MovieChat Forums > Fahrenheit 451 (1966) Discussion > The MANY idiocies of this film. SPOILERS

The MANY idiocies of this film. SPOILERS

posted 15 years ago by MrPie7
28 replies | jump to latest

1. When a guy knows he's about to be arrested, hand him a FLAMETHROWER!!!!!!

2. In a bookless society, everyone knows how to read.

3. The fire captain appears to me more literate than the average American! Note his comments on philosophers and his comments on books that black people would find offensive.

4. The cops flying thru the air being elbow to elbow, thus narrowing the area they COULD have searched, to one quarter of the territory that could be covered if they were spead out.
a. Sub idiocy: The cops are filmed in black and white thus making the rear projection gag stand out like a terd in the punch bowl!

5. Any victim will do! Yes, just kill ANYONE. It isn't like Montag has dangerous ideas plus knowledge of how firemen operate or anything.

6. Leave the "living books" unmolested while destroying inanimate books that are have to actually be READ. After all it's the books THEMSELVES running around causing all the trouble for the state, NOT the "dangerous" ideas contained in them!

7. No need for actual firemen to put out fires. After all the entire world has been "fireproofed". No wood exists anymore which might catch fire. And a forrest fire wouldn't be a problem to anyone. Even toilet paper is apparently fireproof! That's a good thing if you eat Mexican food...

8. A guy rides the monorail every day with a woman that looks EXACTLY LIKE HIS WIFE, and he never notices her. Lois Lane was more perceptive. At least Clark Kent wore glasses.

9. Have the box where you rat out friends and neighbors, right outside the firestation where everyone can see that you are turning someone in. Oh, and place a flashing light on the top to make SURE no one misses this.

10. The wife's double lives in a society OBSESSED with burning books, yet has to ask Montag about the significance of the # 451 on his uniform.

11. Lets have a dozen guys and a big red truck with flame throwers & stuff to do a job that usually requires no more than one guy on a bicycle with a can of lighter fluid and a lighter.

Whew! Need I go on? I CAN......!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] voided-1 15 years ago

Good post, MrPie 7. I hope the book made more sense. For me this was a poor film.

"Don't leave us in the dark!"

[–] voided-1 15 years ago

Also, a film should stand by itself without reference to a book, otherwise it has failed as a film.

"Don't leave us in the dark!"

[–] novastar_6 15 years ago

And yet all the time in movies based on books there are things, often little things, going on that if you didn't read the books, would make no sense.

[–] voided-1 15 years ago

Yes, unfortunately this is true. The best adaptations are ones that can stand alone. This may often require a different approach or some kind of significant transformation.

"Don't leave us in the dark!"

[–] ZetaTauri 15 years ago

That was a great post! I watched the movie last night for the first time since the 1970s, (I was born in 1966 - like the movie).

When I was a kid, I like the politcal overtones, and obviously ignored the film flaws. As an adult, all I could think was how strange the film was with so many errors, all of which you addressed. On the flip side of that, I loved the fact that they had what looked like a 52" Flat Screen in the living room. The film really doesn't bear close examination at all.

Another change in my perception, was as a kid I thought that the "enemy" aka The State, was a right-wing one. Now I think the exact opposite. It a left-wing State where everyone must "feel good" and free speech is censored, much like political correctness run amok.

- Frank
"We are one big happy fleet!" - KN Singh

[–] tf424 15 years ago

The sad fact is that it doesn't matter whether "The State" is left-wing or right-wing, censorship and thought-control are irresistible tools to enforce the will of the State onto the citizenry. And the most common tactic to gain acceptance of censorship is to pit the citizens against themselves, to establish champions of "good" censorship vs. "bad" censorship. Censorship is "good" when it is against porn, or terrorism, or deviant cults. Censorship is "bad" when it is against whatever the mainstream thought of the day happens to be.

In the end, the war is lost, because the basic concept of censorship is readily accepted for expediency, and the only argument left is over who gets dropped in the flames.

