Brave New World

Plot synopsis:
The novel opens in London in AF 632 (AD 2540 in the Gregorian calendar). The society is illuminated by the activities of the novel's central characters, Lenina Crowne and Bernard Marx, and others. Lenina, a hatchery worker, is socially accepted and contented, but Bernard, a psychologist in the Directorate of Hatcheries and Conditioning, is not. He is shorter in stature than the average of his Alpha caste—a quality shared by the lower castes, which gives him an inferiority complex. His intelligence and his work with hypnopaedia allow him to understand, and disapprove of, the methods by which society is sustained. Courting disaster, he is vocal and arrogant about his differences. Bernard is mocked by other Alphas because of his stature, as well as for his individualistic tendencies, and is threatened with exile to Iceland because of his nonconformity. His only friend is Helmholtz Watson, a lecturer at the College of Emotional Engineering. The friendship is based on their feelings of being misfits (in the context of the World State), but unlike Bernard, Watson's sense of alienation stems from being exceptionally gifted, intelligent, handsome, and physically strong. Helmholtz is drawn to Bernard as a confidant.
Bernard takes a holiday with Lenina at a Savage Reservation in New Mexico. (The culture of the village folk resembles the contemporary Native American groups of the region, descendants of the Anasazi, including the Puebloan peoples of Acoma, Laguna and Zuni.) There they observe ceremonies, including a ritual in which a village boy is whipped into unconsciousness. They encounter Linda, a woman originally from the World State who is living on the reservation with her son John, now a young man. She too visited the reservation on a holiday, and became separated from her group and was left behind. She had meanwhile become pregnant by a fellow-holidaymaker (who is revealed to be Bernard's boss, the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning). She did not try to return to "civilization" because of her shame at her pregnancy. Neither Linda nor John are accepted by the villagers, and their life has been hard and unpleasant. Linda has taught John to read, although from only two books: a scientific manual from his mother's job in the hatchery and the collected works of Shakespeare. Ostracised by the villagers, John is able to articulate his feelings only in terms of Shakespearean drama, especially the tragedies of Othello, Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. Linda now wants to return to London, while John wants to see the "brave new world" his mother has told him about. Bernard sees an opportunity to thwart plans to exile him, and gets permission to take Linda and John back. On his return to London, Bernard is confronted by the Director, but turns the tables by presenting him with his long-lost lover and unknown son. John calls the Director his "father", a vulgarity which causes a roar of laughter. The humiliated Director resigns in shame.
Bernard, as "custodian" of the "savage" John who is now treated as a celebrity, is fawned on by the highest members of society and revels in attention he once scorned. However, his triumph is short-lived. Decrepit and friendless, Linda goes on a permanent soma, that is, drugged, holiday while John refuses to attend social events organised by Bernard, appalled by what he perceives to be an empty society. Society drops Bernard as swiftly as it had taken him. Lenina and John are physically attracted to each other, but John's view of courtship and romance, based on Shakespeare, is utterly incompatible with Lenina's freewheeling attitude to sex. Lenina tries to seduce John, but he attacks her for being an "impudent strumpet". John is then informed that his mother is extremely ill. He rushes to her bedside, causing a scandal as this is not the "correct" attitude to death. Some Delta children who enter the ward for "death-conditioning" irritate John to the point where he attacks one physically. He then tries to break up a distribution of soma to a lower-caste group and is set upon by the outraged recipients. Helmholtz, who has been called by Bernard, also becomes involved in the fracas.
Bernard, Helmholtz and John are brought before Mustapha Mond, the Resident "World Controller for Western Europe". Bernard and Helmholtz are told they are to be exiled to islands, seen by society at large as a punishment for antisocial activity. Bernard pleads grovelling for a second chance, but Helmholtz welcomes the opportunity to be an individual, and chooses the Falkland Islands as his destination, believing that their bad weather will inspire his writing. Mond says that Bernard does not know that exile is actually a reward. The islands are full of the most interesting people in the world, individuals who did not fit in the World State community. Mond outlines for John the events that led to the present society and his arguments for a caste system and social control. John rejects Mond's arguments, and Mond sums up by saying that John demands "the right to be unhappy". John asks if he may go to the islands as well but Mond refuses, saying he wishes to "continue the experiment".
