Lord of the Flies: Descent Into Savagery
How long can a man remain civilized before descending into savagery? Although society provides rules of civilization to abide by, the evil nature of mankind will always exist within. In both William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies and Harry Hook’s movie adaptation of Lord of the Flies, we see a group of boys who are stranded on an island progressively lose their innocence as their savage impulses become stronger. William Golding wrote this novel in 1954, and since then there have been two cinematic adaptations. The first adaptation directed by Peter Brook was released in 1963 whereas the second adaptation directed by Harry Hook was released in 1990. Both films adapt the narrative from Golding’s novel,
…show more content…
however the second adaptation greatly varies from the original work. Therefore this essay will focus on the analysis of Golding’s novel from 1954, and Hook’s movie adaptation from 1990. The novel is able to capture the theme of the story much more effectively than the movie adaptation. There are many important components in the novel that are missing in the film. The changes between the novel and the movie are very significant. Hook removes many elements that are crucial to the ideas that Golding was trying to present. For example, in the movie the boys are American military cadets. This gives the audience the impression that these boys must have prior knowledge of basic survival skills and that they have previously been exposed to violence. Therefore, the natural savage impulse within every human being is harder to perceive through the film. By making the boys military cadets, Hook removes the power struggle between Ralph and Jack, which is a very important turning point in the novel. Since they are shown as military cadets, Ralph is declared the leader because his military ranking is higher than Jack’s. Whereas the novel shows Jack does not think Ralph should be the leader, and asks the boys to vote again. In the novel, we are told the boys are part of a British choir, thus displaying a sense of purity and innocence. It is because of this display of purity and innocence that we are able to see the transition the boys make from being civilized individuals to becoming savages. The impact is much greater because readers would not expect choir boys to commit sins such as murder. This allows readers to understand the shift from well-mannered boys to savages. Although this novel has many reoccurring themes, such as the loss of innocence and civilization versus savagery; the central theme of the story is the internal conflict between being a law-abiding citizen with morals against being a savage displaying acts of violence. Hook is not able to portray the ideas set by Golding accurately. In the novel, Golding portrays the loss of innocence as the natural course of events when human desire is not controlled by the rules of a society. Upon being detached from the influence of society, the boys lose their innocence and revert to darker, more primitive ways of behaving. The basic plot of the adaptation is correct, however dissimilarities appear in the beginning of the movie. Golding’s novel allows readers to use imagination when reading about the journey on the island, whereas Hook presents a clear scene in his visual interpretation leaving little to imagine. Hook uses a fluid directorial style in his adaptation by using lots of camera movements, slow motion techniques, and frame changes. The first major difference between the novel and the movie is found in the opening sequence of the film, where we meet the pilot. For example, the first scene shows the pilot slowly sinking underwater in slow motion, where he falls from above the frame to underneath the frame. We see one of the main characters, Ralph, swimming downwards into this frame and grabbing the pilot to pull him back up, still in slow motion. Hook goes back and forth between both the above frame and underneath frame to portray the scene after the plane has crashed. The scenes underwater are serene and quiet whereas the scenes above the frame are noisy and full of panic. When going between frames, we see the water lapping over the camera to show the transition from above the frame and underneath the frame. The camera pans around to show the other boys shouting for one another and trying to stay afloat. Hook uses this opening sequence as a metaphor because the serenity below the frame gives way to the panic above the frame, therefore showing how civilization gives way to savagery. Golding’s novel is set in a dark, violent, deserted tropical islandwhereas Hook’s setting is a more colorful tropical island. In Golding’s novel, there is no pilot present when the plane crashes and the boys land on the island. In the movie, the pilot is rescued from the sea by Ralph and brought back to a tent, in which he is severely injured and delirious, yet alive. The pilot’s presence is unnecessary and does not follow the narrative of Golding’s novel. In the novel, the pilot does not survive the crash therefore allowing readers to understand that these boys have no adults there to guide them. As the story progresses, the boys see the dead parachutist and assume he is the beast. They do not realize that the “beast” is simply the dead pilot who used a parachute to land safely. The presence of the dead parachutist may serve as a symbolic link to the adult world. Prior to the dead pilot landing on the island in his parachute, Ralph and Piggy wish desperately for a sign from the adult world in the previous chapter. “If only they could send us something grownup…a sign or something” (94). That same night, the dead parachutist drifts onto the island. Therefore showing how the dead parachutist could be their last severed tie to civilization, as well as the manifestation of the beast whose existence was feared yet not confirmed. A major factor in the novel that is not present in the movie is the conversation shared between Simon and the severed pig’s head.