[–] MrPie7 15 years ago

If you want an interesting take on this idea, check out Kurt Vonnegutt's short story "Harison Bergeron". It's in the collection "Welcome to the Monkey House". In the story, the physically gifted are tethered to weights to rob them of superior abilities, the good-looking have to wear silly, artificial noses, and intelligent people must wear headphones that broadcast loud, disturbing noises that keep them from thinking too clearly, etc. Thus "true equality" has been realized.

[–] epmichaud 15 years ago

If you have, as you state, read the book, you should know that:

"Flaws" 1 and 2 are from the book.
"Flaw" 3 - The captain used to be himself a book reader.
4- Seriously, how insignificant is this? He added jet-packs for it to look more futuristic. That just adds to the "naive" beauty of the film.
5- From the book as well. Indeed, they do not care if he has dangerous ideas, as long as he is out of town. They will hunt him down if he ever comes back. For now, just reassure the public by making believe he was caught.
6- As Bradbury himself stated, this is all about the LOSS OF INTEREST in reading, not censorship. At first the government tried to censor the books, but before long most people had lost interest. "Linda" -Mildred- and her friends are a good example of that.
7- Again, that's from the NOVEL. You know, that thing you allegedly read?
8- That is somehow weird, but still a minor detail.
9- You shouldn't be ashamed to turn someone in, as you are doing it for the good of the State. That's not really THAT improbable.
10- Why in the WORLD would she know that? Do you have to know the exact temperature to burn a book?
11- That's just completely irrelevant. Of course, there always too much. In case there's a problem, in case there are more books then expected or something. Really, does that spoil the movie for you? That there are too many guys on the firetruck?

[–] MrPie7 15 years ago

Yes, some of these points ARE in the book, but this a review of the FILM!! However, I read the book 20 years ago. Don't remember exactly how or if these things I have noted were explained. But as they appear in the film they are idiotic. Since ol' Francois felt no compunctions against changing things in the book that he wanted to, why not change obvious absurdities?

1&2) Do you really think that handing a flamethrower to a guy who faces capital punishment is a SMART thing to do?

4) my POINT is not that it looks futuristic, but that it looks fake and stupid. Isn't it natural for searchers of any kind to spread out in order to search more territory? And why B&W jet packers superinposed on a color film?

5)Why not expend a LITTLE effort and actually CATCH him?

6) "this is all about the LOSS OF INTEREST in reading, not censorship" Of COURSE not! People who burn books would never DREAM of censoring anything! The books were just taking up too much space.

7) THAT I DO remember. STILL STUPID!

8) WEIRD??? Absolutely unbelievable! And she and Montage are among like 3 or 4 people who get off at that stop. Never noticed her... ANY guy would have noticed her just because she was hot, let alone a doppleganger of his wife!

9)Sure. That's why the guy is so nervous and upset about using the "rat box".

10) 451 is written on the FIREHOUSE even, and she's ignorant of it's meaning. Obviously the state has told everyone a million times what it means. What it IS is a hamhanded explanation for the VIEWER!

11) OK you win. That's a sensible allocation of manpower.

Whether these are flaws in the movie alone or in the book and movie, they are nonetheless "IDIOCYS of this film". Anyway 451 is NOT RB's best work. Read "Something Wicked this Way Comes", and "The Martian Cronicles". "Mars is Heaven alone is worth the price of admission, and "SWTWC" is one of the finest coming-of-age novels ever written.

[–] Strings101 14 years ago

What the OP labels as "idiocies" are more accurately known, by thinking folks, as ALLEGORICAL (storytelling) devices, artistic emphasis of political realities, and perhaps even just plain old budget constraints! This all the more ironic since Mr. Pie implies he's a "deep" and informed reader.

#4) The ineptness and cheesiness of the flying cops is DELIBERATE. i.e. the INTENT is to portray them as mindless drones, and I'd say Truffaut achieved that. Perhaps when someone hands you MILLIONS of dollars to make a flick, you'll make different artistic and technical decisions.

#5) Yes, any VILLAIN *will* do, in serving the mind-control PROPAGANDA of The Totalitarian State! Political Theory 101, duh. Sure, The State would PREFER to catch the actual guy, but in order to keep up the APPEARANCE of total control and efficient competence in the eyes of the plebes, The State has to achieve "climax" in a short time period. Especially important when intimidating and controlling a populace with TV-induced A.D.D.! (How PROPHETIC this would become!)

