OVERLAY REPORT

The 1963 film adaptation of *Lord of the Flies*, directed by **Peter Brook**, was received with a mixture of critical acclaim for its stark realism and technical criticism for its amateurish production quality. While it is now regarded as a cult classic and the definitive adaptation of William Golding's novel, contemporary reviews were sharply divided. ### **1. Critical Reception: Divided Opinions** Critics at the time were split between those who praised Brook’s "guerrilla" filmmaking style and those who found the film's execution lacking. * **The New York Times (Bosley Crowther):** The most influential critic of the era, Bosley Crowther, was notably unimpressed. He reviewed the film twice, lambasting it for what he perceived as poor craftsmanship. He described it as a "**curiously flat and fragmentary visualization**" of the novel and criticized its "loose and jerky" construction. Crowther felt the amateur child actors failed to convey the psychological depth of the characters, dismissing their performances as stiff. * **The New Yorker (Jonathan Miller):** In contrast, Jonathan Miller (writing for *The New Yorker*) gave a more nuanced and positive review. He called it a "**brilliant local satire**" and noted that it captured the "classroom idiom" perfectly. He singled out **Hugh Edwards** (who played Piggy) for his "dreary realism," which he felt grounded the film’s more horrific elements. * **The Observer (Penelope Gilliatt):** Gilliatt praised the film for its fastidiousness and its ability to preserve the spirit of the book. She noted that the film’s "discomforting authenticity" was its greatest strength, even if the technical aspects were unpolished. * **Variety:** The trade publication noted that while the film was a faithful rendition, its "experimental" nature—specifically the lack of a traditional screenplay and the use of non-professional actors—made it feel more like a filmed documentary than a standard narrative feature. ### **2. Fidelity to the Novel** One of the most praised aspects of the 1963 version was its **extreme fidelity** to William Golding’s source material. * **No Screenplay Credit:** Peter Brook famously decided not to use a formal screenplay. Instead, he had the children improvise based on specific scenes he read to them directly from the novel. * **Golding's Approval:** William Golding himself was a vocal supporter of this version, which helped its reputation among literary critics who were often skeptical of film adaptations. ### **3. Festivals and Awards** The film achieved significant prestige in the high-art cinema circuit: * **Cannes Film Festival (1963):** The film premiered at Cannes and was nominated for the **Palme d'Or** (the festival's highest prize). During the festival, James Aubrey (the actor who played Ralph) made headlines by telling the press that the bullying and violence in the film were "not some outlandish fantasy" but a reflection of real British boarding school life. * **National Board of Review:** The film was named one of the **Top Ten Films of 1963**, cementing its status as a significant artistic achievement despite its low budget. ### **4. Technical and Production Detail** Reviewers frequently commented on the film’s unique aesthetic, which was born out of its $250,000–$300,000 shoestring budget: * **Cinematography:** The high-contrast, black-and-white cinematography by Tom Hollyman was praised for its "stark, bleak" quality, which many felt was more effective than color would have been for such a grim tale. * **Technical Flaws:** Many critics pointed out the **post-synchronized sound (ADR)**. Because the film was shot on a noisy tropical island (Vieques, Puerto Rico), the dialogue had to be re-recorded in a studio later. Critics noticed that the voices often didn't match the children’s lip movements and that several actors’ voices had dropped (reached puberty) between filming and recording, leading to a "stilted" audio experience. ### **5. Commercial Reception** Commercially, the film was a "sleeper hit." It did not top the box office charts like big-budget spectacles of 1963 (*Cleopatra* or *How the West Was Won*), but it performed well in independent and "art house" theaters. It eventually became a staple of school film societies and educational screenings due to the novel’s popularity in curricula.