John moves to an abandoned hilltop "air-lighthouse" (meant to warn and guide helicopters) there, near the village of Puttenham, where he intends to adopt an ascetic lifestyle in order to purify himself of civilization and make amends for his mistreatment of his mother. He practises self-mortification, and his self-flagellation is witnessed by bystanders, turning him into a sensational spectacle. Hundreds of sightseers, hoping to witness his behaviour, arrive at John's lighthouse; one of them is Lenina. At the sight of the woman he both adores and loathes, John attacks her with his whip. The onlookers are whipped into a frenzy by the display and John is caught up in a soma-fueled orgy. The next morning, John remembers the previous night's events and is stricken with remorse. Onlookers and journalists who arrive that evening find that he has hanged himself, his body twisting aimlessly in the lighthouse.

Tags: brainwashing, satire

Review:
As others have said, this 1980 version of "Brave New World" is far superior to the 1998 version.
But what nobody has mentioned, probably because they aren't even aware of it, is that the 1980 film exists in 2 different versions.This was originally produced as a 2-part mini-series, running 4 hours (including commercials).
When it was later aired on the BBC in England, it ran in its original full length, 2-part form.There are many collectors offering copies of this movie via the IMDb message boards, or eBay. Before buying, I suggest you ask which version they have.
I am not going to pretend this is my favourite film of all time, but it was a good, clear version of the excellent book.The film looks dated and would be boring for some.
This idea is the most likely to come true of all possible fates of humans.The acting is in places 2-dimensional, but this is usually only when portraying characters who are themselves 2-dimensional, such as Lenina, Linda and Thomas.The three more interesting and deeper characters of Bernard, John and Mustapha are portrayed well and all change dramatically and believably as the story unwinds.Not a funny, thrilling or exciting film but a clear film that makes you think..
This is naturally a low-budget TV version, but it's long enough to go into the themes of the book in some depth, and follows the plot and dialogue accurately enough.
It gives the impression of a theatre version really, with the cheap sets and costumes: or maybe the original Star Trek is closer to it, with the pyjamas.
I thought everyone did a commendable job on this given the limitations of the budget, and while it's not great cinema, it captures the spirit of Huxley's work, and in particular it was nice to hear the Shakespeare quotations very nicely done..
This 1980's interpretation of Brave New World, despite the wobbly sets, despite the Buck Rogers style acting, despite the made for television feel, this is an awesome movie.
How accurate this movie is to it's source I have yet to discover, but as a sci-fi movie which depicts society, and culture it is perfect, this movie is truly inspiring.As I have mentioned despite this movies more obvious faults, there is essentially a strong narrative running through this movie, the characters are all believable, well played and fitting with the irony of the culture that they represent.
One of the most subtle scenes is when John Savage is told he can have what ever he wants to eat by pressing a button on the machine, and he presses the button about four times, then when he is asked why he has ordered so much food, his reply is 'I don't know'.
The subtlety of this scene played out in such a extravagant setting is a good example of how well the director and the actors understand Huxley's world.
Clearly this movie was made for TV and feels like a mini space drama, but the genius of Huxley's vision is evident on screen.Trying to recreate Huxley's Brave New World is akin to creating a land of Oz governed within Stalinist Russia, I'm sure many directors would find it near impossible to effectively portray the right amount of comedy, tragedy and realism in a adaption of Brave New World, and here we have a fine example of how it can be done.Undoubtedly a good watch, for those who have both read the book, and those who haven't and of course for those who enjoy Science fiction, this is a forgotten movie classic to be enjoyed, so I urge for those who know of its where abouts to go see..
It does a great job of illustrating Huxley's vision of what could be the future, and its potential downside..
The television 1980 version of the book is not as bad as they said but it is a good representation of the book.
It was so good that I brought a DVD copy of that TV movie!!
The 2000 version version of the book for a lack of a better term is lame.
The 1980 version gave us an pessimistic and dark look of the future showing test tube conception as well as the bleak viewpoint of natural conception and falling in love in a world of no love..
Everything is Perfect Now. I watch it like once a month.
I can quote this movie almost line for line, "but everything is perfect now, and everything will always be perfect, so why does it matter when things weren't perfect?" I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of the dialogue is drawn from it - but I love the dialogue.
I like how there are no "good guys" in this story, its just a character study.
John Savage wasn't anymore more moral at the end of the day then the people in the perfect society were.
I also like the idea of trying to build a perfect society - this story is as close to a "Utopian" scifi as I've ever seen.
I feel like the major flaw in this dystopian society was hierarchy.
This is the tragic flaw of the otherwise perfect little social experiment they had going - is that it was ultimately still based on hierarchy and dominance and submission within its roles - just more refined and sleek so it wasn't as obvious and noticeable as other dystopian fantasies.
When I saw this television film back in 1980, I was captivated--so captivated that I almost immediately went out and read the source material, the Aldous Huxley novel.
