You're quite welcome! I had seen this one quite a while ago, but before this particular video was put on Youtube. It looks like they did a fine job restoring it to high quality. And it's fun that they left the commercials intact.
Did you ever see the 1954 (Cushing) version? One small but significant difference is that the overalls Julia wears aren't as loose as in the 1984 version, and Yvonne Mitchell had a curvier figure that Suzanna Hamilton. The result is that the Anti-Sex League sash around her waist accentuates her hips and bosom, making her more sexually desirable, not less; and the same would be true for many other women in such a world. I don't think this is what Orwell had in mind -- to the extent he describes Julia, her uniform, etc, Suzanna Hamilton and her costume are more faithful to the book. But it does seem to be in line with Ingsoc, for two reasons. One is Julia's insight (in the book) about "sex gone sour," that the political hysteria is achieved by denying outlets for the sexual instinct then redirecting that energy into "marching up and down and cheering and waving flags." The other is O'Brien's boast that the Party seeks power for its own sake and exercises that power by making its subjects suffer. In a world where people are forbidden from enjoying sexual pleasure, just being around sexually attractive people would be suffering, and would whip up more frustrated sexual energy.
Funny, I doubt the 1954 filmmakers intended this at all. They probably did it just because of the accepted practice at that time that the leading lady should be attractive and desirable. And I'm not knocking Hamilton at all, she's attractive without being glamorous (exactly right for Julia). But her uniform doesn't flatter her in any way; and the 1954 movie's choice here makes sense even if accidentally.
I'm rewatching and rereading "1984" and Zamyatin's "We" while waiting for Peacock TV's "Brave New World" miniseries to air -- have you seen or read those?
reply
share