Lordy, look at all the death-row convicts freed by Project Innocence! i.e. the present-day version is "Any Negro will do. Just convict SOMEONE, fast!". (Also, never underestimate the laziness and incompetence of .gov employees, in any century.)

#10) Umm, it's called FLIRTING, i.e. a woman asking a man any number of questions, the answers to which she either already knows, or doesn't even care, just to MAKE CONVERSATION. Clarisse was being forward, precocious, and very, very, FLIRTATIOUS... was this not clear? A woman just wants a man she's flirting with to RESPOND to her, TALK to her, and ONLY her... but... you... know this... right?

Perhaps many women have attempted to flirt with Mr. Pie, and over his head it sailed? Perhaps he dismissed them as "idiots" for "bothering" him with "silly" questions? ;') After some years, no doubt they didn't bother any more. Sad.

(Of course her question mostly serves as EXPOSITION/explanation of the title for benefit of the audience. Haven't read the book, but the same exposition no doubt takes place there, perhaps by this character, perhaps by the third person implied narrator.)

#11) Umm, there's the INTIMIDATION factor, always important when The Totalitarian State needs to keep the population cowed and compliant. Also, there's the mindless drone angle mentioned above, not to mention the over-do-it, make-work angle found in ALL GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACIES. Too, the size and crewing of the large fire engine MAINTAINS THE HISTORICAL LINK to what fireman FORMERLY where, and the sad state they've come to in F451. Note the bulk of a real fire engine (water tanks and water hoses) have been STRIPPED AWAY, leaving this EVIL, minimalist vehicle, which carries only the stormtroopers, and a single flamethrower. I thought the stylistic choices were spot on in this regard.

[–] buckaroobanzai50 15 years ago

"8. A guy rides the monorail every day with a woman that looks EXACTLY LIKE HIS WIFE, and he never notices her. Lois Lane was more perceptive. At least Clark Kent wore glasses."
I've seen this film a few times, and I STILL can't get the point of Julie Christie playing both parts, and Montag not saying to her "Oh, you look like my wife. Actually, you're much sexier!!" LOL!

And, just how does she teach her pupils without books?

[–] MrPie7 15 years ago

She memorized everything, I guess.

[–] toshguy 14 years ago

As the trivia can tell you, it was decided in the last minute for Christie to play a dual role. However, in my opinion, it's a smart decision. It makes a point of how everyone in that conformist society is made to look and presumably act the same and how nobody even notices it because it's been done to everyone. Anyone notice what a facial resemblance all the firemen bore to Montag? The double casting also symbolyses that no matter how much people may seem or look alike for whatever reason, no two are the same on the inside. Although the brainwashing in the film has gone so far that it isn't so in most cases.

I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die

[–] novastar_6 14 years ago

Anyone notice what a facial resemblance all the firemen bore to Montag?

And in fact if you read the book, it says they all look alike, all about the same age, all heavy set, all with dark hair, etc.

[–] ds9writer 14 years ago

"As the trivia can tell you, it was decided in the last minute for Christie to play a dual role."

Was it also a last minute thing to have Anton Diffring (Fabian) dress up in drag and play the headmistress who was peeking out the window when Clarisse went back to the school? That was really jolting! :)

[–] bill3-1 14 years ago

Was it also a last minute thing to have Anton Diffring (Fabian) dress up in drag and play the headmistress who was peeking out the window when Clarisse went back to the school? That was really jolting!

None of the idiocies mentioned here bother me, this is still and for always will be a super cool movie.

But what was up with Anton Diffring playing the headmistress? It didn't even occur to me he was supposed to be a "mistress" until I checked the cast listing, I thought it was just a weirdo ugly headmaster, so that's a really curious thing they did having him playing it, but it just adds a little more uniqueness to the movie, which I'm good with.

I wish Fahrenheit 451 was an hour longer, I didn't want it to end, I give it a solid 9/10 stars.

