Directed by:
François TruffautCinematography:
Nicolas RoegComposer:
Bernard HerrmannCast:
Oskar Werner, Julie Christie, Cyril Cusack, Anton Diffring, Ann Bell, Mark Lester, Eric Mason, Denis Gilmore, Michael Balfour, David Glover, Yvonne Blake (more)Plots(1)
Franncois Truffaut's only English-language film, his stark and gripping adaptation of Ray Bradbury's famed novel stars Oskar Werner as a book-burning "fireman" in a future society where all books and reading materials are banned. Julie Christie plays a dual role as Werner's wife and a bibliophile who opens his mind to the forbidden world of literature. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (8)
The problem is that everything that is good, even excellent, in this movie is taken from the book. I'm having a hard time getting past the 60's American naivety and the expressively earnest acting. Even harder when I know that in two years Kubrick will make 2001 and Leone will make Once Upon a Time in the West. The joke with Ray Bradbury and Pride and Prejudice was a delight. On one thing, however, the film is absolutely right: "Aristotle's Ethics! Anyone who reads it starts to think he's better than someone who hasn't read it" -)
()
This was the fourth movie by François Truffaut that I watched and I was hoping it might surprise me a lot. The premise literally suggested it. But while watching, I quite quickly realized that it s more or less all about the premise. After all, the reviewer Enšpígl is right. The movie is quite emotionless. You can’t form a relationship with the characters. And that’s pretty bad, because in a world full of fascists I would need someone to hang onto and hope for the better. I didn’t see anything like that in the 112 minutes of this movie. I just glimpsed into a world that was making me sick. It was just as impersonal as the movie 1984, which introduced a similar premise.
()
What I’ve always liked the most about dystopia is the helpless and hopeless situation of the characters who try to stand up to the system. Those ingredients are present, so satisfaction. My only problem is that I can’t fully understand why this society would protect their power this way and through these means, and the tactics of the resistance (the book people) are questionable to say the least.
()
I don't know about the book, but this didn't impress me at all. I certainly don't blame Truffaut, who, in addition to directing, also wrote the screenplay, because the weak point of the film, and probably of the book, lies in the story itself, which maps a totalitarian society in a very marginal and indecisive way, failing to convey the atmosphere of the time, and in this respect its age does not add much. By far the most dramatic scene in those 105 minutes is the final book-burning, which contains most of the evil and mystery that was otherwise only faintly and coldly hinted throughout the film. So I leave my first encounter with Truffaut at a great loss – I'll see after a second viewing, which these types of films usually need. 65%
()
What happens if we start hating books and banning them? Well, we'll probably come to realize that without culture and art, we can't exist, that art is what shapes us, makes us think, and is capable of making us live. Not just us, but the whole of society. A great message delivered in a meaningful way. Bradbury had nothing to be ashamed of with this.
()
Ads