is

incomplete because he focuses exclusively on the behaviour of males. This is an

example of androcentrism, the tendency to use boys and men as the prototype forhumankind (NAME? 62). In Man made Language Dale Spender points out the human

race was male, and if women were included, it was on the condition that, linguistically at

least, they were neither seen nor heard (Belsey 3). Golding takes this notion a step

further and erases the female sex from consideration all together. I am not saying that

there must be a proportional representation of all people2 in every literary oeuvre,

however, one has to be careful about what one claims to be doing. When one examines

only one segment of humanity and wishes to say this segment is representative of all of

humanity, then one is engaging in exactly the same sort of narcissism that Golding claims

to be critiquing.

The only females present on the island are the hunted pigs (Kill the pig. Cut her

throat. Spill her blood (Golding 72) Emphasis mine) who function to demonstrate the

boys increasingly violent behaviour. As the hunters chase the sow through the

1 Violence is different from a hunting instinct, since hunting is directed at members of other species and isfor survival. Violent behaviour is directed at members of ones own species and is not for survival,although it may be for power or prestige.2 All races, all sexes, all ethnicities, all sexualities, or all classes


4/20

4

oppressively hot afternoon they become wedded to her in lust, as they hurl themselves

at her the violence has unmistakably sexual undertones; and finally the sow collapsed

under them, and they were heavy and fulfilled upon her (Kinkead-Weeks 42). If

Golding truly wants to examinethe human condition he would have done better to

examine a society with women present, since women do make up half the population.

Ethnocentrism in Lord of the Flies

Goldings examination of thehuman condition is a situated3 and culturally

informed examination. His book is based on ideas that are specific to the cold war of the

fifties (Ramanan 29)4

and relies on Darwinian ideas about social struggles (Page 27).Karl Marx criticised Darwins ideas for their ethnocentric flavour:

It is remarkable how Darwin recognises among beasts and plants his English society withits division of labour, competition, opening up new markets, inventions, and theMalthusian struggle for existence. It is Hobbes bellum omnium contra omnes [warof all against all], and one is reminded of HegelsPhenomenology , where civil society isdescribed as a spiritual animal kingdom, while in Darwin the animal kingdom figuresas civil society (Hubbard 90).

While it may be true that animals instinctively struggle against other species for

domination of environmental resources, there are other allegedly evolved behaviours that

Golding pays little attention to, such as altruism.5 Furthermore, the boys reaction to the

island is a reaction grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition that gives man the right of

dominion over nature: Eyes shinning, mouths open, triumphant, they savoured the right

of domination (Golding 27). If the intention is a critique of Western culture then these

3 Notice that all the characters in the novel are White and British.4 Ramanan doesnt really elaborate on this statement, but I agree with it since this era was very fearful of the outbreak of a third World War, an atomic end to our species. This is the context in which Goldingsituates his novel.5 Evolutionary theories on altruism have always interested me, because I believe that if there is one humancharacteristic that has allowed us to be successful as a species, it would be our altruistic tendencies.Human society is at least partially successful because of our ability to care for our weaker members (andnot despite it). It has been our ability to divide the work and share the products that allowed us the freetime to explore abstract theories and ideas (Suzki).


5/20

5

ethnocentric ideas are well placed. However, many cultures do not feel they have the

right to dominate Nature, and instead believe humans are to harmonise themselves with

nature.6 As a study of thehuman condition, Lord of the Flies fails.

Stereotypes in Lord of the Flies

Golding claims that his novel stands in contrast toCoral Island because the boys

in that book try to maintain their civilised standard and successfully resist the threat of

external evil. He wrote Lord of the Flies to demonstrate that evil is found within the

English boys themselves, and not in an externalised other (Rahman 40). However,

before we can see the good English for the beasts they are, Golding reverts tostereotypes of the savage that serve to externalise the evil he is trying to expose.

During the first encounter with a pig, Jack is unable to kill her.

