Loading...
‘They were like the ant, which can see small objects but not large ones.’
( ‘1984’ by G. Orwell)
First of all let’s talk about genre or kind, or type of ( actually there are two films or more, it’s depend on point of view) the great novel by George Orwell and movies after it. The work of literature and screen versions are dystopias. It means „bad place“. And also: „The term is applied to accounts of imaginary worlds, usually in the future, in witch present tendencies carry out to their intensely, unpleasant culminations.“ ( *See note [1] after.) As a matter of fact dystopias discussed or quarreled with utopias and within the part – sometimes their fictions come into being in that way. Tommaso Campanella ( „The City of the Sun“, 1623) with Thomas More („Utopia“, 1516), with him in his turn Francis Bacon ( „New Atlantis“, 1627). William Morris ( „News from Nowhere“, 1892) argued with Edward Bellamy („Looking Backward“, ), with the first – H.G. Wells ( „A Modern Utopia“, 1905).
Aldous Huxsley by „New Brave World“ (1932) ridiculed the latter one. And because our purpose is dystopian, I listed some, choosing well-known from popular internet site. (*See note [2] after.) Initially novels: „The time machine“(1895), „When The Sleeper Wakes“ ( 1999), „The First Men in the Moon“ ( 1901) by G.H. Wells – I would add his „The Island of Dr Morro“(1896) and „The War of the Worlds“ ( 1698) – „The Iron Heel“(1908) by Jack London, The Machine Stops“( 1909) by E. M. Forster, „We“ (1921) by Yevgeny Zamyatin, mentioned one by Aldous Huxsley, „Darkness at Noon“ ( 1940) by Arthur Koestler , “ 1984″ ( 1949) by G. Orwell, „Player Piano“, or „Utopia 14“ (1952) by Kurt Vonnegut, „Fahrenheit 451“ (1953) by Ray Bradbury, „One“, or „Escape to Nowhere“ ( 1953) by David Karp, „Lord of Flies ( 1954) by William Golding, “ The Chrysalis“( 1995) by John Wyndham, “ A Clockwork Orange“ (1962) by Anthony Burgess, „Nova Express“ ( 1964) by William S. Burroughs etc. These are only a classic of genre, relatively new. I let Eric Blair’s friend Koestler because of influence of „Darkness at Noon“ over „1984“. The novel is also biased by „We“ by Y. Zamyatin and „The Iron Heel“ by Jack London, both already pointed. ( * See note [3] after.) Generally, dystopia is English or Anglo – Saxon genre, that’s why we can supplement very few titles, like „R.U.R.“(1920) by Karel Capek. Among dystopian movies can be found of literature origin as well. (* See note [4] after. ) From abundance we choose some governmental, i.e. social: „Metropolis“ (1926), „Brazil“ (1985), „1984“ ( 1956) and ( 1984). All of them refer to the novel. The first obliquely. Russian audience, it is reasonable, compare the German silent film, directed by very famous Fritz Lang (1890 – 1976), with work of Y. Zamyatin „We“, regardless of fiction by Thea Von Harbou, base for this picture. English film „Brazil“, directed by Terry Gilliam, is only inspired by Orwell novel. Working titles were “ 1984½“ , „How I Learned to Live with the System – So Far“, „The Ministry of Torture“. Sam Lawry ( Jonathan Pryce) is a low-level government employee who dreams of beautiful maiden. Government is bureaucratic, totalitarian, but buffoonish and lacks a Big Brother figure. The multitude is only excited at sexual adventure and plastic surgery. An error by a fly jammed in a printer caused arrest and death during interrogation of innocent instead of suspected terrorist Tuttle ( Robert De Niro). Sam became an enemy of state. He found his girl Jill (Kin Greist) but only for one day. Sam is caught and tortured by his old friend Jack ( Michael Palin). He continued to fantasize and is declared for lost cause. „Brazil“ is song that Sam hummed. It became „a cult film“.