I loved the book and its prescient look at the future of mankind and now, decades later, I decided to watch this television adaptation once again.
Well, I sure was surprised, as I really didn't love the film nearly as much as I once did--much of it due to the really annoying way that John the Savage talked.
It does look a tad dated but overall it's still much better than the ultra-bland later Leonard Nimoy version of the story.
And, the story itself is so good even a lower-budgeted TV version like this one is worth your time.If you are interested in seeing it, the film (and the worse Nimoy version) are available to watch on YouTube..
I hated the NBC broadcast, I love the complete version....
When it aired in 1980, I wondered what the heck happened to the promised BNW miniseries with a one-night broadcast that left so much out.Almost three decades later, due to the miracle of the Internet, I saw the entire version as broadcast by the BBC & then bought the DVD.
The cartoonish Gil Gerard Buck Rogers-ish special effects and the superficial characterization, much disdained, totally fit the "soulless streamlined Eden" of the book.Btw, back in 1980, I was fortunate enough to buy the PB tie-in, which I still own.Please put this on official DVD!.
I finally got to watch this movie.
Now, I gave it a little leeway seeing how its more than 20 years old but I was still a little set back by this adaptation.
I was in the middle of traveling with my family and when we finally reached our destination, there were only 30 minutes of the film left on television for me to watch.
It looked like they raided the set departments of Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica (a distinct possibility as this was a Universal property) in their quest to make the future of BNW.
It seems great care went into trying to be as accurate to the novel of the same name, but there was still a clunkiness in the acting.
Unlike "1984" where the environs created a bleak landscape that added to the culture of the people presented, BNW creates almost cartoon like personalities living in a utopia world that come off as silly and often naive though they portray their duties as part of this utopia very seriously and steadfastly.
The one highlight of finally getting to see this movie for me was seeing a young Bud Cort.
Overall it was worth watching once but after that you may want to watch 1984 or Brazil in order to sweep away the anodyne utopian visions of this version of BNW..
A horrible mini series and is the worst adapation of a book I have ever seen!!!.
out look on movie.
This movie was revolutionary because it showed what medical science could lead us to one day.
The movie was based off the book and the book was written in 1931, so you can see Aldous Huxley's vivid imagination of what the world would be like hundreds of years down the road following the perfection of cloning.
Stem cell research is not all bad but continuing practicing to clone could very well lead us down the "Brave New World" path.
Now I don't fully believe that the world will turn out that way, but if you researched the origin of any of the greatest technology we have today you will see that the ideas for them started with a vision.
I just thought this movie was interesting because it gave us a glimpse of what our world might be like in 2540, if not sooner.
Those on the other hand whose eyes already lightened up with the glee of the person who sees its investment finally coming to fruition cannot miss by watching this film, for it was made for them, an almost private and quite definitely guilty pleasure..
Not Good Enough for the book.
The 1980 version of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is not as good as the book, because our imaginations are far richer than the mediocre production values shown in this lame attempt to capture Huxley's visions (or the visions of "We" a previous novel from which Huxley appeared to have gotten several of his ideas.).
The head man of the future was interesting, but ultimately, the cast was as plastic as its sets.
This book might and film might have raised eyebrows (it got banned in 1969, which was virtually impossible, as everything was ok in that time period) then, but now, since we have every single negative aspect of the film in our current societies PLUS additional horrors, the film has little emotional impact.
Ultimately, I would have to rate the film a 4 of 10 because of wretched production values, and plastic acting and direction.
Some day, a good producer, director, crew of actors, and technicians will make a good film from this book, which, like Death of a Salesman, is still waiting to be made.
(and just as difficult to capture on film from the book)..
I have just been watching Brave New World on Google Videos (where it can be seen for free), for the first time since I saw it on television in the early '80s (being only about eleven at the time, I could only remember a very few scenes).
Before rewatching it, I read the book, and the movie completely amazed me.It is magnificent.It is something so rare as a great science fiction adaptation of a great science fiction novel, debating all the salient points of dystopia and utopia that science fiction is the perfect genre for exploring.
The treatment of the main prevailing ideologies of Huxley's time - Marxism and rampant capitalist consumerism - is both progressive and satirical and far ahead of its time, the two -isms being mind-bogglingly blended into a harmonic mix containing all the worst elements of both.Few books about social developments can be said to be as thought-provoking as this, and the movie lives brilliantly up to the book.
The only thing that disappointed me was that the climactic discussion about Shakespeare in the book was almost entirely omitted in the movie.
But the movie still stands as a towering achievement in television film-making.