Jack drew his knife again with a flourish. He raised his arm in the air. There came apause, a hiatus, the pig continued to scream and the creepers jerk, and the blade continuedto flash at the end of a bony arm. The pause was long enough for them to understandwhat an enormity the downward stroke would be. Then the piglet tore loose from thecreepers and scurried into the undergrowth. They were left looking at each other and theplace of terror. Jacks face was white under the freckles (Golding 28).

So while he is dressed and acting in the manner of the English7 he cannot act out his inner

brutality, and it is not until he dons the garb of primitives that he makes his first kill.

Jack knelt by the pool and opened the two large leaves that he carried. One of themcontained white clay, and the other red. By them lay a stick of charcoal brought downfrom the fire.

Jack explained to Roger as he worked.They dont smell me. They see me, I think. Something pink under the trees.He smeared on the clay.If only Id some green!He turned a half-concealed face up to Roger and answered the comprehension of

his gaze.For hunting. Like in the war. You know- dazzle paint. Like things trying tolook like something else-

He twisted in the urgency of telling.- like moths on a tree trunk (Golding 65-66).

6 Both Native American cultures and Chinese cultures have, historically taken this approach.7 Note the mention of hiswhite face, a specifically Caucasian reaction of fear or disgust.


6/20

6

Mark Kinkead-Weeks and Ian Gregor defend Goldings description: Jack remembers the

dazzle-paint with which ships hunting or hunted conceal themselves from their prey; his

face-painting starts off as a reversion to civilisation, not to savagery (33). Despite this

explanation, when one considers the fact that during this hunt the boys let the fire out, a

symbol that is connected to Ralph and his civilised dream of being rescued, and their

latter development of chant and ritual re-enactment of the kill (Golding 79), it is clear that

Golding is relying on stereotypes of savages and not of civilisation.8 If Goldings

intention is to show that evil resides in the hearts of White men and not the kindly and

uncomplicated savages, it seems out of place to depict the boys in stereotypically savageways to demonstrate their brutality.

Biological Determinism in Lord of the Flies

Lord of the Flies essentialises and naturalises human behaviour, especially (male)

violence. Golding describes: The moral is that the shape of society must depend on the

ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently

logical or respectable. The whole book is symbolic in nature (Johnston 8). Suzanne

Sunday critiqued studies that assume that biological factors determine aggression.

the procedures used in the studies do not employ socially relevant testing. Socialspecies are generally isolation-reared in the laboratory, encounters are measured by short-term bouts between individual animals as opposed to groups of animals, and the measuresthat are studied are fighting and tissue trauma rather than longer-term social interactions.

Researchers who assume that aggression is biologically determined believe thatanimals fight because they are driven by instinct (e.g. Lorenz), their hormones, or theirgenes. Although the research has been on nonhuman animals, the generalisation is madeoften that, since humans are also animals, they will behave like other animals. Thissupposition often leads to the assumption that human aggression is an outcome of ourgenes and hormones and is inevitable. At best, the hormonal, genetic, andsociobiological data indicate that there is no simple relationship between biology andaggression among nonhumans and it is very clear that, while aggression may beaffected by biological factors, it is not biologically determined. Aggression is neitherinevitable nor uncontrollable in human or nonhuman species (Sunday 61).

8 The hunters rituals are very close to the stereotypes of natives described by Stuart Hall in his article TheWhites of Their Eyes (21).


7/20

7

Golding assumes that violent behaviour and the need to dominate are strong forces in us

all. However Jackson Katz postulates that the naturalisation of male violence has more to

do with furthering an ideological premise than any actual biological factors (136).Golding ignores the possibility that violence is masculine identity validation created

due to capitalist oppression of the working class and may not be biologically determined

(Katz 135).