Orwell novel has two cinema renditions (1956, 1984) and not less TV adaptations ( 1953, 1954, 1965-1968). The first television version is American, broadcast on CBS. The following are BBC’s on the screenplay by Nigel Kneale. Actually, series in1965 -1968 are modification with another cast. TV broadcast in 1954 provoked big reaction because of horrific content and subversive nature, with many viewer complaints and questions asked in Parliament. (* See note [5] after.) More popular and discussed is 1984 film with director Michael Radford. He is also script-writer of it, young and not so experienced , but did his best with fine principal actors like John Hurt (Winston Smith), Richard Burton (O’Brien) and Julia (Suzanna Hamilton). The film can’t be classified as science (or speculate) fiction – it depicts near future and more over background is London after World War II. Orwell’s widow Sonya Brownell, died in 1980, didn’t agree with futuristic special effects. Michael Radford and cinematographer Roger Deakins wanted to shoot the film in black and whit, but financial backers didn’t permit. Instead Deakins included a film processing technique „bleach bypass“ to reach washed-out colors. Is this film very different from the novel? Here is a comparison (* See note [6] after.): 1)“ The film features a salute, which is not appear in the novel“, with „the wrists cross each other in the shape of small V“. 2) „In the book the Ministry of Plenty is called miniplenty in the Newspeak; in the film its Newspeak name is miniprod“, i.e. Ministry of Production .“Winston’s working place, which is called the Records Department (recdep) of the Ministry of Truth in the novel, is referred to a Minirec( Ministry of Records)…“ 3) „In the film Party members call each other „brother“ or sister instead of „comrade“ as in the novel“. 4) „In the novel both Winston and Julia visit O’Brian at his private residence for information about joining the Brotherhood. In the film only Winston meets with O’Brian and the purpose of their meeting remains ambiguous; O’Brian does not explicitly reveal his affiliation with the Brotherhood as he does in the novel“. 5) „The film does not elaborate on the reason why Anderson, Rutherford and Jones were made to confess to being traitors and counterrevolutionaries. Jones is shown making his public confession on the telescreen at an early stage in the film, whereas in the book these men – original leaders of the revolution before Big Brother had been heard off – had been purged a decade over a decade earlier.“ 6)“In the film there is no mention of Neo-Bolshevism or „Dead-Worship“ In the book these are describe as the respective (but functionally identical to each other) ideologies of two rival superstates, Eurasia and Eastasia.“ 7) „In this film version (and in the 1954 television play) , Goldsten’s illegal book, disguised as a Newspeak dictionary, is given to Winston by O’Brien during their meeting in O’Brian’s apartment; in the novel it is handed to him in a briefcase resembling his own amid the hubbub of Hate Week, after the alignments of the war has changed…The Newspeak dictionary was used by O’Brien, in the novel, as a pretext for giving Winston his address.“ 8) „In the novel, when Winston is looked up, he meets a woman that might possibly be his mother; the film seem to suggest the mother died as Winston found her carcass being devoured by rats.“ 9) „In the novel Winston is suffering from an ulcer on his ankle that itches terribly and a bag cough; both subside as his affair with Julia progresses. In the film he only has the cough.“ 10) „The film takes little account of Winston’s venturing into area of the Proles. Notable cuts include: seeing a riot over price of pot and pans, being hear numerous bombing attacks, and Winston talking to a very old man who has memories of life before the Party and state of Oceania came into being.“ Not each of these messages are important and some are pettiness. Let’s pay attention to some generalizations about the film. It is close to the novel but lacks a voice-over:
„The flaw in the film, for me is that I felt like I only enjoyed and understood this movie because I had read the book already. There is a theory I once heard and agree with: the closer an adaptation is to the source, the more necessary is it is to read the source. A good adaptation is faithful to the essentials of a story but makes necessary changes so that it not only becomes cinematic, yet also becomes something that a viewer unfamiliar with the source material can understand. I think if I were ignorant of the story, there are too many thinks that would confuse me in this film which the book seems to go out of its way to explain. For example: Who/Where exactly is Oceania? How did the countries go from their current political state to the envisioned one? Why do the people gather in mass and scream passionate hateful exclamations at the screen? What exactly does Winston actually do? Who are the proles? I praise movies that can effectively tell a story without means of voice-over, a much overused device in films. In this case though, I think a little may have helped, not necessarily wall-to-wall, but sparingly used. The movie is effective by being more ambiguous then the book, but I tend to think maybe it is too ambiguous.“ (* See note [7] after.)
