Williams Golding published his influential novel Lord of the Flies in 1954 and nine years later, Peter Brook turned it into a film. As with every major book-to-film adaptation, people go on a quest to argue and find out, whether the movie is better than the novel or the other way around. The sole purpose of this article is to answer this tough question. Is Lord of the Flies better than Lord of the Flies?
Key plot points from both versions of the story will be spoiled. If you haven’t seen/ read Lord of the Flies, and don’t want it spoiled, turn away now.
Differences are apparent right from the beginning. The novel begins with a disoriented Raph (James Aubrey) on the beach. Only after he meets Piggy ( Hugh Edwards) we learn that a plane full of boys crash-landed on a deserted island. A series of stills open the movie, introducing not only the boys, but also the ensuing nuclear conflict. It is an unusual and memorable way to start the film. After this opening, the movie follows the book for a while pretty closely. Ralph and Piggy have the same interaction as in the novel and first meeting as well as the introduction of Jack (Tom Chapin) are basically identical in the adaptation.
The first big plot deviation of the story is when the boys miss their chance at rescue, due to an unkept fire. A boat sails past in Golding’s novel, which is replaced for a plane in the film.
Lord of the Flies (1963) includes a scene of Piggy telling smaller kids a story of his hometown. It is a humane and captivating moment, in a rather dull movie. However, it is nowhere to be found in the novel.
The film follows the novel pretty closely, but changes most of the crucial moments in the story. One of these notable differences comes when Simon (Tom Gaman) encounters the Lord of the Flies. The novel clears a large part of a chapter on this moment, from which it derives its name. Simon has a full conversation with the severed head, which never happens in the film. There is no conversation. Simon just stands near the head for a while and then takes off up the mountain. It is a seminal moment in the story, as it directly leads to his later death, but it’s never properly addressed in the film.
Because of the conversation with Lord of the Flies, Simon decides to check on the Beast. When he finds out it’s just a dead man, he climbs down to share the news with the rest of the survivors, who mistake him for the Beast and kill him. To give some credit to the film, both Simon and Piggy’s death are shot very well. They are disturbing, without being graphic. We don’t see one punch laid on Simon, but we hear the screams in an aggressive montage. When they kill him, the film shows his floating body in the ocean without any visible cut or bruises. Yet it still makes for a haunting scene. Same goes for Piggy’s death, even if that one doesn’t pack such a punch. The lead-up to his death is frantic and the act itself is vile, fuelled by the mix of cheering and animalistic screaming.
The film deviates from its source material one last time during the very end. When Ralph is hunted by all the other boys, running for his life and ends up on the beach, face down. When he looks down, he sees a naval captain. In the novel, he speaks to the boys, especially Ralph, while the others watch and stand just a few meters away. The captain asks who’s in charge and Ralph says that he is. When he learns what happened, he’s appalled that a group of boys, British ones at that, could have lost all the rules of civilization in such a short time. Ralph begins to cry, so do the other boys and the captain moves away and lets them regain self-control and stop crying.
Naval captain in the films doesn’t say anything, just looks at the boys and then returns to his boat on the shore. The ending is way less impactful as it misunderstands the irony in the final moments. The captain is confused how the boys could have lost their morals so quickly. Ironically, the “civilized” captain is a soldier in an ongoing war, which is filled with violence and devoid of ethics. He is rightfully shocked, but that shock is touched with a bit of hypocrisy.
Peter Brook followed the story closely in his adaptation, but he also made sure to add his own spin to the crucial moments. It was a brave decision, one which deserves respect even if the changes don’t always work out in the end. For any fans of the novel, I recommend trying the film. If, however, the book failed to capture you, there is little chance that Lord of the Flies (1963) will.