Lord of the Flies takes on a big job when Golding seeks to elucidate thehuman

condition. It is commendable that he seeks to counter White supremacy by examining

the savagery that is in our own hearts and not just in some externalised other. However,

the critique falls short because of its androcentrism, ethnocentrism and its reliance on

biological determinism. Despite these failings, when Goldings critique is accurately

named as a critique of the behaviour of young English boys; it is well wrought and hard-

hitting. He succeeds in showing White men that the evil they fear and try to externalise

resides within their own hearts: a critique that is weakened in the Hollywood version of

the film.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NOVELAND THE TWO FILM VERSIONS

When I began to think about this essay, I intended to allot equal space to the study

of both movies. However, it became apparent that the 1963 version, directed by Peter

Brooks, remained faithful to the text,9 and it was not until Hollywood adapted the novel

in 1990 (directed by Harry Hook) that the treatment became significantly different. So in


8/20

8

this section I will mainly focus on a comparison of the Hook film in relation to the novel.

I will refer to some aspects of the Brooks film to demonstrate how Goldings critique can

be successfully translated into a cinematic version.

The first difference we will examine is the absence of context in the 1990

adaptation of the book. This absence is significant since it erases Goldings critique of

humanity and relocates it as a critique of the bad individual. This focus on the

individual is then further accentuated by changes made to Jack, Ralph and Simons

characters: the elimination of Jacks past as a choirboy and his new history of criminality,

Ralphs total innocence and Simons rewritten visions. The 1990s film makes use of cinematic techniques to reduce the viewers ability to reflect on the action (techniques

which are absent from the 1963 film). We will study Hooks portrayal of women and

other races. And finally we will pick out some of the aspects of commercialisation in the

Hollywood film (such as product placement). We will see that all these changes are not

innocent changes, but serve to eliminate Goldings thesis on human nature and recasts

this critique so that it becomes a critique of certain individuals not of all people: an

American ideology.

The Elimination of War in the Hollywood Film

Brooks opened his film with a montage of still photographs depicting war and

destruction. This version, made in 1963, shows the reason the boys are in the plane is a

wartime evacuation and the reason the plane crashed was that it was attacked. This is

similar to Goldings novel in which we hear snippets of what occurred from Piggy and

9 Of course, there are some differences; Jack isnt red-haired (a stereotype of a vitriolic personality) and theboys remain more clad than in either the novel or the 1990s version of the film. However, the differences


9/20

9

Ralphs initial conversation (Golding 2-9). In the 1990 version of the film, the context of

war has been completely stripped away. The Hook film opens with the boys floating in

the water, and rescuing the pilot10 who is badly hurt and unconscious (there are no adult

survivors in the novel). There is no mention of why the plane went down. There is only

one mention of war in the film, and it sounds distant and hypothetical:

Ralph (to Piggy alone): I bet out past the reef theres lots of boats that come by everyday and one of them could rescue us.

Piggy: Well, suppose it did and suppose it was Russian. Then wed be taken prisoner:

Ralph: The Russians wouldnt take us prisoner.

Piggy: Well, I dont know. Major Dingledime, my new dad says that

Ralph: Major Dingledime! Laughs

Ralph: Yeah. He said if the Russians invaded the US they would take the kids andseparate us from our mom and dad and, I know it sounds weird, but, make usenter the Olympics or something. (Hook).11

In the chapterThe Beast from Air, the novel shows us that the boys fear is human

violence. The dead parachutist is a sign from the adult world that the beast is notimagined, but is very real and is present in all of mans acts of violence against his fellow

man (Kinkead-Weekes 38). Golding says: that arbitrary sign [the parachutist] stands

for off-campus history, the thing which threatens every child everywhere, the history of

blood and intolerance, of ignorance and prejudice, the thing which is dead but wont lie

down (Regard 35). In the cinematic version the invented unconscious pilot takes over

the role of the parachutist. He regains consciousness and wanders up to a cave where he

is discovered by a littleun (1990). This changes the motivation of the boys fear

are not very significant and dont change the message of the text.10 The credits so name him, a title which has little connotation of war.