On the contrary, in other opinion this film speaks clear and keeps spirit of the book:
“ This story is, of course, well known, 1984 must be one of the most widely read novels of our time. What was remarkable about the movie is how completely is satisfied my feeling about the book: the movie looks, feels, and almost tastes and smells like Orwell’s bleak and angry vision…The 1954-film version of Orwell’s novel turned it into a cautionary, simplistic science fiction tale. This version penetrates much more deeply into the novel’s heart of darkness.“ (* See note [8] after.)
In another view, the film succeeds in selection of reading material and caught the spirit of great novel:
„Orwell’s book is one that leaves such an indelible impression, that is might be impossible to truly capture the scope and feeling of it in a two ours film, but writer-director Radford does a fine job in extracting the core elements and filling in the blanks with a more cinematic feel. It may not quite be Orwell’s 1984, but it is an effective all on its own…1984 is certainly an interesting take on Orwell’s novel, and while it can be enjoyed (if you can enjoy a film this dour) completely as its own entity, it is still just the essence of the book.“ (* See note [9] after).
Small report recommended 1956 film in that way:
„Michael Anderson, his director and the scenarists have adapted the book „freely.“ But they have retained its essential spirit and ideas in the film which came to the Trans-Lux Normandie on Saturday. Against backgrounds of bombed-out hulks of London buildings and studio settings of futuristic, electronic gadget-filled rooms, the story of Winston Smith, lowly worker in the „Ministry of Truth,“ and Julia, also a „government“ functionary, is unfolded.“ (*See note [10] after. )
What is the essence, core, spirit, entity of this book after all? We have to answer this question and then if they are kept in both movies. This talk isn’t about the boundary between two arts – like in the work of Gotthold Lessing „Laocoon or The Limit of Poetry and Painting“ (1766). Is George Orwell great and genius or only fortunate – who didn’t had consciousness of his creation. Instance of this is „Don Quixote“( 1605) by Miguel de Cervantes that was intended to be only parody of chivalrous romance. Others assert that he might be used not merely for political purpose, but is turned into business: „The Orwell ascension had become the Orwell cult and, by 1956, the Orwell industry.“ ( * See note [11] after.) Irving Stone in his biography of Sigmund Freud „The Passions of the Mind“ (1971) cited the psychoanalyst about Oedipus Rex that great literary work are universal, what didn’t apply these criterion had been forgotten long ago, so that tragedy by Sophocles has contemporary sounding. Beyond doubt Orwell will be writer of today too. Because “ through the nightmare fantasies of Nineteen Eighty-Four we see always the outlines of our own real world.“ ( * See note [12] after.) American publisher Eugene Reynal sent an advance copy to Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI, with making comments that impression is shocking because no awful feature of world of „1984“ that couldn’t be founded out in an embryonic state today. (* See note [13] after. ) Even before the novel, because of misunderstanding Orwell specified:
“ Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it, It seem to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writhing of such subjects.“ (Essay “ Why I Write“, 1946. )
„1984“ caused great confusion. He rebutted two papers in Life magazine and New York Daily what had been attacking an left-wing dictatorship or Labor. Orwell, in effect, is not political in spite of statements but oracle of our time:
“ My recent novel is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe (allowing of course for the fact that the book is a satire) that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences. The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.“ (* See note [14] after.)
Satire is of primary importance to dystopia. It is systematic rule and its dynamic that revives fiction, according to articles on novels ( „1984“, „New Brave World“ and other out of genre ) in a book by Bulgarian critic. (* See note [15] after.) Both movies after Orwell masterpiece can be horrible and fearful but not enough satirical which is difficult to deal with – the author is biggest in English literature who manage this after Jonathan Swift. At level of language this function has concretely paradox. Taking the pattern from Oscar Wilde and G.K. Chesterton, Orwell very successfully used it: War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength. Both movies included some key phrases, selected carefully. Let’s study another meaning of satire in the novel. This is tool or instrument of exaggeration. Behind is our real world, not only totalitarian but also democratic ( “ The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical collectivism“ as is titled the book by Emmanuel Goldstein ). The stretch between imaginary space and true is not long. ( For that background is resemble in both movies, more or less.) Doublethink is clue to fining out actuality in the „1984“. It need special reflection like parables. The people like O’Brian can blot out the stars. I wouldn’t be supposed if Orwell at that moment was thinking about Oscar Wilde’s dictum: “ We are all in gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.“ Both movies don’t arise up such kind of fillings, there are to a certain degree literal translations of the source.
