Animal Farm (1954)

Directors:

Joy Batchelor
John Halas

Writers:

Joy Batchelor (writer)
Joseph Bryan (writer)

Release Date:

13 February 1956 (Sweden)

Genre:

Animation | Drama

Tagline:

He's got the world in an UPROAR!

Plot:

A successful farmyard revolution by the resident animals vs. the farmer goes horribly wrong when corrupt pigs hijack it for their personal gain.

Plot Keywords:

Donkey | Farmer | Murder | Genocide | Animal Attack

Awards:

Nominated for BAFTA Film Award.

Cast

Gordon Heath	...	Narrator (voice)
Maurice Denham	...	All Animals (voice)

Runtime:

72 min

Country:

UK

Language:

English

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono (RCA Sound System)

Certification:

Canada:G (Quebec) | UK:X (original rating) | Australia:G | Finland:K-8 | Sweden:15 | UK:U | USA:Unrated | West Germany:12

Company:

Halas and Batchelor Cartoon Films

Trivia:

The head of the CIA operation to obtain the film rights was none other than E. Howard Hunt, later famous as Nixon's Watergate burglar. As part of the deal, Sonia Orwell requested that she get to meet her idol, Clark Gable; this was arranged.

Goofs:

Continuity: After the first battle, the color of the puppies changes between shots - cream-ivory colored when we first see them, grey when Napoleon takes them up into the barn.

Quotes:

[The laws of Animal Farm are being read]
Snowball: No animal shall drink alcohol. No animal shall sleep in a bed. Four legs good, two legs bad.
[The chickens are very annoyed at this rule]
Squealer: Wings count as legs.
[The chickens realize that Squealer is right]
Group of sheep: Four legs good, two legs bad. Four legs good, two legs bad.
Snowball: [continuing the reading of the laws] No animal shall kill another animal. All animals are equal.

Movie Connections:

Featured in Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten (2007)

A good story of course and thus worth seeing but the narration-heavy delivery makes it more like an audio book than a film

Fed up with the treatment from farmer Jones, the animals of Manor Farm gather in a meeting to listen to Old Major tell them of his hopes for a socialist revolution to improve their lives. Sadly, mid-song, Old Major dies of a heart attack but by then his message had been passed on. The next morning Jones is met with resistance and driven off his own land and, when he returns with friends to take it back, a great battle ensues that the animals win. Thus begins the new, fairer farm where all animals are equal and everyone shares the work as well as having a share of the profits. However this equality soon starts to have exceptions as leaders rise up from within the ranks.

There is no doubting the value of the story or the intelligence of the source material and the decision of the film to stick closely to Orwell's book is where its strength comes from. I love the story and always have, it is well written, sharply judgemental and a cautionary tale that is rightly used heavily in schools. The socialist system rises up but soon some want more rights than others and soon the leaders of the rebellion start emulating the habits of Jones and the, once proud standards are gradually watered down. The broad characters are well written and, although they don't have any depth, they fulfil the requirements of the story telling.

The animation looks dated but given that it is now over 50 years old this is no real surprise, nor a problem. No, the problem with the film is the delivery. Heath is the narrator while Denham does the voices of all the animals; now this sounds like Denham will be carrying the majority of the film but in reality he has little to do because the film is mostly delivered in narration. This is all well and good but it does make the film feel like it is more an audio book with pictures rather than a film. As a result there isn't the emotional impact that there should have been and, although you feel sorry for the characters it is more a general feeling rather than a genuine care for the "people".

Many reviewers have commented on the ending and they are right to do so because if even an ending felt tacked on to produce a "happy" conclusion then it was this one. I understand that no producer wants to try and sell a negative product but the end of the book was fine as it was – it made a firm point and left a memorable impression whereas this one just feels wrong. Overall though it is a good film that is worth seeing due to the source material but the narrative approach lessens its value as a film and made me think that I should have just reread the book.