10/20

10

completely because the monster is real, he is alive and he pursues the child. The fear is

not of themselves symbolised, rather it has a legitimate concrete form. Thus their fear is

of an other and Goldings critique that what we must fear is ourselves, is lost.

In Hooks film version, the last scene when the marines rescue the boys, there is

no sense that this boat is taking part in a war. So, what is lost is The culminating irony

of the trim cruiser: we all remember what the author himself had to say about that

cruising to gear up and perpetuate man-slaughter of a most sophisticate kind. The

denouement does not arrest our attention but only looks back and very subtly looks

forward (Dev 13). The 1990 film has the boys rescued by the marines who appear to be

involved in a search and rescue, rather than a war. This creates adeus ex mashna ending

that stands in contrast to Goldings soldier who symbolises that the boys actions are not

confined to the island, but are being replayed by adults on a grander scale. The story is

reduced to a tale of bad individuals and not of human society generally.

The Focus on Bad Guys and Good Guys

Kinkead-Weeks identifies three explanations of evil in Goldings novel. First are

Piggy and Ralph, they believe in the essential goodness of people and the island. If

things break up the implication is that they are naturally whole- then it is the fault of

individuals who deviate because there is something wrong with them (45). Jack, on the

other hand, thinks, evil and destruction are live forces. In a world of power there are

powers at work that are stronger than man. But these powers (Beast, Devil, or God) can

be propitiated by ritual, ceremony and sacrifice (45). Finally, there is Simon; he

declares that both of the other explanations are simultaneously right and wrong. There

11 Note that this exchange also serves to locate the actors as modern Americans (the reference to divorce).


11/20

11

is evil, but it is not either outside man or confined to certain men, it is in everyone

(Kinkead-Weeks 45). It is Simons explanation that Golding obviously favours. There

are several scenes in the novel where the author speaks through Simon to accentuate his

message.12 The Hook film aligns itself with Ralph and Piggys explanation. This shift in

emphasis is accentuated by several changes in the characters of Jack, Ralph and Simon.

We will examine each in turn.

In the novel Jack first appears leading the choirboys. After Ralph is elected

Chief, he gives the choir to Jack to lead and Jack decides that they will be hunters

(Golding 15-19). The Hollywood film discards the choir and this leadership thereof.Jack is recast, not as an innocent boy, but as a criminal element who is dangerous. Hook

has the others allude to his criminal past:

You know why Jack got sent to military school? Because he was in trouble.Who saysTony, Jack told him he took a car and drove it on the highway.Hes a liar. He didnt steal a car.He didnt say he stole it, he just borrowed it. It was his neighbours and he was away

(Hook).

This gives us the impression that it is only Jack who is a bad seed and the rest of us

need not worry.

Jack spends the first night around the campfire telling ghost stories to make the

other boys scream and cry. It is Jack, and not the imaginations of the littleun, who instils

fear into the boys. He then uses their fear as leverage to scare the others into joining the

safety of the hunter-tribe. The novel, in contrast, has the beast invented and perpetuated

by the imagination of the youngest boys. A small boy with a mulberry birthmark

It also changes Piggys character, an orphan in the novel.12 We will return to these when we look at Simons portrayal in the Hook film.


12/20

12

mistakes the Jungles creepers for snake-like monsters.13 Jack denies its existence along

with the other big boys (Golding 35). The novel makes us sympathise with Jack

Who thinks Ralph oughtnt to be chief?He looked expectantly at the boys ranged round, who had frozen. Under the

palms there was deadly silence.Hands up, said Jack strongly, whoever wants Ralph not to be chief?The silence continued breathless and heavy full of shame. Slowly the red

drained from Jacks cheeks, then came back with a painful rush. He licked his lips andturned his head at an angle, so that his gaze avoided the in embarrassment of linking withanothers eye.

How many think- His voice trailed off. The hands that held the conch shook. He cleared his

throat, and spoke loudly The humiliating tears were running from the corner of eacheye.

