Brave New World
Tags: satire, sci-fi

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.

Review: Initially John is taken by the society but gradually he begins to see that the world is not as he wants it.For a major film to attempt to bring a major novel to the screen is a brave move, but for a cheap TVM to have a stab at it is even more of a risk.
Films should make you think - but surely not to the point where your thoughts are actually better than what's on the screen!So yes it says lots of stuff about social classes (which we have - workers and middlemen and top men), consumerism, slogans, media saturation and loss of individualism.
This Hollywood makeover stylistically embodies many of the points made in the text; the victory of shallowness over sincerity, style over substance, sloganism over communication -- the movie is less than the book in so many of the ways that mankind is made less in the Brave New World.
The movie DOES make many valid and thoughtful statements that just don't get a lot of airplay in this society and deserves credit for making some bold statements - especially right before commercials.I think the purists are being too harsh.
This version of Brave New World reaches the most important audience - the uninitiated - in a way that's entertaining and understandable.
This is especially true in the case of Lenina, the central female character who is supposed to be typical of her time (no brains, just fun, thank you) in the novel while in the movie has a more complex personality.
This change ends up altering the plot and was probably caused by that big stupidity of our times, political correctness.This adaptation of the novel for TV mass consumption also includes several other changes such as an assassination plot (unthinkable in the original) and the inclusion of a happy ending, which completely distort the message.
'Brave New World', the 1932 novel by Aldous Huxley, told of a new world where babies were decanted as Alphas, Betas, Deltas, Epsilons, or Gammas, all designed to know their places in society, and in the case of the lower classes, decanted as multiple identical twins to staff entire factories and production lines.
Their God is Ford (as in Henry) and their motto is 'history is bunk'.In the book, Bernard Marx is a fish out of water, an Alpha of stunted growth who has dangerous ideas, who refuses to act like he is expected to, and is generally despised.
Already there's been some tampering done with the source.With Rya Kihlstedt as a colourless Lenina (again nothing like the book's character, who is conventional to a 't') and Leonard Nimoy as the Controller, Mustapha Mond, the film loses impact and goes downhill very quickly.Nods can be given (grudingly) at the attempts to develop computer generated conditioning forms, and to give some sense of a futuristic world.
The savage reservation is simply full of young Americans out to pick a fight, while John (the savage child of Linda, a Beta stranded in the reservation) does speak Shakespeare, but is otherwise of little interest and very unlike the book.A disappointment and a huge bore, missing both the humour and the science-fiction/faction innovations of Huxley's novel..
Okay, I realize that I'm probably going to get labeled as either a moron or a heretic for this, but I'm not going to let that put me off!Y'see, the fact is I LOVED this version of Huxley's classic!!!The main reason for contempt aimed at this film appears to concern the matter of deviation from the original text.
John is rendered here more mentally stable and exhibits none of the religious fervor for guilt and self flagellation.Right, so why were these changes necessary?In the study version of the text, the notes state "Thus however tempting it may be to base a reading of brave new world on a sympathetic identification with the characters, it would be a distortion of the novel to do so." It also postulates that the "characters are static, incapable of learning, changing and developing in the way real people do".
It is simply a matter of adapting format to work successfully.As for John, and again with reference to the study text, Huxley himself states "...the most serious defect in the story, which is this, the savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in Utopia...(or that) his native Penetente-ism reasserts its authority and he ends in maniacal self torture and suicide." He goes on to assert "if I were to rewrite the book, I would offer the savage a third alternative.
Although this movie version of 'Brave New World' was quite different from the novel, I still enjoyed it.
The "Brave New World (TV Movie 1980)" from the BBC was a billion times better, you can find references to that adaptation in IMDbJust watch the BBC version or read the book, there is nothing in this one to redeem itself, awful.The 3 hours long BBC version and the book can be found in the website Huxley dot net at the very bottom, there are the links to the book and the movie Sadly the copy came from a bad VHS, but watchable.
But in most ways the real world has turned out worse than BNW - Huxley predicted the pornography of sex but not the pornography of violence, Betas (or worse) are running things, not Alphas, and every attempt at Soma (ecstasy, Valium) has turned out to have a dark side..
BRAVE NEW WORLD is one of many classic novels I have never got round to reading .
If I remember correctly the 1980 mini series version of the book suffered badly from having all the characters dressed up in silver foil costumes like in an extremely bad B movie but here thankfully everyone dresses in an entirely sensible and recognisable manner .