Hook fails to display this interaction and instead shows brief shots of Simon staring at the pig’s head. “There isn’t anyone to help you. Only me. And I’m the Beast....Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill!...You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are the way they are?” (158). In the novel, Golding goes into details about Simon and his interaction with the pig’s head, which he sees as ‘The Lord of the Flies’; who identifies itself as the beast and acknowledges that the beast exists within all human beings. In a previous chapter, we are told that Simon suggests that the beast is only the boys themselves, therefore this sign is crucial in confirming that his theory is correct. Since this scene is omitted from the movie, Simon’s theory cannot serve as foreshadowing. Simon is the first character to see the beast as a component of human nature. In the movie, Simon’s encounter with the head is quickly dismissed. We only see the camera focused on Simon staring at the pig’s head intensely. Since we do not see or hear the conversation between The Lord of the Flies and Simon, we are unable to make the connection leading to Simon’s death. In the novel, when the conversation takes place we know that Simon has gained knowledge that the beast is within every human, and he wants to share this with the rest of the boys. However, in the movie we simply see him staring at the pig’s head until the scene changes and shows Simon discovering the pilot’s body in a cave. He wants to share with the rest of the boys that there is no ‘beastie’ and that the beast is simply the dead pilot. The only similarity shared between the novel and the movie is the scene where Simon is returning to the boys, and he is mistaken for the beast and murdered. As their belief in the beast
continues to grow, the boys become more savage, and it is this savagery that leads to Simon’s death. Another crucial scene that is downplayed in the movie is Piggy’s death. In the novel, we see that there is a conch shell found by Ralph and Piggy. The boys use this conch shell to gather all the boys after the crash, and continue to use it during their meetings. Whoever is holding the conch shell has permission to speak and all the other boys must be quiet. This demonstrates that the conch shell is symbolic of civilization. Throughout the novel, we see Piggy as the voice of reason providing insight to the group of boys. In the movie, the boys are not reunited by the sound of the conch shell, therefore implying that the boys were not previously strangers to one another and removing any sense of unity. As the voice of reason, Piggy holds the conch shell and attempts to talk some sense into the boys about their savage behavior. He asks whether it is better to have rules and agree or to hunt and kill. As a response, in both the novel and the movie, Roger pushes a boulder down the mountain killing Piggy and shattering the conch shell. Golding links Piggy’s death to the shattering of the conch because the conch is symbolic of civilization. By destroying the conch shell, the boys have lost all civilization and have fully become savages. “Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of a true, wise friend called Piggy” (202). Although the movie deviates from the novel, the moral of the story is presented as the internal conflict of civilization versus savagery. By removing key components from the movie, Hook completely misses the ideas presented by Golding throughout his novel. The novel has a greater impact than the movie because the novel allows readers to see ordinary boys driven to behave as savages due to the lack of authority and consequence for their actions. Hook’s lack of emphasis on many important symbols takes away from the true moral of the novel. Hook’s adaptation is an insanely flawed and inaccurate version of Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Both the novel and the movie are successful in portraying the innate human evil which exists in every human being. However, Hook is not as successful because he omitted crucial scenes from the movie.