Im not going to play any longer. Not with you (Golding 139-140)

In this scene we see Jack as the outcast boy. Hes not so much bad as desirous of fitting

into the group. There is a pathos in his tears. The effect the Hollywood changes have on

the story is to make Jacks mutiny seem more deliberate and conniving, the result of a

bad individual. Goldings novel, on the other hand, shows that the fear of ourselves is

pervasive among us all and evil is a universal characteristic of men.

The focus on good guys and bad guys is buttressed by changes to Ralphs

character. In the novel Ralph has savage aspects which are erased in the film. Hook

casts Ralph as he all-American hero with a heart of gold. In the written version Ralphs

flaws are clear from the beginning when he betrays Piggys confidence by telling the

other boys his nickname (Golding 17). The Hook film discards even this small flaw by

having one of the other boys reveal Piggys name. In the film Ralph demonstrates his

kindness by comforting Piggy after the others have all been making fun of him:

Ralph: Dont worry, its just cause youre new.Piggy: No its not, its always this way (Hook)

13 In Hooks film the little boy still approaches Ralph with his fears, but this time the fear is that they wontbe rescued, which is something that Jack put into his head.


13/20

13

In Goldings novel Ralph takes part in one of the hunts (122-126) which serves as a

revelation of his own darker side; he discovers in himself the excitements, the fright and

apprehension and pride the others have known (Kinkead-Weeks 41). This hunt ends

with a ritual re-enactment of the kill in which the boys actually hurt Roger (Golding 126).

In the 90s film version, his participation is erased. Ralph is along on the hunt, but he is

not carrying a spear. When the others are poking at Roger he yells at them to Stop it!

(Hook).

If the hunt itself is not enough to let the reader know that Ralph is not innocent,

Golding re-enforces this notion with the murder of Simon. In this scene Piggy and Ralphboth participate in Simons death (Golding 167-168). The movie version erases their

guilt. They were at the feast, but not because of their eagerness to take a place in [the]

demented but partly secure society (Golding 167). Ralph comes to tell Jack that things

have gone to far. He refuses the meat that is offered to him, to show that he is against

this madness (Piggy accepts it and plays into the stereotype of the greedy little fat boy).

Neither Piggy nor Jack had spears and they did not dance with the others (Hook).

Finally, in Goldings novel Ralph becomes what he fears in Jack in the final scene

where he is being hunted:

At length he came to a clearing in the forest where rock prevented vegetationfrom growing. Now it was a pool of shadows and Ralph nearly flung himself behind atree when he saw something standing in the centre; but then he saw that the white facewas bone and that the pigs skull grinned at him from the top of a stick. He walkedslowly into the middle of the clearing and looked steadily at the skull that gleamed aswhite as ever the conch had done and seemed to jeer at him cynically. An inquisitive antwas busy in one of the eye sockets but otherwise the thing was lifeless.

Or Was it?Little prickles of sensation ran up and down his back. He stood, the skull about

on a level with his face, and held up his hair with two hands The skull regarded Ralphlike one who knows all the answers and wont tell. A sick fear and rage swept him.Fiercely he hit out at the filthy thing in front of him that bobbed like a toy and came back,still grinning into his face, so that he lashed and cried out in loathing. Then he waslicking his bruised knuckles and looking at the bare stick, while the skull lay in two


14/20

14

pieces, its grin now six feat across. He wrenched the quivering stick from the crack andheld it as a spear between him and the two pieces (Golding 205-206).

This scene is essential to the novel. It compares the pigs skull (associated with

Jack) to the conch (associated with Ralph) and joins them together. When Ralph grabs

the stick he first realises what it is that Jack means to do with the stick he has sharpened

at both ends. Ralph isnt granted innocence, however, because he takes up the spear and

decides he will do what ever he has to fend of Jacks attacks. In the cinematic version

Ralph encounters the head, but he doesnt lash out at it or discover the spear. He remains

unarmed throughout the entire chase. What these changes serve to do is create a good

guy character for Ralph. The story is no longer an examination of the darkness in all of

us, it has become an examination of two separate forces pitted against each other.

