Fahrenheit 451 (2018) - Review
Originally published October 2018Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, was one of the few assigned books in high school that I actively enjoyed reading. At the time, I was given the choice of reading that or George Orwell's 1984. A teenage boy would, naturally, pick the one that had a picture of a guy with a flamethrower almost every time, but I actually love both books for different reasons. I had never seen any film adaptations of either story since I first read each book, but I kept seeing the HBO version of Fahrenheit 451 advertised on my feed for months. Having just re-read Bradbury's classic, I decided to sit down and watch this new interpretation.
It tends to be a bad idea to watch a movie that is based on a book after having read the book, especially if you read it recently. You notice all the differences between the book and the film a lot more than you normally would if you'd gone in cold. It might color your experience in a way that it wouldn't have if you watched it with blissful ignorance. Unfortunately, I had re-read the book only a few months prior to watching this movie, and despite the fact that I do my best to approach every adaptation with as objective and fair a point of view as I can, Fahrenheit 451's extensive list of changes, which did not improve the pace or impact of the story in a meaningful way, was too much for me to swallow.
Image: HBO/Warner Bros.
Pros
Michael Shannon's tradition of being the best part of a movie due to his performance as the primary antagonist continues
Portrayal of Bradbury's dystopian future while accommodating technology from our own time and its evolution (i.e. social media) is an interesting one
Cons
An uninventive reinterpretation of the novel
Guy Montag's transformation from villain to hero is shallow and sudden in a way that doesn't make his journey any more interesting than any other protagonist in a similar story
Captain Beatty's complexity as a villain is lost due to a lack of detail
MacGuffin/solution of the movie is a needlessly obscure and weird one
Side characters add nothing to the experience
Plot & Thoughts
Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 tells a story that takes place in a dystopian future—something to which we have become quite accustomed in films since the book was originally released. Decades since it was first published, the book is still an interesting and unique read due to the profound nature of the story and Bradbury's abstract style. The strength of his style is not exactly easy to adapt to film, but Fahrenheit's story is a rather straightforward one with some unique twists and turns that are rather easy to bring to the screen. Had the filmmakers decided to keep the story as it was, and the film somehow ended up as a derivative affair, at least you couldn't blame it on their decision to keep the same plot. Lucky for me, they took many liberties with the plot, which has afforded me the opportunity to criticize them for making multitudes of changes to the storyline and STILL ending up with a movie that is all too familiar, bland, predictable, and boring.
Image: HBO/Warner Bros.
Guy Montag (Michael B Jordon) is the #1 fireman in the 9th district of his city because he's damn good at burning propaganda. He's so good, he's a celebrity. Firemen of the future don't put out fires anymore, they start them. They light material on fire that they deem to be too controversial and inappropriate in a way that might offend or make someone unhappy—they're probably very popular on college campuses. Captain Beatty (Michael Shannon) keeps a close eye on his favorite protegé and is anxious to make sure he succeeds in his job and doesn't become corrupted by any books or propaganda they might find. Aaaand... that's about where the similarities end.
If you've read the book, watched any dystopian-future movie, or played any video game of a similar nature, you know that Montag's loyalties are not 100% tied to the firehouse or his captain, so just making him suddenly switch sides isn't enough to make everything more interesting. The problem with the film's portrayal of Montag and Beatty is that the complexities of both characters are never explored in a meaningful way. The Montag of the film doesn't meet an adolescent girl who upsets his world. He doesn't have an unsatisfying marriage with a wife who is addicted to soap operas and accidentally ODs on sleeping pills. He doesn't stumble his way into an intellectual resistance while being too emotionally compromised to be a successful subversive agent. He is just a guy who has hoarded some materials, but is very bad at hiding it and is curious enough to try talking to a young love interest who's willing to show him more.
Image: HBO/Warner Bros.
Part of what makes the story of the book so special is that there is a lot of tension in the fact that Montag is a conflicted soul who wants to keep doing "wrong" because it’s all he knows, but he also wants to do the right thing because he's so miserable. This conflict is explored further in the book by how Captain Beatty completely understands Montag's feelings because he went through it himself and chose the "immoral" path. Beatty is a great, complex villain because he empathizes with Montag. A small bit of that comes through in HBO's version of the story, but it is mostly due to Michael Shannon's performance. There's a brief moment where he shows sympathy towards Montag in the short scene in which he quotes literature, indicating that he, too, has "sinned," but he comes across as more of a disappointed father figure than a villainous reflection of Montag.
When it comes to the film's changes outside of the main characters, it's mostly a list of uninteresting disappointments. The love interest of the film adds nothing to the experience, and she is not an interesting or suitable replacement for the adolescent girl from the book. The resistance that Montag stumbles into is a lot bigger, and better equipped, but filled with idiots who are willing to share the name of their ultimate revolutionary plan to tip off their enemies. Not to mention, a lot of the satirical irony of the story's portrayal of technology or society as a whole is left on the movie's cutting-room floor: no war, no mechanical hound, no presidential elections based solely on looks, no tense moments of feeling truly alone. Many of the small details that made up Bradbury's vision of the terrible future were omitted in favor of crafting a predictable story of archetypes and clichés.
Image: HBO/Warner Bros.
TL;DR (Conclusion)
The latest film adaptation of Ray Bradbury's classic novel, Fahrenheit 451, is a derivative disappointment that has no reason to exist. If you want a movie with just as uninspired a story, but with far better action sequences, watch Equilibrium. If you want a story that uses a dystopian future as a backdrop for social commentary in a meaningful and unique way, read Bradbury's book, or 1984 by George Orwell. If you want to play a video game that uses similar plot devices in more meaningful ways, and in more unique settings, play Deus Ex or Bioshock. HBO's Fahrenheit 451 is a watchable film with talented actors and solid source material, but it completely misses the point and only manages to waste two hours of your time.
Fan of death metal? Check out my band on Bandcamp and Soundcloud. If you like what you hear and want to hear more, head to HoundsofInnsmouth.com for more info!