Less known themes occurs in the novel besides totalitarian, rewrite history and the past, manipulation by means of bright future, how to keep power etc. We could mention some philosophical and futuristic problems. ( Into O’Brien’s dwelling-place Winston Smith drank a glace of wine not for the future, but for the past.) God is dead and Orwell looked for alternative to Christian idea for after life. (* See note [16] after.) He discussed over detachment between science and technical progress from, on the other side, humanitarians and social life. Ten years later Charles Percy Snow read a lecture, entitled „The Two Cultures“ – about the breakdown of communication between them. Very significant for 1984’s world is comparing with „Escape from Freedom“(1941) by Erich From who tried to combine Marxism and Freudian theory. This philosophic work as fitted this novel as „One-Dimensional Man“ (1964) by Herbert Marcuse referred to „New Brave World“ by Aldous Huxsley. We could mention and Winston’s dispute with O’Brian like solipsist. Everything is in our head, isn’t it? Is not Winston’s and Julia’s betrayal imaginary too? I remind you this conversation( Chapter 15) :
„…’ The one think that matters is that we shouldn’t betray one another, although even that can’t make the slightest difference.’
‘ If you mean confessing’ she said, ‘we shall do that, right enough. Everybody always confesses. You can’t help it. They torture you.’
‘I don’t mean confessing. Confession is not betrayal. What you say or do doesn’t matter“ only feelings matter. If they could make me stop loving you – that would be the real betrayal.’
She thought it over. ‘They can’t do that,’ she said finally. ‘It’s one thing they can’t do. They can make you say anything – anything – but they can’t make you believe it. They can’t get inside you.’…“( * See note [17] after.)
It is rarely pointed existentialist influence over Orwell. Man is alone, every connection is cut off, battle is lost: „You will do what is required of you“, said O’Brian before torment with rats. We compare with „The Rebel“( 1951) by Albert Camus: „Better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s kneel.“ (* See note [18] after.) Isn’t Winston’s time in the Ministry of Love, in fact hell of earth, typical ‘border situation’ with different answer than Camus’? And finally, it was James Burnham’s book “ The Manager revolution“(1941 that had a big effect on the author of „1984“. In a nutshell:
„… the trust of which was that the managerial ‘class’ in all countries, scientists, technicians, organizers and bureaucrats were bound to take over power, and that terms like ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ no longer had meaning…The ‘oligarchical collectivism’ discussed in the book supposed to have been written by the eternal rebel Goldstein( for whom read Trotsky) is shaped as an indirect attack on Burnham, and on one level 1984 is an attempt to rebut Burnham’s ideas by carrying them on to frightful logical conclusion.“ (*See note [19] after.)
Hence Orwell considered it as so possible version as totalitarian. Into the film renditions was only permeated James Burnham’s idea for three superpowers:
„The new ‘managerial’ societies will not consist of a patchwork of small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centres in Europe, Asia, and America. These super-states will fight among themselves for possession of the remaining uncaptured portions of the earth, but will probably be unable to conquer one another completely.“ (* See note [20] after.)