Simons role is greatly reduced in Hooks film. Golding uses Simon as a Christ-

figure, the only boy who really understands what is going on. Hook has Simons visions

take on a distinctly different character. The novel has Simons vision be that of

mankinds essential illness (96). The film recasts this as dreams of rescue. Simon

dreams that the pilot regains his health and comes to tell them that they will be rescued.

His dream is one of hope, not of despair.

In the 1990 film, Simon still encounters the pigs head Jacks hunters left as an

offering to the beast, but the head does not talk to him and he does not faint.14 We are

given the sense that he is fascinated or disgusted by the head, but there is no sense of

revelation and he doesnt share his insights with the other boys as he does in the novel.Instead his revelation is that the pilot is still alive.

Jack: He swam out to sea.

14 The 1963 version does have Simon encounter the head. It leaves out the voice of the narrator come pighead, but the point is accentuated by fly noises, which signal the moral breakdown of the boys throughoutthe film. Brooks film also depicts Simon telling the others maybe its just us.


15/20

15

Simon: He swam out to sea and left his shoes and belt?Jack: He was crazy, Simon.Simon: All Im saying is maybe hes still alive (Hook).

This insight is much less powerful and has eliminated any critique of human evil.

Just before Simon is killed in the book he discovers that the beast is really just a

parachutist and runs to tell the others (Golding 162). In the movie he discovers the pilot,

but the force of the discovery is lost, since in his demented state there is reason to fear

this adult. Although Golding agreed with Simons interpretation, the movie seems to

align itself with Piggy and Ralphs vision.

Cinematic Techniques

An interesting difference between the 1963 film and its 1990s counterpart is the

difference in pacing. The 1963 film is very slow, without many cuts. This allows the

viewer a lot of time to contemplate the action on screen. The 1990s film is much quicker.

The editing puts the scenes in rapid succession so we are not given time to think about

what we are being shown. The novel, like the Brooks film, begins with the boys

scattered about the island. It is Ralphs blowing of the conch that first brings themtogether. The 1963 film has a scene where all the boys are giving their names, and

discussing what needs to be done. The 1990 film begins the film with the boys all

together in a raft carrying them to the island. We dont get their names and the conch as

a symbol of civilisation loses its power. It does not have the force to bring them together.

The dialogue in the 63 film is slow and belaboured. Both the audience and the boys are

given time to contemplate the meaning behind the words. In the 90 film, dialogue is

surrounded by commotion and distraction, the boys are running as they speak or their

dialogue is lost in a succession of different shots, close-ups of the speakers that make the


16/20

16

viewer feel as though she is jumping around. All of these jumps make it hard to

concentrate on any subtext.15

This film also makes more of the violence and less of the reasons. This is the sort

of violence that is described as happy violence where we dont see the pain that the

violence creates; instead violence is just for fun and entertainment (The Killing Screens).

The Brooks film has very little physical contact between the boys until the very end, but

the 90s version has put violence at the forefront. The boys wrestle each other, and bury

each other in the sand, kicking their heads until they are begging for mercy. The film is

an action adventure movie that normalises and glamorises violent masculinity (Katz 140).All these techniques serve to make the viewer less likely to evaluate what they are

watching, and more likely to be carried along, further erasing the possibility of social

critique.

Hooks Treatment of Women and other Races

There are two further changes in the Hook film that are not in the novel: first the

boys mention girls and sexual tension is alluded to. Second, the film depicts one black

boy and one Hispanic as being a part of the stranded adventurers.16 We will examine

each of these in turn. In Goldings novel the only females mentioned are Piggys auntie

and the hunted pigs (which are called her). The movie invents an exchange between

Jack and Ralph as they walk along the beach:

Ralph: I dont know how things are going to work out. I mean what if someone getsreally sick?

