Philosophy often seems dragged down by endlessly long papers which discuss eclectic topics to the point of confusion. Throughout the course of this paper I am ultimately seeking to write about the general concept of dystopianism in relation to first, the book and movie of 1984 (1949), but also the novel Brave New World (1932), a book of similar thematic underpinnings. I will first start by comparing and contrasting George Orwell’s classic book and Michael Radford’s cinematic dramatization, moving next into a discussion about the similarities and differences of 1984 (1949) and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) generically, concluding with a conversation about at what point a system of perceived equality turns into a dystopian reality. These topics are important to discuss, as they touch upon questions such as the ability to transfer written works into film, how different authors construct stories about a similar theme, and the connection between a fictional scenario and real-world political questions.

Before diving into the bulk of this essay, I think it is vitally important that I discuss the reasoning behind choosing 1984 (1949) as my topic of focus. Beyond the simplistic answer of its connection to politics that inherently interest me as a student of the field, I find a greater meaning in the complexities of Orwell’s works hidden between his often-simplistic writing style. The purposeful accessibility that his reading creates, opens young readers, such as myself, to indulge in Orwell’s various articles, poems, and books, not only ease, but fervor. Personally, I started my intellectual journey of Orwell off of a suggestion from my mom to read Animal Farm (1945) in middle school, quickly then moving into short essays such as “Shooting an Elephant” (1936) and ending off consuming 1984 (1949) in high school. While I can assume that this appeal to personal experience won’t invigorate my entire audience to read up on Orwell, I hope this piece provides a well-explained and thought-provoking discussion of his magnum opus and its connection to wider themes.

In a broad context, Radford’s movie interpretation of 1984 (1949) covered the point that Orwell sought to present, but as I will discuss more in depth later, it missed the mark on vital details that made 1984 (1949) into the masterpiece that I initially saw and continue to see it as. Getting back on track, the movie rightfully brings main characters Winston, Julia, O’Brien and, of course, Big Brother back. From the onset of the movie, we get to see the dreary streets and shortage of supplies through dark imagery. A scrawny Winston is pictured in in his apartment finding a small location around a corner where is his TV monitor (which is designed to watch his every move) cannot find him. He writes the iconic words “To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, from the age of Big Brother… from a dead man. Greetings.” (Radford, 1984). These details come on strong, but as the movie progresses, we gain less and less detail. Ultimately, we can summarize the rest of the movie as Winston going to work and beginning an affair with the double agent, Julia, until he eventually gets captured by the INGSOC, or English Socialist Government (Radford, 1984). There are massive factors that are left ignored throughout the course of the movie, most notably, as Richard Grenier of the NYTimes points out, the “brilliant” mentions of newspeak and doublethink (Grenier, 2015) that so strongly stick with the readers of the book. We also learn less about the society that exclusively Orwell calls “Oceania,” such as the different the social classes (proles, outer party, inner party), the Ministry of Truth and its mission, as well as Goldstein, the mystical figure that everything in happening around the world is blamed upon (Orwell, 1949). If details such as these were not able to be included in the film for whatever reason, I would have opted to cancel the project, as this movie does an incredible disservice to a masterful piece of literature in its current state.

We can learn a lot more about dystopian novels by expanding our view out from just 1984 (1949) into another novel, in this case Huxley’s Brave New World (1932). These books both have a lot in common, starting with governments controlling all aspects of life. 1984 (1949) has the infamous Big Brother (Orwell, 1949), while Brave New World (1932) has the World State (Huxley, 1932). Another big similarity is a forced class structure with no potential for growth. I previously mentioned Orwell talks of proles, the outer party, and the inner party, while Huxley expands upon Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons (Huxley, 1932). Further, Alexandria Peat writes in a scholarly article about 1984 (1949) and Brave New World (1932) being “travel fictions that reveal the possibilities and perils of journeying, investigate various means of policing and protecting the borders of the nation, and examine models of transnational relations” (Peat, 2015). While there are a lot of similarities outlined, there are also plenty of differences in these classics. The first of which is the overly capitalist regime of Brave New World (1932), where production is everything, as opposed to 1984’s (1949) communist regime of rationing. The other large difference between the two stories is 1984’s (1949) repression of relationships and sexuality due to “lack of control” (Orwell, 1949) compared to Brave New World’s (1932) sexualized world where even children are encouraged to play naked (Huxley, 1932).

In any scenario, whether it be in these fictional stories, or in real life, when an authoritarian position is proposed, it is done under the guise of a better tomorrow. The pitch starts with listing clear problems that everyone can identify and ends with a power grab which is said to help. In the case of 1984 (1949) and Brave New World (1932), we can analysis where the system that is designed to create equity and efficiency, turns into a dystopia. In the case of 1984 (1949), there are very clear overreaches that impede on the basic rights of humans. Firstly, the Ministry of Truth where Winston works, which quite literally is designed to rewrite history (Orwell, 1949). The “memory hole” where true, but now inconvenient information goes, is a perfect example of an overreach that bridges the gap from oversight into tyranny (Orwell, 1949). Another large problem is the existence of the “thought police” who have the authority to make people “disappear” in the night even for thinking about the wrong thing (Orwell, 1949). This, while fictional, is such a blatant violation of all people’s rights to think what they want about any given topic. Moving into Brave New World (1932), there are other disparages present. Huxley writes about “Neo-Pavlovian Conditioning Rooms” where Bokanovsky group infants are shocked 200 times in order to rewire their brain to dislike certain items (Huxley, 1932). Modern science outlaws actions such as these due to the obvious harm not only immediately, but long term, that these experiments cause. The director continues later to discuss that the conditioning, along with prenatal treatment creates “individuals without individuality”, allowing for social stability, economic productivity and society dominated by unthinking obedience (Huxley, 1932). The horrific idea behind making society so efficient that we must erase the identity of citizens, is the antithesis of the dystopia.

Many, including myself, would say that 1984 (1949) is largely a warning from 1949 to the future of the world on the dangers of totalitarianism. At the forefront, frighteningly, Orwell accurately predicted a future of the surveillance state, with everyone being watched at all times. This was confirmed when Edward Snowden leaked NSA documents to the media in 2013 (Greenwald, 2013). Questions outlined in the previous paragraph of where well-intentioned policy turns into dystopia, can be extended to this implication, asking the question of when surveillance in the modern world gets so intrusive that we are essentially living in 1984. We as a society need to come together and do what we didn’t have the courage to do in 2013, have an open discussion about government surveillance and at what point it goes too far, potentially enacting policy changes that have ramifications so wide-spreading that the course of history is shifted.

Works Cited

Greenwald, Glenn, et al. “Edward Snowden: the Whistleblower behind the NSA Surveillance Revelations.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 11 June 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

Grenier, Richard. “DID THE HEART OF ORWELL'S '1984' GET LOST IN THE MOVIE?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Feb. 1985, https://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/24/movies/did-the-heart-of-orwell-s-1984-get-lost- in-the-movie.html.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: Harper Brothers, 1932. Print.

Orwell, George. 1984. London: Secker and Warburg, 1949. Print.

Peat, Alexandra. “Traveling to Modernism’s Other Worlds: Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Journeys16.2 (2015): 38–59. Web.

1984. Directed by Michael Radford. Twentieth Century Fox, 1984.