Both movies didn’t include Emmanuel Goldstein’s book what contents are very weight. At first in the US publishers insisted on Orwell avoid that part and Appendix – The principles of newspeak. He denied. (* See note [21] after.) Emmanuel Goldstein’s book is 13 percents of the whole text and not only this, it explains the plot and many key notes in the Orwell’s work as it can occur there. The actions in the novel, the characters and so, on the one hand and the Goldstein’s supplement or philosophical dialogs between Winston and O’Brien in custody, on the other hand are in relation, in other words – in correspondence. (* See note [22] after.) 1984’version threw out share of Winston’s diary and both some ‘meaningless’ talks between Smith and O’Brian. 1956’film is still worse by comparison on this. In that way the purpose seemed to be mostly Evil Empire ( then USSR) but not broadest sense of novel. Background is London but it occurred subtle hind of Russian lifestyle, their houses ‘komunalki’ and clothing as overall. Big Brother looks alike Stalin and Goldstein remarkable resembles to Leon Trotsky. A feature of 1956 rendition is drawing of post nuclear war world. It opened with burst out of atomic mushroom. Both of movies didn’t lead to this trend in the novel that hinted or predicted Noam Chomsky’s theory of New World Order and Globalization. Other prophesy in the novel passes unnoticed by critics, that is connected with sexual revolution and 60’s movements. It exists only in 1984 rendition, the second one, post factum as we say. I call to mind the scene in open are ( in the countryside), from Chapter 10 :
„Have you done this before?’
‘Of course. Hundreds of times — well scores of times anyway’
‘With Party members.’
‘Yes, always with Party members.’
‘With members of the Inner Party?’
‘Not with those swine, no. But there’s plenty that would if they got half a chance. They’re not so holy as they make out.’
His heart leapt. Scores of times she had done it: he wished it had been hundreds — thousands. Anything that hinted at corruption always filled himwith a wild hope. Who knew, perhaps the Party was rotten under the surface, its cult of strenuousness and self-denial simply a sham concealing iniquity. If hecould have infected the whole lot of them with leprosy or syphilis, how gladlyhe would have done so! Anything to rot, to weaken, to undermine! He pulledher down so that they were kneeling face to face.
‘Listen. The more men you’ve had, the more I love you. Do you understand that?’
‘Yes, perfectly.’
‘I hate purity, I hate goodness! I don’t want any virtue to exist anywhere. I want everyone to be corrupt to the bones.
‘Well then, I ought to suit you, dear. I’m corrupt to the bones.’
‘You like doing this? I don’t mean simply me: I mean the thing in itself?’
‘I adore it.’ “ ( * See note [23] after.)
‘You’re only a rebel from the waist downwards,’ William told Julia later on. (*See note [24] after.) We close with mention that Hippies, Beat generation and at all Counterculture tried to change society towards improvement with free love, unsuccessfully. (Some of more famous writers in this direction are Jack Kerouak with ‘On the Road’, Norman Mailer with ‘The White Negro’, Ken Kesey with ‘One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ etc. One of ideologists of Counterculture is touched on Herbert Marcuse. ) I don’t cite sources here because it is well-known.
Both movies, 1956 and 1984, shut out a scene in prole pub where Winston Smith chatters with an old man ( Chapter 8). An important things there is the inference: ‘They were like the ant, which can see small objects but not large ones.’ (* See note [25] after.) – The narrator outer party member and George Orwell mean proles and people generally. The old man ridicules Labors: „Lackeys!“ ‘e says, „lackeys of the bourgeoisie! Flunkies of the ruling class!“ Parasites – that was another of them. And ‘yenas – ‘e definitely called ’em ‘yenas. Of course ‘e was referring to the Labour Party, you understand.’ (* See note [ 26] after.) It cleared up author’s political view, neither left, nor writhe. Both films exclude a ‘riot of proles’ in the street market – two or three hundred women fight for tin saucepans which one of the stalls have been selling – Chapter 7 ( *See note [27] after.) . Hope lies in the proles but:
„So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern. […]Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and above all, gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds.“ ( See note [28] after.)
In the style of dystopia Goldstein’s book expounds :
„The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.“ ( *See note [29] after.) It is to a great extent true for democratic states too.
The theme of proles is interlaced with that of human nature what is irreversible: ‘So long as human beings stay human, death and life are the same thing.’ (*See note [ 30] after.) Or:
„To hang on from day to day and from week to week, spinning out a present that had no future, seemed an unconquerable instinct, just as one’s lungs will always draw the next breath so long as there is air available.“ ( * See note [ 31] after).