I would be the first to buy this if it became available on DVD with a crisp picture quality, and I am very sorry that, so far, it isn't.One of the greatest boons of this movie is Ron O'Neal as Mustapha Mond.
I can honestly say that Brave New World is among the 15 best SF movies I have seen.
A comparable book or movie would be Heinlein/Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, which also presents us with a sort of attractive but ultimately nightmarish utopia.
If you love Starship Troopers, you will probably love Brave New World.10 stars out of 10.
I have taught the novel several times, and I know it rather well.
The novel is infinitely better in every way, but at least the 1980 version attempt is interesting to watch and to compare it to the text.The 1980 version is flawed as is the 1998 version, but at least the 1980 version sticks to most of the plot most of the time.
You can still understand the message Huxley was getting at despite its lapses in terms of adding characters and changing some story details.
It helps to have read the novel before seeing it, but to a viewer who has not read it, the viewer would get most of the ideas found in the text.One big problem I found: Linda was not bloated and old and horrid looking enough.
The actor playing John also appeared to me to be too old; the character is supposed to look younger.
I did like the fact that this version was much more ethnically diverse.
I have to say I'm surprised at the number of people here who loved this adaptation of Aldous Huxley's masterpiece.
These people socialized, danced, played games, dined out, indulged in their "soma holidays" as well as their vacations and weekend excursions all over the world.Huxley was creating a juxtaposition of opposing themes -- all of that luxury and yet no free thought, no philosophy, no love, no personal loyalties.None of that is adequately conveyed in this adaptation.Further, the way the characters in this movie spoke so frankly about the structure of their society would never have happened.
They would not be so self-aware of what their lives were like versus how different it used to be.
Only the very higher-ups had such awareness and even they kept that awareness hidden.Taking John Savage's back-story from the middle of the book and placing it at the beginning as part of the linear story was a needless distraction, not to mention insulting to the viewer by "dumbing down" the series of events.Bud Cort was perfectly cast but his portrayal invited too much sympathy.
He was selfish and bitter, and later even vain in his triumph of discovering the savage.Nor was he the tragic romantic hero who sought out his individual love as depicted in this movie.
All movie adaptations differ from their source material.
The trick is make the best possible interpretation of the novel while still holding true to the basic themes expressed by the author, maintaining the integrity of his story, characters and artistic intent.This movie did none of that.
This 1980 made-for-TV film is the first attempt to adapt Huxley's landmark novel to the screen.
I read the book for the first time over twenty-five years ago, and recently had occasion to re-read it.
Some books are so much their own identity that one can be excused for considering them possibly unfilmable; for me BNW was one of these until I stumbled across this odd but audacious effort.In the minute details, this telefilm is not as faithful to the novel as it might be; John Savage's backstory is moved from the center of the novel to the beginning of the film, and the low budget shows mostly in the wobbly sets and what can only be described as a valiant attempt to create the Brave New World on a shoestring budget.
The futuristic society should have looked more like LOGAN'S RUN than a bunch of plastic sets, one of which is so obviously the interior of a 747 that it is almost laughable.Yet despite the technical flaws, this film has considerably more power than one would expect, mainly because of a splendid cast including the great Keir Dullea, the legendary Ron O'Neal, Bud Cort in yet another superb performance, the wonderful but underrated Marcia Strassman, and a carefully culled bunch of the finest character actors including such names as Jeannetta Arnette, Jonelle Allen, Kristoffer Tabori, Dick Anthony Williams, and Valerie Curtin.The script is merely serviceable; it works hard to be as faithful to the novel as possible, but some of what was sinister in the book comes across as merely silly on the screen.
This isn't the fault of the actors, who mostly play their roles with the glaze of mindlessness that one envisions when reading the novel (the exceptions here are Cort, Williams, Tabori, Cobb, and Strassman towards the end).
In fact it's the performances that bring across just how sinister the Brave New World really is.This is a clunky production and it is easy to get distracted by the cheapness of the sets and some of the silliness of the basic scenario, but for a television film it is surprisingly effective thanks to a well-chosen cast that performs brilliantly; performances such as are seen here were a bit rare in television in 1980.
At the very least it is good enough to make me want to see the other versions as a comparison..
Amateur acting, dialogue, cinematography, sets, music, etc.
I have not read the book.
This is a very slow TV movie.
The cinematography, music, editing all are basic and boring.I only sat through this because I was interested in the story and wanted to know what the hell is going on and how the story concluded.
The only way I made it through the end is I played guitar while watching so I wouldn't fall asleep.The idea of the film is OK at best.