Fahrenheit 451: Comparing the 2018 Film to the 1966 Original

Sometimes I’m disappointed with movie remakes, but that’s not the case with Fahrenheit 451. The theme of the first film, and the novel it was based on, is actually strengthened in the 2018 version. Both versions have just enough similarities and differences to make them both worth watching. I’d recommend reading the novel by Ray Bradbury first, and then viewing the movies in chronological order. You’ll find both versions of the film at DVD Netflix and the book at your local library. It’s a classic.

book burning

 

Fahrenheit 451 is a prophetic tale of what happens when we try to erase history, make everyone alike, and try not to offend anyone. Hmm. Sounds like where we’re headed in society today, doesn’t it?

At the most-basic level, in both films, books have been outlawed and when they’re found, most often through informant-initiated raids, “firemen” arrive on the scene to douse them with kerosene and destroy them with flame throwers. Guy Montag is the main character, a fireman with an impeccable reputation. The motivation behind Montag’s actions differs between the two versions, with the first being dissatisfaction and boredom with his own life leading to a desire to learn and the second being that of a man who has flashbacks of his father’s demise related to book burning.

Montag’s commanding officer, Captain Beatty, has been grooming him for advancement at the fire station. In the second film, Montag is not married as he is in the first, and the character of Clarise is a bit more edgy and complicated in the second film. There are a few critical changes to the second version of the film (who does not survive, etc.), but these changes seem credible. Both of the films honor the central theme of the book. In both versions, you’ll find people who value books more than their own lives.

1966 Version: Surreal and Unsettling

The 1966 version is rather surreal. Most people are drugged into complacency and they’re addicted to their “parlor walls” (interactive, big-screen TVs). In a playground scene, a young girl runs a giant comb through her hair. Public transportation is via an elevated monorail. The use of imagery is stronger in the first film, in which eating an apple signifies gaining knowledge. Montag in the beginning and one of the other firemen at the end, hinting that the desire to learn might spread.

Montag is intelligent and he begins to question the reason for burning books. He begins by salvaging one book from a raid and then many. Soon he’s reading incessantly, wanting to “catch up with the remembrance of the past.”

His wife is addicted to drugs and her parlor wall, specifically a television show in which the viewers are referred to as “cousins.” When she complains about Montag’s reading, he tells her that she spends her whole life with the family on the wall and the books are his family.

While Montag is leading his double life, burning books by day and reading them at night, Captain Beatty tells him that books have nothing to say, and novels tell stories of people who never existed. This makes people dissatisfied with their own lives. The Captain says, “We’ve all got to be alike. The only way to be happy is to be alike.”

2018 Version: True to the Central Theme

In the 1966 movie, the screen wall is just a television, huge at the time, but now just akin to the same size we all have in our homes today. In the 2018 version, the screen wall becomes more like a hologram and the images are not only within the home, but on the walls of many buildings outdoors.

Both films employ the symbol of the salamander, which is true to the book, but the 2018 version actually addresses the image, while the 1966 version makes us wonder all throughout the film what the meaning of it is. In an interview, Ray Bradbury revealed that when writing the story, he just let the words flow and then found intriguing connections between the character names, symbols, and themes. For example, the salamander is referred to as eating its own tail as a comparison to an entity destroying itself from within.

The 2018 version makes a highly restrictive allowance for some reading when Captain Beatty tells a class of fire-school cadets that there are only three books they need to read, the Bible,To the Lighthouse (Virginia Woolf), and Moby Dick (Melville). Any other book will make them sick. It would be interesting to research the reason for the second two choices in controlling a population.

The second film inflicts much harsher punishments for reading books than the first, usually carried out without due process. These punishments are broadcast on television projections, which appear on the faces of many buildings in the city.  Identity deletion is the most common punishment for being caught with a book.

In the first film, Montag hoards books from the raids, but in the second film, he also hides small cassettes, postcards, and VCR tapes. In both films he is betrayed by an informant.

Montag: Not the Only Conflicted Character

Also, in both films, the Captain seems to have an unexplained rich knowledge of the contents of the books they are burning. In the second film, when confronting a woman who housed an entire library in her home, the Captain picks up a copy of The Grapes of Wrath and then refers to the woman as Ma Joad, a central character in the book.

Captain Beatty, who has taken Montag under his wing for the past 16 years, explains how it came to be that books became banned. He said one book offended the blacks, then another, which was about a black man, offended the whites. Then, he talked about the feminists, who were offended by many books. He explained that it’s better to just get rid of all books, so no one gets offended.

Understandably, the second film is much more futuristic than the first, employing more sophistication in its video imagery and use of voice assistants. It also introduces the concept of DNA as the saving force that will uproot the totalitarian regime.

Both films involve a community of people who each have memorized a book ensuring their legacies. In the second film, one of the book people says, “Books are here to remind us what fools we can be.”

IMG_4670

About Me: I’m a freelancer and blogger who writes in a wide variety of genres. I especially loves movies and sharing my research on them. Follow my blog at www.AnnSilverthorn.com and find me on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Disclaimer: I am a DVD Netflix director, which earns me rewards.  DVD Netflix has hundreds of thousands of movies to choose from, many that you won’t find on streaming services.#DVDNation #ad

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

5 Comments on “Fahrenheit 451: Comparing the 2018 Film to the 1966 Original

  1. A very informative review. I used book, Fahrenheit 451, in high school English classes and always thought it was such an important book to read. After we were finished with the book, we watched the 1966 movie. I want to see the newer one now!

    • Good for you! I agree. It should be read in every high school English class today. . .

    • I had to read the book in my second year of college around 1982. At the time, I thought no way would this happen in our country. I always remembered this book and thought about “big brother, big government” and how dangerous that would be to our freedom. Now looking at it, we are there and it is very concerning to think that we are so divided as a country. We need to wake up before it is too late and we become all “like minded” and controlled and totally dependent on big brother! The end of the last free country on earth!

    • The 1966 is a beautiful art film with engaging actors, sets, costumes and symbolism.
      The 2018 version has a terrible, inappropriate lead actor. Who cares what happens to him? It’s done in a typically crude mass market style. Absolute rubbish, the only good thing about it is what is left from the book.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*