When Simon goes to the pig, Simon starts hallucinating and thinks the pig is speaking to him and it takes on the voice of a male. Meanwhile the hunters are naked, painted and people are losing their identity. Everyone is starting to think that it would be fun to be a savage. The Lord of the Flies says to Simon that everyone is gonna become savage and kill him. Simon loses consciousness, but then later wakes up and he realizes he needs to tell everyone that there is no beast. When Simon gets to where they all are, they all crowd around Simon and start chanting. Simon screamed out about the beast but this is what happened “the beast struggled forward, broke the ring and fell over the steep edge of the rock to the sand by the water. At once the crowd surged after it, poured down the rock, leapt onto the beast, screamed, struck, bit, tore. There were no words, and no movements but the tearing of teeth and claws.” (Golding 153)
There is evidence in both Lord of the Flies and A Separate Peace that display the savagery of man. In Lord of the Flies there is savagery found when the choir boys and most of the bigguns separate from Ralph’s authority and form their own tribe. In A Separate Peace, savagery is found in unnamed characters during Leper’s war experience - he feels such a need to escape from evil and savagery in the war that he takes the risk and actually does. In both of these novels, the archetype and motif of savagery is present in young boys, ultimately resulting in the downfall and degenerating of man.
The Lord of the Flies - Savagery. William Golding’s novel ‘The Lord of The Flies’ presents us with a group of English boys who are isolated on a desert island, left to try and retain a civilised society. In this novel, Golding manages to display the boys slow descent into savagery as democracy on the island diminishes. At the opening of the novel, Ralph and Jack get on extremely well.
While Jack and Ralph represent the distinct polarization between civilization and savagery. Simon is separated from both of these dimensions. Simon represents built-in goodness. The other boys who hold on to their sense of morality only do so because society has conditioned and trained them to act in a certain way. They do not have an innate sense of morality. Unlike the other boys on the island, Simon does not act morally because an external force has compelled him to do so, instead he finds value in performing good actions.
Lord of the Flies - Savagery “There are too many people, and too few human beings.” (Robert Zend) Even though there are many people on this planet, there are very few civilized people. Most of them are naturally savage. In the book, Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, boys are stranded on an island far away, with no connections to the adult world.
On contrary from all the other boys on the island Simon, a Christ like figure in the novel, did not fear the ‘beastie’ or the unknown. “Maybe there is a beast....maybe it's only us” Simon explained. (p. 97) The fear of the unknown in the novel contributes to the boys’ terror of the beast, the beast is an imaginary figure which lays in all of the boys’ minds and haunts them. Golding uses the beast as a symbol of the evil that exists in every creature. "You knew, didn't you? I'm part of you? Close, close close! I'm the reason why it's no go? Why things are the way they are?" The sow head announced to Simon to be the “lord of the flies”. The “lord of the flies” is a figure of the devil, and brings out all the evil and fear in people. It wants you to fear it, but if you don’t believe in the “lord of the flies” nothing can happen to you. Therefore Simon didn’t fall into the trap, but the beast killed him, meaning the other boys on the island did. Simon discovered that the beast is in fact just a dead parachute man before he died and ran down to tell the boys about his finding. When Sim...
Would you be able to resist savagery from being away from society? Could you resist the urging power to kill? How about being able to find food without killing or not to go full savage on other people, could you still do it? A normal person could say no to all of these. In the novel, “Lord of The Flies”, William Golding shows that without civilization, a person can turn into a savage by showing progressively how they went through the seven steps of savagery.
It could be said that tragedies serve as Humanity’s catalysts of thought. When we line up literary eras with wars, the shifts in eras are always marked by some war- especially in America. The Romantic period was broken by the dawn of the civil war, and took a little magic from the world of writing. Writing shifted to realism, which was the polar opposite of romantic thought. When the First World War broke out, the modernist movement overshadowed realism. Similarly, the Second World War produced postmodernism. Should there be another horrible tragedy, the view will shift similarly. Whatever the implications may be, tragedies seem to change how us humans think and act. In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, he tells the story of a group of schoolboys
In our society today, abortion is a huge controversial issue due to the beliefs of abortion being evil. “What are we? Humans? Or animals? Or savages?” (William Golding, Lord of the Flies). In the novel, “Lord of the Flies”, the author William Golding, leads the reader into dismissing savagery as an act of violent cruelty by portraying murder, an uncivilized manner, and an increasing disregard of the rules. Murder is symbolized in savagery throughout the novel. The boys act in an uncivilized manner. The rules that were made to help keep order in the island, are being broken.