It was about Winston and Julia. What about proles:
“ The proles had stayed human. They had not become hardened inside. They had held on to the primitive emotions which he himself had to re-learn by conscious effort. [ …] ‘The proles are human beings,’ he said aloud. ‘We are not human.'“ ( *See note [ 32] after.)
The thought and the statement belong to Winston. What O’Brian said to him on this matter was:
„You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.“ ( * See note [33] after.)
All these particularities are away for film renditions.
Political system in the novel is nearer to 1956 movie. George Orwell explains it via O’Brian as:
“ We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.“ (* See note [34] after.)
Right away the torturer underlines:’The first thing you must realize is that power is collective.’ The title of Emmanuel Goldstein’s book is ‘The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism’. Let’s pay attention to both points in it:
„The familiar pendulum swing was tohappen once more, and then stop.“
And:
„It was only after a decade of national wars, civil wars, revolutions, and counter-revolutions in all parts of the world that Ingsoc and its rivals emerged as fully worked-out political theories. But they had been foreshadowed by the various systems, generally called totalitarian, which had appeared earlier in the century, and the main outlines of the world which would emerge from the prevailing chaos had long been obvious.“ ( * See note [ 35] after.)
As a matter of fact – it’s very similar to our own real world.
Notes:
1. A Handbook to literature, 5 edition, 1986, C. Hugh Holman, William Harmon, Macmillan, New York and London.
2. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia
3. Gordon Bowker, „George Orwell“, Little Brown, 2003, p. 569, 571. G. Orwell, Tribune, 4 January, 1946. Gleb Struve, Tribune, 25 January, 1946.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distopian_films.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neneteen_Eighty_Four.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four.
7. Site IMDb, User reviews, 22 June 2005, by David Lane – http//www.imdb.com/title/tt0087803/usercoments.
8. From – rogerebert.com: reviews, by Roger Ebert/February 1, 1985 – http://rogerevert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19850201/REVIEWS/502010301/1023.
9. Qwipster’s Movie Reviews, by Vince Leo, 2005 – http://www.qwipster.net/1984_movie.htm.
10. Passage from „The Screen: ‘1984’ Opens; Adaptation of Orwell’s Novel at Normandie“ by A. H. Weller, „New York Times“, 1 October, 1956.
11. Kristin Bluemel , “ George Orwell and the Radical Eccentrics“, 2004, Macmillan, p.137.
12. Julian Symons, Introduction to „1984“, Everyman’s Library, 1992, p.xxiii.
13. Gordon Bowker, op. cit. 590.
14. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Volume 4 – In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950, p. 546, Penguin.
15. Tzvetana Hubenova, „Anatomia na iljuzijata“ 1992, Sofia, p. 38-39.
16. Gordon Bowker, op. cit. p. 547.
17. „1984“, Penguin books, 1987, p. 173-174
18. Albert Camus. „The Rebel“. An Essay of Man in Revolt With a Foreword by Sir Herbert Read. A revised and complete translation of L’omme revolte by Anthony Bower. First vintage international edition, November 1991, Copyright 1956 by Alfred A. Knoph, Inc., p. 11.
19. Julian Symons, op. cit. p. xxi.
20. Essay by G. Orwell, „James Burnham and The Managerial Revolution“ New English Weekly, May 1946.
21.Gordon Bowker, op. cit. p. 587.
22. E.g. Goldstein’s book and dialogs in custody explicate the slogans.
23. „1984“, Penguin books, 1987, p. 131-132.
24. „1984“, op. cit., 1987, p. 163.
25. „1984“, op. cit., 1987, p. 96-97.
26. „1984“, op. cit., 1987, p. 94.
27. „1984“, op. cit. , 1987, p. 73.
28. „1984“, op. cit., 1987, p. 74.
29. „1984“, op. cit. , 1987, p. 214.
30. „1984“, op. cit. , 1987, p. 142.
31. „1984“, op. cit., 1987, p. 159.
32. „1984“, op. cit. , 1987, p. 172-173.
33. „1984“, op. cit. , 1987, p. 282.
34. „1984“, op. cit. , 1987, p. 277.
35. „1984“, op. cit. , 1987, p. 212-213
