Tim Robbins to direct '1984' remake in 2009

Empire Online reports that if Tim Robbins has his way, there'll soon be a brand-new movie version of George Orwell's 1948-penned literary classic "1984" coming our way. Orwell's novel, which predicted a dark dystopian future in which a totalitarian government watches its subjects relentlessly, is terrifyingly prescient - especially today in a time when civil liberties are infringed by governments on a daily basis.

Robbins is currently directing a stage version of the novel for his LA theatre troupe, The Actors' Gang. That runs until April 8, but when the mag spoke to him yesterday, he said he doesn't want the 1984 experience to end there - "I've got a screenplay of it, and now I'm starting the process of trying to put it together".

"When we think about the authoritarian world that Orwell painted, the catchphrases are one thing, but when you read the book again, the specifics and relevance for now are stunning" says Robbins who confirms it could be some time off - "It's really a matter of whether I can raise the money for it. We'll see if there's an appetite for it. Orwell may have been twenty years off, but I know that I find it incredibly relevant".

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060116b.php

I've just finished reading the book and so I can't wait for this to come out. It is genuinely one of the best books I've ever read, and Robbins, star of the Shawshank Redemption is one of my favourite actors. Let's hope he directs well, too.

films almost always ruin books, i wont watch the original film that had english people in so i don't hold high hopes for this. 1984 is my favourite book i would hate for it to be ruined.

Originally Posted by Gary88

films almost always ruin books,

The film version of 1984 that was made in 1984 and starred John Hurt and Richard Burton was one of the best, if not the best, film adaptation of a book I've ever seen. I know the book extremely well, and there wasn't a detail, theme or nuance that the film didn't manage to catch extremely well.

i wont watch the original film that had english people in it

Eh? The book is set in London, so who did you expect to have in it - Somalians? :hmmm:

1984 is my favourite book i would hate for it to be ruined.

I think Robbins would have a hard time bettering the Hurt/Burton film version.

...1984 is set in London.

1984, and its companion, Brave New World are not warnings, per se, but blue prints.
The version with William Hurt was quite good actually.
Movies are a double edged sword when it comes to bringing books into that medium. They miss more than they hit, but they do invariably regenerate an interest in the original literature, thus more readership. Cognitave dissonance, however and unfortunately, dictates that many who see the movie first will superimpose the movie's images onto their mind's eye while reading the book.

Originally Posted by Captain Arrrgh!

1984, and its companion, Brave New World are not warnings, per se, but blue prints.
The version with William Hurt was quite good actually.
Movies are a double edged sword when it comes to bringing books into that medium. They miss more than they hit, but they do invariably regenerate an interest in the original literature, thus more readership. Cognitave dissonance, however and unfortunately, dictates that many who see the movie first will superimpose the movie's images onto their mind's eye while reading the book.

Exactly, I'm hoping that by spreading the message a year and a half early will prick up interests. I'd disagree with you in that they aren't blue prints, they are warnings of what Orwell saw happening to the world and wanted to stop.

Gary, I agree, but with Robbins directing, I can't see that happening.

That's the common belief, Shyam, however Orwell, and his good friend Huxley were entirely establishment pieces, and their ideas were not orignal to them, but rather long held convictions placed in several works. The triumviri of Orwell, Huxley and Russell are revered and taken very seriously in establishment circles. Of fascinating listening can be found Huxley's speech at (Stanford?) University.
(edit) Robbins and his wife are fabian socialists, so right or wrong, bad or well done, it would be interesting to see what they come up with.

Well knowing Robbins political beliefs and his overwhelming desire to "share" them with people except a slanted movie somehow based on the Bush admin....

Originally Posted by Captain Arrrgh!

1984, and its companion, Brave New World are not warnings, per se, but blue prints.
The version with William Hurt was quite good actually.
Movies are a double edged sword when it comes to bringing books into that medium. They miss more than they hit, but they do invariably regenerate an interest in the original literature, thus more readership. Cognitave dissonance, however and unfortunately, dictates that many who see the movie first will superimpose the movie's images onto their mind's eye while reading the book.

1984 is a satire/commentary on Stalin's Russia.

The film version with John Hurt is pretty good to be fair.

...1984 is set in London.

i realise that, my worry is that a hollywood version could be a bit...hollywood.


STARRING BRAD PIT AS THE MILD MANNERED WINSTON.
by day he bows to the man but by night
*MASSIVE EXPLOSION*
HE KICKS ASS

Funny you mention that. Pitt and his boyfriend Jolie want to bring about a movie version of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, of which they are fans.
Of which I'm not surprised at all.

Originally Posted by Gary88

i realise that, my worry is that a hollywood version could be a bit...hollywood.


STARRING BRAD PIT AS THE MILD MANNERED WINSTON.
by day he bows to the man but by night
*MASSIVE EXPLOSION*
HE KICKS ASS

Hehe quite possible. At least in the 1954 version with Peter Cushing he didn't slay any vampires or blow up planets.

I don't see how a movie can ruin a book for you.

I'm excited to see this. If its awesome, great. If it sucks, at least I can go read the book and get the true message.

BTW shyam nice avatar

Eh? The book is set in London, so who did you expect to have in it - Somalians?

do i need to mention U-571?

Originally Posted by Gary88

do i need to mention U-571?

Er, no. What's that got to do with a British-made film version of a British novel set in Britain which had, not surprisingly, British actors in it playing British characters?

Nineteen Eighty-Four is amazing. The book is just pure genius. I saw an older movie version on Youtube, it was pretty well done, captured the grim atmosphere.

I hope it turns out good. I'll go watch it for sure.

Er, no. What's that got to do with a British-made film version of a British novel set in Britain which had, not surprisingly, British actors in it playing British characters?

oh jesus christ none of you seem to understand what i was actually saying do you?

i am well ****ing aware that my favourite book of all time is set in england and that the film version had english actors, my point being that i wont even watch a film which has british actors in case it ruins the book for me, let alone a possible american version which may or may not have english actors.

You need to use italics more, I guess you meant - "i wont watch the original film that had english people in so i don't hold high hopes for this."

perhaps in future i will

Oh, really?