George Orwell Theatre Adaptations: A Blessing in Disguise?
As I was halfway through writing this article, I found myself questioning whether this will be the first time I finally admit to myself that the phrase ‘the book is always better’ is flawed. I have always been a big believer that the original version of any story in the textual format that it was first intended to be in could never be beaten by any sort of adaptation. And I still stand by the idea that that is true almost 99 per cent of the time, but maybe Orwell’s most critically acclaimed novels fall into that 1 per cent.
Last year I somehow found myself spontaneously in a West End production of George Orwell’s 1984. I went in with slightly low expectations because I was absolutely adamant that nothing could even come close to beating the masterpiece that was his novel, but I was pleasantly surprised. I read 1984 in school countless times for one of my exams and it’s safe to say I now know that book like the back of my hand; and I fell more and more in love with it every time I read it. What I didn’t expect though, was to be even more impressed with its theatre adaptation. When I found out that TFTI Platform was putting on a production of Orwell’s Animal Farm, I simply had to go to test out this newly found theory of mine and see if another one of his novel’s would be outshined by its theatre counterpart.
Animal Farm tells the story of a group of farm animals who decide to rebel against their human master with the intent of creating a fairer society where all the animals are treated equally. The novel is an allegory reflecting the historical events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and onto the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union. Orwell himself has described his novel as a satirical tale against Stalin.
Ian Wooldridge’s adaptation of Animal Farm was selected as Platform’s Spring Term production to be directed by first year student Fin Avison. Platform is a society exclusive to the Theatre, Film, Television and Interactive Media department and its students. It puts out one production every year and they are entirely put together, cast, crewed and directed by students within the department. So, I went in knowing that this was in no way going to be a high-end production with a budget of multiple figures, but I wasn’t disappointed.
Because it is a student production, it is unavoidable that some elements within the play weren’t going to be wholly ‘up to scratch’. Some actors did double take a couple of their lines in the show’s opening night, but this did not distract from the play whatsoever. The most notable aspect of Fin Avison’s direction was the undeniable attention he paid to how each character presented themselves as animals, and it completely paid off. The animalistic qualities were embodied by the actors very graciously and in an incredibly convincing manner. I could instantly tell who the pigs, the horses and the sheep were simply by the way they held themselves. From the realistic animal noises (especially from the pig characters) to the way they stood and walked on stage, the amount of work that went into this is clearly visible. However, the make-up and articles of clothing used to distinguish between the animals were somewhat distracting and unnecessary; the same message could have been delivered in a perhaps much simpler way simply by exploring the actor’s body languages more in depth. Acting in a George Orwell play must be hard but acting as an animal in a George Orwell must be nearly impossible, and the student actors accepted that challenge to great success. It’s only fair to highlight some stellar performances, particularly from Alex Valletta playing Squealer and Char Hill playing Snowball, both of who perfectly embodied their characters paying attention to every minor detail. It’s also worth pointing out Emily Ellerby Hunt who delivered Molly’s lines hilariously, making a secondary character become one of the star performances.
Fin also added quite a few comedic elements not present in the novel that were very cleverly and smoothly integrated into the play, significantly elevating it to a higher standard. For example, just as some of the characters were reading out one of the 7 commandments, one of the pig characters would sneak behind them on the stage and quietly place an amendment to it before they were able to finish their line, at which point they argument was no longer valid because the commandment had been adjusted. This in turn, always played to the dictator’s advantage and made the other animals seem silly and one step behind. While this plot element was present in the novel, it was nowhere near as funny as to how it came across on stage.
The text also lends itself as a theatre play quite well because the audience gets to actually see the characters chant and stomp their feet in unison on stage, something which they did quite often as a symbol of conformity and subordinance. There was, of course, also the added benefit of hearing the whole cast hum along to Beasts of England, which was extremely moving. My biggest criticism would have to be that the play’s ending was quite anticlimactic. I was hoping for a memorable and touching delivery of what is arguably the novel’s most famous line: ‘all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others’. This iconic phrase was somewhat merged into the rest, which made it lose some of its resonance. However, much praise should be given to Platform’s adaptation of this Orwellian piece because it truly goes to show how student productions are now held to a very high standard.
When adapting Orwell’s novels to the theatre, however, some aspects of his unique sense of storytelling are inevitably lost, especially when it comes to the characters. When reading the first few lines introducing a new character in a book, the reader gets to construct the character in their head bit by bit, slowly getting to know them in their own pace. However, when watching a play, the character is already fully materialised in front of you from the very first moment that they step onto that stage. That takes away the privilege of being able to imagine a character, with all their little quirks, in your head while reading. Each person’s imaginary character will be slightly different even if they’re all reading the same description from the novel, but when watching a play, the entire audience is presented with the same version of that character. They are completely laid out on the stage; there is no mystery to their physical appearance, their body language, their accent, or the way they subtly react to other characters.
On the other hand, one of the many benefits of watching theatre adaptations is that they highlight the pace and impact of certain moments to the audience. Particularly for Orwellian pieces, the repetition of phrases is a very powerful tool and theatre as a medium allows them to be even more prominent.
When the audience hears those phrases being chanted at them, it can provide for a very impactful and quite disorientating effect that fully encapsulates you in the story, something that the novels simply don’t achieve. There is nothing quite like hearing ‘2 + 2 = 5’ or ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ being performed at you with such force and willpower; it’s really moving.
Perhaps George Orwell’s novels really do lend themselves well to the theatrical form. The social realism quality of his novels combined with the surrealist aspects unique to theatre provide a combination that translates very impactfully on the stage. So here I am, finally admitting to myself that there are in fact exceptions to the rule that ‘the book is always better’.
