“1984” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four” are both written on the cover of the first edition. And the first edition to first use “1984” by itself was published in 1961. So… forgive me… the book has always been titled “1984.”
If you really want to get into it, Nineteen Eighty-Four was Orwell being a semi-journalist again, like he was with Wigan Pier and Down And Out In Paris And London, only this time sending up his experiences in British government ministries combined with his earlier writings on James Burnham (“James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution”, now largely unknown) and his experiences with how the record of the Spanish Civil War, which he participated in, was falsified for political reasons (“Spilling the Spanish Beans”) combined with dark fantasies of modern power politics and particularly Stalinism, which he was nearly unique among British Socialists in seeing as a problem prior to WWII. This theme of Stalinism being evil appears fairly unalloyed in Animal Farm, which really ought to be taught only as part of a class on the history of the Soviet Union.
Another theme, related to the previous, was one mentioned in “The Prevention of Literature”, about how intelligent Socialists of his time would eulogize Stalin even while speaking against censorship. This experience with how the leftists of his place and time would give Stalin a free pass for political reasons is the foundation of doublethink, which is at the heart of the novel. In fact, “The Prevention of Literature” prefigures a lot of the themes in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
So I suppose the major misconception about Orwell was that he was primarily a novelist; he wasn’t, he was primarily an essayist, and his novels were largely drawn from his essays.
…and we have always been at war with Eastasia!
One of the best parts of both shows Sherlock and Elementary is the fact that Watson is an intelligent, observant partner to Holmes. Not up to to Holmes’ level of course, but better than average. The Downey movies also do this, which is a point in their favor.
FWIW the copy of 1984 I own which I have had for many many years (I think I might have actually bought it in 1984) spells the title on it’s cover as “1984”
But… you’re using a number to denote …well, a number. Guess it’s not that big a deal.
But msmith said that if you do that it’s
Sheesh, I say to thee, sir. Sheesh!
Cisco Kid has been portrayed as a heroic Mexican caballero on par with Zorro in most of his incarnations. He originated as the bad guy in an O. Henry short story, “The Caballero’s Way,” as a Pancho Villa partisan/outlaw (with the oddly Anglo surname Goodall) who tricked a Texas Ranger into killing his (Goodall’s) own girlfriend, mostly to spite the Ranger. Very ruthless in a Keyser Soze kind of way.
Ohhh, Cisco…
Peter Pan is a child forever and most representations of him have this as being a positive thing. In the novel Peter Pan his perpetual boyhood comes at a great cost. By the end of the novel Peter Pan doesn’t remember who Tinkerbell was, Captain Hook is only a distant memory and he’s shocked to find that Wendy is no longer a little girl but an adult. Becoming an adult isn’t just about growing older it’s about the accumulation of our experiences and what we learn from them. If Peter were able to remember everything then he wouldn’t be able to remain a boy. Instead of being envious of Peter he should be pitied.
I’d argue that Jude Law’s Watson is actually much smarter than Downey’s Holmes. Holmes is just luckier and brasher.
I thought the same thing. Yes, I watched that in its original broadcast!
WIND IN THE WILLOWS-
Mole & Ratty in their boat
Mr. Toad’s reckless driving & jailing
Badger’s repentance lecture
Weasels taking over Toad Hall & being ousted
Mr. Toad’s change in character
SOMETIMES Little Otter being lost.
I was in a community play we did for kids, who wrote reviews for their classes. Most loved it but one wrote “There’s no wind, there’s no willows. This play was stupid.”
We all got a big laugh about that as he was correct.
The title comes from the hearing of Pan’s pipes & attributing it to the wind in the willows, but in searching for little Otter, Mole & Ratter are awed at finding him under the protective care of the Great Pan.
THAT usually gets left out, as it did in our play.
At the least, Holmes is more observant and knowledgeable about more things. He acts crazy at times, but mostly because he figures his abilities can get him out of any trouble he gets into, which for the most part they can.
YES. Plus, due to his lack of emotional maturity he can’t form any real attachments. Tink and Wendy both have feelings for him, but he can’t reciprocate them. In the original play version (where we get that scene of Peter not remembering Tink or the Lost Boys or even Hook–and there’s a strong implication that Tink is DEAD by now), Wendy visits him for possibly the last time as she is on the cusp of adulthood, but he won’t even let her hug him goodbye, because he isn’t capable of that kind of feeling. (Remember, Barrie describes children as “innocent and heartless.”)
I like the way Barrie shows the ambivalence of growing up; yes, we lose childhood innocence but we gain a lot as well. I also like to think that he was arguing for a better version of adulthood than the stiff, prosaic kind that existed in the Edwardian era, one that allowed for maturity but also allowed for a healthy sense of wonder and fun.
That’s another aspect of the character they don’t play up in most adaptations of the story. Peter doesn’t just play pranks on the pirates he sets out to kill them. He’s a sporting type though and won’t murder them in their sleep at least.
For what it’s worth, Slate just now put this up, featuring Ellen Page saying ‘dream’ a healthy number of times.