This also no doubt explains why the directors were hired due to their drugs orientated episode of OZIn many ways this version of BRAVE NEW WORLD plays out like an episode of the classic BBC series BLAKE`S 7 , a series where the main recreational drug is also called Soma ( Bet you never knew that ) and just like all but the very worst episodes of BLAKE`S 7 this TVM is rather watchable but no doubt Huxley fans will detest it.
I mean, I read the novel and the whole time I was thinking, "This is exactly how the world is today mostly", so I found this updated version to be brilliant.Production wise, the sets were fine, the lighting great, not sure about the audio, and the actors fit pretty well, and acted okay...
When I first read "Brave New World" five or six years ago now, I remember thinking about how Huxley was a genius.
However for a book which would influence me in such a powerful way, it's disappointing they didn't realise that it's better to not touch something rather than create a half decent version.
John doesn't fit the mold; he is poor but intelligent and doesn't want any part of your brave new world, thanks.
Bernard Marx has an run-in with a disgruntled Delta who "goes postal." In an encounter between John and Mustapha Mond, the latter reveals that (unlike in the book) classical literature isn't forbidden at all; people simply don't read it because the culture doesn't equip them to understand it.The strength of this adaptation rests on the fact that it is examining a real social trend, the development American baby-boomer culture.
I first read Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD at 13 and I enjoy the classic novel.
However, there is no question in my mind that this innovative, dark, and sexy retelling of the Huxley classic is only strengthened by the major changes in plot and characterization.Let's face it, in Huxley's version the main characters are much less interesting than the ideas he presents.
This is a bold new cast for a bold new vision of Huxley's classic.In this version, Bernard and Lenina have the makings of a true, adult relationship, and they don't back away from danger in order to help their friend, the Savage.
But even this change works, in that it shows how bland the world is without culture, religion, and Shakespeare.In conclusion, this movie, like Michael Mann's LAST OF THE MOHICANS, is a legitimate example of what happens when a film maker truly captures the spirit of a literary classic -- without being tied to the exact letter of the text.Would love to see a DVD release of this modern television classic!.
The soundtrack is pretty poor as well.However, Leonard Nimoy definitely fit the role he had in this movie well and actually helped make the film somewhat watchable.
This movie had potential to be good, if the script had only stuck to the book more closely, and better actors/actresses were cast..
For those of you students out there looking to get away with not having to read Huxley's novel, this film version will definitely do you more harm than good.
The most interesting aspect of the novel for me is analyzing Bernard's motives and beliefs and how he sells out after returning from the reservation with John, but that is not part of this movie at all.
The movie uses well know actors that fit the characters (Peter Gallagher as Bernard Marx and Leonard Nimoy as Mustapha Mond).
In this teleplay rewritten by Dan Mazur and David Tausik the Brave new World is just a society of sex-crazed drudges and John just trips and accidentally falls to his death.
This TV film should not be called Brave New World, as it is different from Huxley's vision of Utopia in the novel.
The film has never been made into a faithful version of the book because the rights to the book are in dispute.People who view the TV version think that they are watching a film made of the book, but they most certainly are not.The acting and directing are poor, and the sets are cheesy.Read the book, and hope that some day, a good director will be able to make the actual events in the novel come to life.Marlynn Alkins.
Huxley's book made us see Bernard and the DHC as flawed men in a flawed society by giving us the character of the Savage, who connects to the reader despite coming from a place that most people can't relate to.
Minus the terrible ending, this movie was generally true to the book, but it lacked the proper focus to convey the spirit of the novel..
We watched this movie in school because we didn't have time to read the book and I thought that it was well made.
The book by Aldous Huxley is a classic, not just for its intrigueing plot and characters, but its prediction of the future which seems eerily like our own.
So many terrible choices...the book is a classic, but they have completely lost the feel of it by trying to update everything (which didn't need to be done anyway, it was set in the future!).Not only is it very badly made and written, the people that that they have chosen for the roles are completely wrong for them, as are their costumes.Complete and utter disgrace.
Having been a fan of the book, I really wanted to watch a movie of "brave new world", and when by chance I came across and I saw this video from a second-hand movie store I duely brought it.
As soon as the movie was finished however I was extremely disappointed, not because the movie was awful (which it was), it was the fact that 95% of the scenes did not happen, in fact they changed the story so much that it hardly resembled the book at all and you would not of reconised it if the movie had another title, and the worse part of it all was they changed the ending, what was all this b**l s**t with lenina and bernard falling in love and having a child in the reservation, did the directors not read the book?
