Analysis Of George Orwell's Animal Farm

1418 Words 6 Pages
When it comes to making a film based off a book, oftentimes the film rarely comes close to the similarity of the book. With that being said, a man that goes by the name of George Orwell writes an allegorical novel named Animal Farm and this novel portrays the Russian Revolution. Orwell in known for being a novelist, journalist, and a critic; his work shows awareness to social injustice and that is what he showcased in the novel. Although the novel does not directly tell us that it 's based on the Revolution, one can tell because of the choices of words, characteristics, and events that Orwell uses through the characters and the setting. After nine years since Orwell’s novel was published, an animated film was made relating to the story. When …show more content…
His experiences in life are what shaped his view of the world and it’s what helped him incorporate those views into his writing. Animal Farm is one of Orwell 's allegorical novel based off the Russian Revolution, with the message of how power takes control of a character and leads to corruption. We see how power begins to evolve in the beginning of the novel when Orwell writes, “There was not an animal on the farm that did not take vengeance on them after his own fashion…An impromptu celebration of the victory was held immediately. The flag was run up and Beasts of England was sung a number of times” (Orwell). This quote is after Old Major has given his speech, it shows how the animals rebelled and took charge and control over their lives, that is how power began to be embraced. In comparison to the novel, the film did not show exactly how it happened in the novel. The film shows Old Major dying right after his speech. Meanwhile, in the novel Old Major dies few days after his speech peacefully. Orwell wouldn’t approve of how the film showcased this scene due to the fact it makes the film seem much more assertive and emotionless, unlike the novel. Another example of how the film doesn’t portray the novel is the number of characters not shown comparing to the novel. Mollie was spoken about in the novel. However, in the film, there were no …show more content…
The novel ended with the animals not being able to tell the difference between the pigs and the humans. The film ended with only the pigs around the table and Benjamin mixing up Napoleons appearance with a human-like Mr. Jones. He then runs off to the animals and as Benjamin leads, they all follow him towards Napoleon. The dogs weren 't able to help Napoleon and so all the animals crashed in were Napoleon was at and that was how the Film ended. Comparing it to the novel where Orwell ends year passing, many animals have aged and died. The pigs and farmers were all together playing a card game and as both Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington play the ace of spades the animals look inside and can’t tell apart between the pigs and the humans. Orwell ends with, “Twelve voices were shouting in anger... No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig…but already it was impossible to say which was which.” (Orwell). As we can tell in comparing both the film to the novel, the novel showed more a melancholy ending rather than the film, where are the animals rebel and go off against Napoleon and attack. In showing this rebellious act in the film it gives the audience more of a victorious feeling, rather in the novel, it seems as a bit of despairing ending. In the end, Orwell would say that the film portrays his meaning and message of

Related Documents