Godzilla was not always a cheesy campy hero fighting a menagerie of monsters. Only 2 of his movies were parodied on MST3K, and most of Joel and the robots derision is focused on the bad dubbing and mismatched lips, which aren’t Toho’s fault.
If you get a chance to watch the original Japanese 1954 movie with subtitles, the movie looks almost noir-ish, full of atom bomb and Tokyo firebombing symbolism. One of the main characters is Toshio Mifune, of Kurosawa fame. The man-in-suit is appropriate for Godzilla’s size and lumbering walk. Other sci-fi movies of the 50s used marionette birds and dressed-up lizards (those that couldn’t afford King Kong’s stop-motion).
It did get campy later on, as more and more sequels changed Godzilla. Some of them had the budget and production time of TV shows. Yet, these movies are what were usually shown on UHF TV channels and matinee theaters. For instance, the worst one, Godzilla vs Megalon, fell into public domain and is often the first, and lasting, impression of a Godzilla film. VHS videos were very widely available, plus it made network TV with John Belushi presenting it in a Godzilla suit. It never stood a chance.
The later movies tried to update Godzilla, especially in the 90s and early 00s, with varying degrees of success.
They really wanted to make Godzilla with stop-motion, but couldn’t afford it. It wasn’t all man-in-a-suit, either. Some of the fhots in the original Gojira were done with a high-tech “puppet”. I wayched the film countless times as a kid, and it always struck me as a grim film – the American version even opens with the scenes of a destroyed Tokyo, unlike the original Japanese version, so it puts the grim reality up front. I was glasd when I finally saw the original Japanese version, without the re-cutting and the Raymond Burr scenes and the awful paul frees dubbing (the guy who plays the older Japanese Professor, who you name, was the leader of The Seven Samurai, as well as the Woodcutter in Rashomon, which shocked me when I first realized it.)
The clipped Japanese scenes reference Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it’s pretty clear that the film draws on the case of the Fukuryu Maru, the Lucky Dragon #7, with the ship at the very beginning seeing that bright light. Godzilla is clearly the embodiment of the Atomic and the Hydrogen Bomb., right down to his rasdioactive breath. He’s BIG – The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, which preceded it and in part inspired it, featured a monster that could get lost in the canyons of Manhattan. Godzilla towered over Tokyo, and it wasn’t just because a lot of the buildings were smaller.
When the made the American Godzilla back in the 90s, this is the one thing they got right – Godzilla was BIG. They also jettisoned the original plot of Gojira and substituted the one from The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, right down to the monster’s coming to Manhattan in order to spawn. But they also kept the idea of the monster hiding among the skyscrapers, which is ridiulous if your monster is the Biggest Thing Around. (It was also absurd to even think of the idea of King Kong vs. Godzilla, which was the big G’s first appearance since the 1950s – Kong was even more dwarfed by the city than The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. Godzilla woulda crushed him.
Cloverfield carried on the tradition – he’s America’s redsponse to 9/11 just as Godzilla is Japan’s response to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Fukuryu Maru. He was even bigger than any Godzilla and harder to kill.
The thing was, this angsty series of Monsters degenerated through time and exposure. It’s hard to believe that when The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms came out in Britain, it was given an “X” certificate (Adults Only). I grew up watching it on TV. Kids gravitate toward monsters, and after the first round of kaiju in the 1950s they started getting less serious. King Kong vs. Godzilla was still pretty straight-faced, but you can’t tell me that Mothra was, and putting Mothra and Godzilla in the same film meant that the Big G wasn’t going to be the potent adult threat he’d been in the past. the films started getting more juvenile pretty rapidly after that.
Frees also dubbed him in “Midway” (1976). He was The Man.
Slight correction: Toshiro Mifune is not in Godzilla. You’re thinking of Takashi Shimura, another of Kurasawa’s stock company, who played Dr. Yamane in Godzilla. As Cal Meacham mentioned, he was Kambei, the leader of the samurai, in The Seven Samurai.
In answer to the OP, I’ll go back to the Sherlock Holmes stories–specifically to Professor Moriarty. Doyle created him for one purpose only, to kill off Holmes when he’d gotten tired of writing about him. Moriarty is a factor in only one story, “The Final Problem,” and is vaguely mentioned in a couple of others. (I’m not counting his rather strange involvement in “The Valley of Fear,” because let’s face it, nobody reads “The Valley of Fear.” It’s the forgotten man among the Holmes novels).
The point being, Moriarty is a minor presence considering the Holmes canon as a whole. He existed only to kill Holmes, and he didn’t even manage to do that! Yet popular lore would have you believe that he is a constant presence in Holmes’s life. I’d be willing to bet that people who have never read the stories believe that Moriarty was a recurring villain, going up against Holmes in several stories–God knows the movies give that impression.
So it’s all but impossible these days to do a Holmes adaptation without including Moriarty. The Robert Downey movies, “Sherlock” from the BBC, and “Elementary” from CBS have all done their takes on Moriarty. As someone once said (I regret that I forget who, so I can’t give proper credit), Moriarty has become the third most important character in the Holmes universe, after Holmes and Watson themselves. Not at all what Doyle had in mind when he created him.