15 And in fact, there is none to focus on, as we have seen. It also serves to make it difficult to realize thatthese changes are significant.16 I am not sure what to make of the inclusion of the Hispanic boy (to be honest I am not even sure if he isHispanic, but he does seem a bit darker than the others do). This boy is present, but he is almost totallyignored, so I have little to write about him.


17/20

17

Jack: Man, you gotta stop worrying so much, weve got it made: no parents, no teachers,no academy, no girls. Of course, I wouldnt mind getting a little every now andthen.

Ralph: Like you ever got any.Jack: Still, I wouldnt mind.They laugh and wrestle each other to the ground (Hook).17

I cant really imagine why this would have been inserted in the text, but it is anunnecessary derogatory comment made about the female sex.

Then there is the fact that other races are depicted. This might seem to be good,

since it broadens Goldings critique and makes it a more trulyhuman critique. However,

the black boy is depicted as being the prototypical savage. Ellen Seiter describes

commercial rules that govern the depiction of blacks: First, they are always

outnumbered by whitesThe minority child is seen left screen the least dynamic

portion of the frame according to design theory. The Black child is not given a speaking

part and is seen mainly in groups of white children (103). Each of the conventions she

describes is adhered to in Hooks film. The Black boy, Tony, is with Jack from the

beginning and is constantly depicted as Jacks right hand man. In all the shots of Jack as

violent hunter, theres Tony, next in line behind Jack and in one of the upper corners.Commercial aspects of the Hollywood film

Sut Jhally describes how advertisers seek to align their products with the idea that

these products will make us happy (79). The 1990 version of Lord of the Flies makes use

of this technique with several references to American products. They refer in passing to

Outward Bound and Rambo, but the most striking is the reference to the TV show Alf.

This reference comes when the boys are sitting around the fire trying to comfort

themselves with memories of home:

I wonder what time it is

17 Note that in the film there is already physical contact between the two boys. It is not yet violent, but thisis not mentioned in the novel, nor is it depicted in the 1963 film.


18/20

18

Whyd you want to know that?I was wondering what was on TV. I bet its about eight oclock and Alf is on.Nah, its later than eight.I bet were in a different time zone and its eight oclock at home and Alf is stirring upall kinds of trouble (Hook).

Here the television show is associated with comfort, safety ad home. One cant help butwonder how many corporations contributed money to get this line added to the movie.18

Conclusion

All of the changes made to the American film from 1990 serve to ignore

Goldings thesis. Instead they take up the explanation that some individuals are bad, and

they are bad by nature (Jack is a criminal), There is no examination of why people turn to

thievery or violence (no social or economic oppression). Some people, it postulates, are

simply bad people. The film is not an examination of mans sinful nature [nor] of mans

ignorance of himself as Golding intended (Regard 33). Instead it is an examination of

the struggle of good against evil embodied in Ralph and Jack. The film asserts that it is

not ourselves that we must fear, but the other. Welcome to the Hollywood dream.

18 I would guess the makers of the TV show, the merchandisers who made the Alf dolls and T-shirts as wellas the corporations who advertise durring the Alf time slot.


19/20

19

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WORKS CITED:

Hall, Stuart. The Whites of Their eyes: Racist Ideologies and the Media. in Gail Dines & Jean M. Humezeds. Gender, Race and Class in Media. Sage Publications: Thousand Oakes, 1995.

Seiter, Ellen. Different Children, Different Dreams: Racial Representation in Advertising. in Gail Dines

& Jean M. Humez eds. Gender, Race and Class in Media. Sage Publications: Thousand Oakes,1995.Suzki, David. Evolution of the Human Species: Part 2 The Nature of Things. C.B.C. aired March 20th

2000.Jhally, Sut. Image-Based Culture: Advertising and popular culture. in Gail Dines & Jean M. Humez eds.

