Day 43: Lord of the Flies (1963)

In 1954, William Golding brought to the world, “Lord of the Flies,” a disturbing novel about civility lost in search of survival and the ongoing struggle between our rational mentality and our animal instincts. By the early 60s’, as the world dealt with these themes amongst war and political unrest, the book’s popularity reached a fever pitch and, seeing its potential for the screen, director Peter Brook created the highly acclaimed adaptation of this social thriller. With a filmmaking style about as independent and wild as the story’s main characters, Brook brought to the screen a vivid portrayal of the material, creating much discussion and controversy upon its release.

In “Lord of the Flies,” a group of English schoolboys, living amidst a global war, find themselves stranded on a desert island after their evacuation plane is shot down by enemy fighters. Now lost and out of contact with an adult world, the group is led by fellow student Ralph in a civil attempt at surviving with one another and making contact with the outside world.

At first, all seems to go well as the children rally together, but then an older boy named Jack grows obsessed with an imaginary “beast” that he believes lords over the island. Believing he must appease this beast, Jack starts his own tribe based around individuality and without rules and soon the majority of the group joins him and his wild ways, leaving Ralph with a few remaining boys. But, as time goes by, Jack becomes even more violent and totalitarian in his ways, believing he must kill a wild pig as a gift to the beast as well as convert the remaining boys to his beliefs. With this, Ralph and his remaining friends find themselves the victims of a manhunt, which will lead to salvation of some and the deaths of others.

With ”Lord of the Flies,” Peter Brook directed a film that delivers a strange raw energy that remains as savage as when it first premiered. This, among many others things, stems from the unique way the production took place. Brook once wrote, “All I wanted was a small sum of money, no script; just kids, a camera, and a beach.” and, with that mindset, he set off to film in Costa Rica, where he filmed his cast with no extra lighting and no daily screening of rushes. Also, without a care to film stock, Brook allowed multiple cameras to run nonstop at the same time from differant angles- culminating in over 60 hours of footage, which took him over a year to edit.

Along with a rather haphazard filming approach, Brook also delivered little to no script for the actors, instead explaining each scene as they came to it and having the cast occasionally improvise lines. If there is any fault to the film it would probably be this aspect. While there have been many good child actors, generally kids must be well prepared for their work well ahead of time to gain prime results and Brook’s approach defies this logic, creating rather amateurish, but also at times very honest, performances.

But, with this amount of freedom, Brook did get to see the actors at times reflect aspects of the film’s story. The director wrote in his book, “The Shifting Point,” that, in one instance, one of the actors was told by the other boys that his character’s death would not be faked, but actually performed as he wasn’t needed anymore. In tears, the child asked Brook for the truth and the director readily assured him of the scene’s fictional nature. Somewhat disturbed by this turn of events, Brook came to the conclusion that, if it wasn’t for the crew and his adult presence, the kids would have been at each other in a matter of days.

“Lord of the Flies” is a dark tale of man’s inner self and Brook captures this beautifully with his rogue filmmaking style, allowing the camera to capture the actors and the wild in a very candid, and, at times, very terrifying way.

To learn more about “Lord of the Flies,” check out Criterion’s page here.

If you would like updated on all things Nathan and “The Criterion Summer,” check out our Facebook page here.