Simon is perhaps the most important character in the novel for he is the first and only character to come to the realization that the Beast is inside them all, and is not represented by a physical manifestation. Simon is a follower, not a leader. He believes and trusts what Ralph, his leader, says. That’s why he mentions that the beast could be inside all of them once, and immediately discards that because Ralph doesn’t think so. His confrontation with the Lord of the Flies is the only way he can liberate that information to himself. The encounter begins with “Even if he shut his eyes the sow’s head still remained like an after-image.” This represents the beginning of the fixation Simon is having on the head, thinking of it even after he shuts his eyes. Golding then points out that the pig had half shut eyes and were dim with infinite cynicism of adult life. Those details come back a little later. It’s at this point where Simon asks himself a question and answers it aloud. “ ‘I know that.’ Simon discovered that he had spoken aloud”. “He opened his eyes quickly and there was the head grinning amusedly in the strange daylight, ignoring the flies, the spilled guts, even ignoring the indignity of being spiked on a stick.” That sentence shows the continuing evolution of the fixation Simon has in this encounter. The first thing he sees when he opens his eyes is the head, and he ignores every detail around it. This is when Simon comes to the realization that his original conclusion is credible, the one he let be because of Ralph. He looks away, trying to forget the head even exists, but cannot accomplish that task.. He pulls himself back to the head “Might not the beast come for it?”, simply because he believes the Beast is not a physical manifestation, therefore being impossible for it to come. According to Simon, the head seems to agree with him. At this point, he knows the Beast doesn’t exist physically, but he is hesitant none-the-less. The head says “Run away […] go back to the others. It was a joke really—why should you bother? You were wrong, that’s all. A little headache, something you ate, perhaps. Go back, child.” Simon is making excuses for himself through the pig. Here, the fixation on the head is nearly complete.
Imagine flying on a plane and crash landing on an unknown island with a select group of people. How would humans deal as a result of this horrific situation? Is cruelty and violence the only solution when it comes down to it? In Lord of the Flies, William Golding explores the relationship between children in a similar conflict and shows how savagery takes over civilization. Lord of the Flies proves to show that the natural human instincts of cruelty and savagery will take over instead of logic and reasoning. William shows how Jack, the perpetrator in the book, uses cruelty and fear for social and political gain to ultimately take over, while on the other hand shows how Ralph falters and loses power without using cruelty and fear. In Lord of
Lord of the flies was about a group of boys getting stranded on an island. There was basically to groups I like to identify them as the “civilized group” and the “savage ones”. In this paper I will tell you examples of civilization and savagery in lord of the flies. From the conch to the pig head to the boys that are there .There are mean examples of this theme so let’s get started.
group of adolescent boys. The boys are forced to learn how to live on the land
Lord of the Flies is a novel written by William Golding in 1954. Golding’s participation in the Second World War, and especially in the invasion of Normandy may have pessimistically affected his viewpoints and opinions regarding human nature and what a person is capable of doing. This can be seen in his novel, which observes the regression of human society into savagery, the abandonment of what is morally and socially acceptable for one’s primal instincts and desires.
People are privileged to live in an advanced stage of development known as civilization. In a civilization, one’s life is bound by rules that are meant to tame its savage natures. A humans possesses better qualities because the laws that we must follow instill order and stability within society. This observation, made by William Golding, dictates itself as one of the most important themes of Lord of the Flies. The novel demonstrates the great need for civilization ion in life because without it, people revert back to animalistic natures.