Gender, Race and Class in Media. Sage Publications: Thousand Oakes, 1995.The Killing Screnes: Media and the Culture of Violence. Dir. Sut Jhally, 1994.Anand, Mulk Raj. Some Reflections on the Novel Today in Satyanarain Singh, Adapa Ramakrishna Rao

& Taqui Ali Mirza eds. William Golding: An Indian Response. A collection of Critical Essays onthe Fiction of William Golding. Arnold-Heinemann Publishers: New Delhi, 1987.[E sub 1]

Belsey, Catherine & Jane Moore eds. The Feminist Reader: Essays in Gender and the Politics of LiteraryCriticism. Second Edition. MacMillan Press Ltd: London, 1997.[D]

Birke, Lynda. Determined Women: Feminism and Biological Determinism in Women, Feminism andBiology: The Feminist Challenge. FINISH CITATION.

Bleier, Ruth. Have Only Men Evolved? in The Biological Woman The Convenient Myth. FINISHCITATION.

Brooks, Peter (director). Lord of the Flies. Allan-Hodgedon Two Arts Ltd. 1963.Dev, Amiya. Lord of the Flies: Ironic or Dystopian? in Satyanarain Singh, Adapa Ramakrishna Rao &

Taqui Ali Mirza eds. William Golding: An Indian Response. A collection of Critical Essays onthe Fiction of William Golding. Arnold-Heinemann Publishers: New Delhi, 1987.[E sub 2]

Eagleton, Mary. Working With Feminist Criticism. Blackwell Publishers: Cambridge, 1996.[C] Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. Faber and Faber: Boston, 1954.Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan in David Dyzenhaus & Arthur Ripstein eds. Law and Morality: Readings in

Legal Philosophy. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 1996.Hook, Harry (director). Lord of the Flies. Castle Rock Entertainment Inc. 1990.Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the Coy Female. In Feminist Approaches to

Science. FINISH CITATION.Hubbard, Ruth. Have Only Men Evolved? in NAME The Biological Woman: The Convenient Myth.FINISH CITATIONHume, David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Hackett Publishing Company:

Indianapolis, 1983.Johnston, Arnold. Of Earth and Darkness: The Novels of William Golding. University of Missouri Press:

Columbia, 1980.[B] Katz, Jackson. Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity in Gail Dines & Jean M.

Humez eds. Gender, Race and Class in Media. Sage Publications: Thousand Oakes, 1995.Kinkead-Weekes, Mark & Ian Gregor. William Golding: A Critical Study. Faber and Faber: Boston, 1984.

[G] Leibowitz, Lila. Universals and Male Dominance Among Primates: A Critical Examination. In Genes

and Gender II. FINISH CITATION.Page, Norman. Lord of the Flies: from Ballantyne to Conrad in Frdric Regard ed. Fingering Netsukes:

Selected Papers from the First International William Golding Conference. Publications delUniversit de Saint-tienne: Saint-tienne, 1995.[F sub 1] Rahman, Khandkar Rezaur. The Moral Vision of William Golding. University of Dhaka Press: Dhaka,

1990.[A] Ramanan, Mohan. Aspects of Lord of the Flies in Satyanarain Singh, Adapa Ramakrishna Rao & Taqui

Ali Mirza eds. William Golding: An Indian Response. A collection of Critical Essays on theFiction of William Golding. Arnold-Heinemann Publishers: New Delhi, 1987.[E sub 3]

Regard, Frdric. The Obscenity of Writing: A Reappraisal of Goldings First Novel in Frdric Regarded. Fingering Netsukes: Selected Papers from the First International William Golding Conference.Publications de lUniversit de Saint-tienne: Saint-tienne, 1995.[F sub 2]


20/20

20

Sunday, Suzanne. Biological Theories of Animal Aggression in NAME Genes and Gender, IV: OnPeace, War and Gender A Challenge to Genetic Explanations. FINISH CITATION.

william golding2

Documents