[–] lenore-663-382535 14 years ago

P1) the captain could have been a sadist and enjoyed forcing him to burn the books plus he likely use ro being obeyed without question

P2) There can be a need for official paperwork,reports,warning signs etc etc

P3) he is highly knowledge about history and propaganda, also explains why private ownership of books is not allowed

P4) trivial points

P%) Cant take too long, must maintain people's faith in the government and seeing how Montage knows how they operate is probably why he successful

P6) They are isolated from everyone else and they are not writing down the books and passing them out

P7)fires it seems are not a problem in cities anymore, after all all using as flamethrower to set a pile of books in house isn't a problem

P8) he was too wrapped own in his own world and as was pointed out by the captain he never really says anything

P9) most people probably don't have a problem turning someone in

P10) It's for the sake of the audience, its a way of making idle talk. How many people would know what temperature paper catch fire?

P11) need them to search the house and maybe the owner of the book might start running

[–] bill3-1 13 years ago

I don't consider this exactly an idiocy, just the best place to post this observance of mine, maybe others missed it.

Apparently they hold grammar school on the top 24th floor of a building, we know this because of the elevator buttons.

[–] mickeyone 13 years ago

Yea, I noticed that too. Maybe it is symbolizing that children in this society are actually on a higher plane of existence (or at least Truffaut considers them as such - he did make a bunch of movies about children: "400 Blows", "Small Change", and "The Wild Child"). Here is a post I made back in 2007 that new readers might find interesting:

Subject: The School Scene

The first thing I noticed about this scene that I hadn't noticed before owning the DVD, is that this 'school' where Clarisse taught is actually on the 24th floor. Now I don't know about you, but it seems like a pretty strange place to put an elementary school to me, but then I don't inhabit the world created by François Truffaut & Jean-Louis Richard in Fahrenheit 451 (when I went to elementary school, it was on the ground level -- its safer there). Was this just in order to allow the scene in the elevator later on? I always thought one of the things that people would hate about this movie (the way they hated the flying policemen) was the scene where the Headmistress throws Clarisse's things to her just before they leave. The way her bag of things moves down the hall is very strange. It is one of the things I had remembered about this film after not seeing it for decades. What I had thought was going on here is this: The screen play called for the headmistress to throw her (Clarisse) things down the hall to her in a 'get lost' kind of way. Well, I figure that when the makers of the film tried to do this, they first tried to just throw it like a bowling ball down the hall. Trouble is, it came to a stop almost immediately. So then they tried waxing the floor and giving it a really good shine, but still the packet would not move down the hall more than a yard or so. There was just too much resistance. So finally what they came up with is they put 4 little caster wheels on the bottom on this thing that looks like a little package. This is what I finally decided was the explanation. Well, on the DVD is you look really carefully, as Montag goes up to push the button for the elevator, there is about one frame of film where you can see 2 of these caster wheels underneath this thing that he picked up off the floor. That entire portion of the film should probably have been cut out because I don't think the look of the final result conveys anything other than that it looks strange. But I feel like I do understand what they were trying to do. Another interesting thing about this scene is, they get into the elevator, and at one point Clarisse moves away from Montag and there is a window on the other side of the elevator. As the camera pans over to Clarisse, you can briefly see someone else in the elevator in a reflection in that window (a guy in a white shirt, Truffaut perhaps?) behind Julie Christie.

SUBTITLES:

Notice in the school scene, the kids are practicing their multiplication by saying 9 12's are a hundred and eight, 9 13's are a hundred and seventeen, etc.

In the English subtitles, you eventually get this: "Nine eighteens are a hundred and sixty-three" (<- wrong)

In the French subtitles, you eventually get this: "9 fois 17, 156". ('fois' is times in french I assume, but 9 times 17 does not equal 156)

Likewise in the Spanish subtitles, you eventually get this: "9 por 17 son 156". (wrong again)

So, we can all rest assured that DVD translator/subtitlers of english, spanish and french are all equally poor in multiplication.

[–] bill3-1 13 years ago

Thanks for replying and the interesting post.

Mickeyone, you probably also noticed too that there's 25 elevator buttons, Montag pushed the top first button, I assume ground floor, but that should be the first floor but it's not.

[–] JohnQ1127 13 years ago

@ MR. Pie7,

I don't think your list of 11 points are idiocies but rather questionable points of logic. I think many of the points can be defended somewhat.