I could go on forever with the number of changes they did in this movie (no mention of ford or hermholz, bernard starting of popular and sha**ng lenina), and what I also would say were pointless changes that lost the meaning of the book, but im not going to waste my time.
In summary if you have read the book and you want to watch this movie all I can say is don't put you hopes to high with this pile of c**p, because you will be disappointed, be be frank I would recommend that you don't even waste your time watching it, as its that bad and ruins the book.
Brave New World was a wonderful book, and this cinematic version utterly missed the point.
I had previously thought about Gary Sinise to play Bernard (because he is a great shorter actor- how he became short was never revealed in the movie by the way), but I think Sinise may be too old now.
Rya Kihlstedt is certainly sexy and better than what's she's given to work with.The fact that this is an adaptation is no excuse for its weaknesses, furthermore, none of the changes enhanced the story, anyway.On the plus side, this is one of the funniest damn movies about a dystopian future that has ever been released.
Those who have actually read the book and understood it will see that this version is very true to the book and the only adaptations made were to address minor things that Huxley got wrong like GM takes the place of chemical conditioning, which helps because otherwise they would get in the way of an uncanny prediction of the future - made in 1932.The fact is that over-dramatic performances would not have fitted the story from the original book, nor would action violence, nor would an obvious moral criticism of the world described by Huxley.
There were no strong morals to be learned, just a vision of the future.On the surface, to some, the film may appear weak, but give some deeper thought and watched in its whole and taken with the book this is a very worthy rendition.It's a shame more films can't be made like this, where the picture/world painted is more interesting and takes precedence over yet another cliched, predictable storyline.Chris Bartlett 2004.
This version of Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel is one of the worst examples of a book turned into a film.
I had thought if Brave New World was ever made into a movie, that chances are it would be disappointing, at the least.
Huxley's cynicism about the future was huge and grotesque.I can only wonder if the movie brought that out to his level.But, the ending, in my thoughts, should have ended with John away from the insanity, living a good life as a "savage." The others, fulfilling their potential.
Beyond the borders of the Brave New World there live the "normal" people who are not conditioned and live a life like we do.
John is going to be the most interesting man there and this will change his life and the life of some other inhabitants of the Brave New World.
So would recommend this movie only to people who have read the novel or to people who doesn't care about things like that and are just interested in the subject..
There are already other utopian films like "Brave New World".
In the film the producers concentrated more on Lenina than on John, like it was in the novel.
They really changed Huxley's flat characters into round characters and the ending is quite different in the film, than in the novel.
I only recommend this film to people who like this genere and want to see what could happen if mandkind wants to create a perfect society without wars and real feelings.
But I really hate this movie, I like the novel better.
In 'Brave New World' Tim Guinee plays 'John Cooper' or 'the Savage' as he is known.
They're not aliens, but citizens of this Brave New World think differently than we do and this movie takes their viewpoint.
John, the savage, does influence this Brave New World he visits.
Good production values, acting, and an overall cheerful creepiness.If you want to watch a filmed version of Huxley's Brave New World, an extremely significant science fiction novel, this is not the film for you.
It also clearly shows the mundane emptiness of life when the thoughts, feelings and emotions of love are eradicated from society minus Bernard Marx who helps to show us that.The idea of a future where the government controls all your thoughts, feelings, emotions, habits, movements, love-life and more through technology and their own love of power and control is well done in this film adaptation of Huxley's Brave New World.The film and book will leave you with thought-provoking questions and help one to define their own beliefs: total freedom, total control, or somewhere in between.Note: If you like this film then you may like THX 1138 (1971) 9/10.
His relationship with Lenina and the consequent developed "Love Story" between her rises when John the Savage arrives the "Brave New World".With reference to the visual representation Libman and Williams (2nd director) have to be extolled.
This movie is really interesting and shows you for 87 minutes a "Brave New World"..
This movie gets some of it's ideas from Huxley's book, but basically they just pick and choose certain things they want.
They make up story lines that completely go against Huxley's story, actually made me so irritated to watch this movie.To name a few points which I found most disturbing: Bernard and Lenina's relationship is portrayed to be way more than it should be.
**SPOILERS MAY BE AHEAD.I just watched the movie, "BRAVE NEW WORLD" on the SCI-FI Channel.
The Brave New World is a dystopia.The film didn't get into the whole story.