Based on the novel by William Golding, the 1990 film adaptation of the Lord of the Flies is somewhat an American-centric take on the whole issue. Directed by Harry Hook, and scripted by Sara Schiff, this second screen adaptation of the Lord of the Flies provides an interesting twist to the story. This adaptation follows the basic concept of young schoolchildren reverting to savagery when marooned on a desert island. The twist lays in that the group of British schoolchildren, present in both the novel and the first adaptation, is replaced by a group of American Cadets. Furthermore, the pilot survives the crash, unlike the fate of the pilot in the novel.
The film stars several relatively unknown actors; those of Balthazar Getty (as Ralph), Chris Furrh (as Jack), and Danuel Pipoly (as Piggy). None of these actors give a particularly outstanding performance, thus failing to bridge the hiatus between literature and film. The violent inner struggles and so-called loss of innocence so enshrined in the novel, failed to present itself to the viewers of this film adaptation. Perhaps it is the actors' unfamiliarity to the situation, both physically and mentally. Physically, the young actors were far from home, filming on a remote island in Jamaica. Mentally, the young actors most likely had no established preconceptions concerning the vices of murder, avarice, and want. In their performance, they seemed incapable of portraying the necessary emotions to create atmosphere. The relatively static performance by the other supporting characters further damage the coherent presentation of the film.
In comparison with Brook's 1963 film, is seems that the second screen adaptation trivializes the themes and intensity of Golding's cult novel. The ineffectiveness of this film may be attributed to the fact that it is only a short 90 minutes in length. Although many a misled soul has argued that this film proved more dynamic and interesting to watch, the trade-off was a loss of the build-up of suspense and accuracy of content. Characteristic of American films, with its more happy-go-lucky nature, content that was harder to digest was often omitted. Take for example Golding's focus on the loss of innocence. In Golding's novel, and even in Brook's 1963 adaptation, much more emphasis was put on the cruel and gruesome nature that the boys had slowly taken on. It was almost as if the boys had themselves become the living reincarnation of Lucifer, each and one of them. Their innermost rage, fear, and cruelty was unleashed on one another, and led to many unspeakable crimes. Due to the undiscriminating nature of the American film audience, and the drive for higher ratings, this relatively deeper substance was cut from the film. The adult-like cruelty of Golding's boys was replaced with the boiled-down version; something akin to mere school-yard bullying. It seems almost impossible to present to the film audience of the 1990's that a group of boys would become savages. Remember that this was the age of conformity, obedience, and yuppie suburbia. The audience did not want to see it, and so the producers did not show it.
The length of the film was just not enough to cover the breadth of the novel. Whereas the novel developed every nook and cranny into canyons and streams, the film merely filled them with sand. The main characters were not completely developed. Over the course of the film, Simon did not have the many close-ups necessary to complete his image as the Jesus figure. Jack's ambition seemed only half-hearted, and Piggy's rounded-ness seemed more noticeable than his intellect. Ralph however, seemed to be the biggest disappointment. Whereas Ralph came across as the perfect and natural leader in the novel, he seemed like a frail and nervous kid in the film. His dominance failed to show through, and greatly undermined his symbolic stance as an arbiter of society. Needless to say, there was even less time to develop the supporting characters. Sam, Eric, Roger, and countless other characters seemed merely static throughout the whole film. Rather than being the dynamic catalysts and distractors making the novel exciting, the other characters were only briefly shown. Overall, they were more like 2D figures than the 3D dynamic characters they were supposed to be.
All in all, the film was not horrible to watch as a supplementary resource. Although the relevance and quality of production is questionable, the main themes of Golding's “Lord of the Flies” were carried out with reasonable assurance.