"1. When a guy knows he's about to be arrested, hand him a FLAMETHROWER!!!!!!"

Yeah, this is one of those movie type of situations but I think what the writer/director wanted was that the Captain felt he could begin to de- program Montag by having him burn the books again.

"2. In a bookless society, everyone knows how to read." It was a bookless society but people had the capacity to read. They had to know how to read to use instruction manuals, menus, etc. The book/movie is really about censorship not just books.

"3. The fire captain appears to me more literate than the average American! Note his comments on philosophers and his comments on books that black people would find offensive. "

That's just a sad statement about most Americans. The Captain had to be knowledgeable about these things because he's essentially the defender of the faith.

4. The cops flying thru the air being elbow to elbow, thus narrowing the area they COULD have searched, to one quarter of the territory that could be covered if they were spead out.
a. Sub idiocy: The cops are filmed in black and white thus making the rear projection gag stand out like a terd in the punch bowl!

This film came out in 1966 so you have to cut it some slack.

5. Any victim will do! Yes, just kill ANYONE. It isn't like Montag has dangerous ideas plus knowledge of how firemen operate or anything.

They just needed someone dead so they could Say it was Montag, this way they could create the illusion that everything was fine and back to normal.

6. Leave the "living books" unmolested while destroying inanimate books that are have to actually be READ. After all it's the books THEMSELVES running around causing all the trouble for the state, NOT the "dangerous" ideas contained in them!

Not sure your point about this one.

7. No need for actual firemen to put out fires. After all the entire world has been "fireproofed". No wood exists anymore which might catch fire. And a forrest fire wouldn't be a problem to anyone. Even toilet paper is apparently fireproof! That's a good thing if you eat Mexican food...

It's a sci-fi movie set in the future everything was fireproof, forest fires would be allowed to burn out I guess. It's also playing on the irony of Fireman starting fires.

8. A guy rides the monorail every day with a woman that looks EXACTLY LIKE HIS WIFE, and he never notices her. Lois Lane was more perceptive. At least Clark Kent wore glasses.

It was somewhat common in the 60's for actors to play more than one role in a film. I think it's an interesting juxta-position to have Julie Christie play both parts.

"9. Have the box where you rat out friends and neighbors, right outside the firestation where everyone can see that you are turning someone in. Oh, and place a flashing light on the top to make SURE no one misses this."

Yeah, that's a good one.

10. The wife's double lives in a society OBSESSED with burning books, yet has to ask Montag about the significance of the # 451 on his uniform.

Yeah, I always had a problem with that one. A girl like that would have known exactly what that meant. I guess they wanted to explain it to the audience.

11. Lets have a dozen guys and a big red truck with flame throwers & stuff to do a job that usually requires no more than one guy on a bicycle with a can of lighter fluid and a lighter.

Well part of that was to create a spectacle to scare people in submission. The Nazis used similar tactics quite effectively. Montag and his men would also be responsible to arrest people and take them into custody.

[–] GalacticLaughter 13 years ago

1. When a guy knows he's about to be arrested, hand him a FLAMETHROWER!!!!!!

As posted earlier in this thread, this is from the book. In the book, the Captain tells Montag not to try anything (along the lines of escape, resistance, etc.), because the firemen have a mechanical hound with them that is poised to attack. (The mechanical hounds are very lethal robots that figure prominently in the book.)

At one point in the book (after torching the Captain), Montag muses that the Captain WANTED to die. Of course this may have been Montag trying to ease his own guilt. But the Captain actually wanting to die is a good theory for both book and movie, especially considering the following...

3. The fire captain appears to me more literate than the average American! Note his comments on philosophers and his comments on books that black people would find offensive.

In the 2003 introduction to the book, Ray Bradbury offers details on the backstory to the Captain. He had been a lover of books (as I believe a previous poster mentioned) and a voracious reader. After losing several friends, losing a love, and feeling the crush of other failures in life, the Captain felt betrayed by his own idealism and love of books, and became instead a burner of books.

I'm wildly paraphrasing here, but that's the general backstory behind the Captain. This backstory was apparently added (by Bradbury himself) in the stage versions of the story.

[–] jsrrtzjr10 13 years ago

Science fiction. At least look into the message.