Animal Farm – An Allegorical Satire on Stalinism

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. This is one of the principal allegories for criticizing Stalinism, used in 1954 animated film ‘Animal Farm’. Based on George Orwell’s masterpiece in literature, this film excels in the portrayal of his satire on Joseph Stalin’s rule in USSR, in spite of a number of deviations from the book. This is also Britain's first animated feature film to be officially released.

The film begins with the arrival of spring in Manor Farm. The animals are not happy under the oppression of Mr. Jones, the owner. As discontent grows, one night, Major, an old prize boar assembles all the animals and encourages them to revolt against Jones and establish a system with equality, compassion and justice. 

He imbibes the principles of animalism in them and teaches them the song ‘Beasts of England’, which speaks of the liberation of animals, but drops dead in mid song.

The next morning, Jones forgets to give breakfast to the animals. The animals under leadership of a pig named Snowball, break into the storehouse in search of food. Meanwhile Jones wakes up and tries to intimidate them with a whip. The animals get infuriated and drive him away from the farm. Jones comes back with some other farmers, but the animals, once again led by Snowball, manage to defeat them. Thus the long awaited revolution finally succeeds. 

 The animals change the name of ‘Manor Farm’ to ‘Animal Farm’, accept Snowball as their leader, formulate the seven commandments of Animalism as per Major’s principles and paint them on a barn wall. They are:

• Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
• Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
• No animal shall wear clothes.
• No animal shall sleep in a bed.
• No animal shall drink alcohol.
• No animal shall kill any other animal.
• All animals are equal.

They set out to remove all traces of Jones from the farm. In the process, a sly pig named Napoleon stumbles upon Jones’s material possessions and a litter of puppies left motherless. He secretly takes away these puppies with him.

As the days progress, Snowball tries to educate the animals and devises programs for the betterment of the farm. Napoleon meanwhile makes other schemes and gains allies among other opportunist pigs. When snowball proposes a new plan, Napoleon opposes him and drives him away using his goon squad of dogs, now fully grown and ferocious. The dogs catch hold of him and kill him brutally. Napoleon convinces the animals that Snowball is a traitor and had been planning to bring Jones back. The animals, terrorized by such a possibility acquiesce to accept Napoleon as their leader. 

 Napoleon then proclaims Snowball’s idea of a windmill as his own and gives orders for its construction. Boxer, a workhorse along with his friend Benjamin, a donkey and other animals put in a lot of labor to finish the windmill.

Things start changing in the farm. The pigs enjoy special privileges, good food, beds to sleep and start drinking alcohol from Jones’s leftover supply, while the burden of work on other animals increase. Napoleon uses a pig named Squealer as his spokesperson to brainwash the animals into believing that they are better under Napoleon’s rule than they were under Jones’s and also to make additions to the commandments secretly, in the dark of the night.  Two of the commandments are thus changed to suit the pigs as:

• No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets
• No animal shall drink alcohol to excess

Mr Whymper, a local trader eventually enters into a deal with Napoleon. He starts supplying them with jams and jellies in exchange for hen’s eggs. When the hens protest by throwing their eggs at the pigs, Napoleon names them traitors and hands then over to his goon squad, who slaughter them.  Thus another commandment is changed as:

• No animal shall kill any other animal without cause

Napoleon also bans the song ‘Beasts of England’, citing that its relevance has ended since the dream of animal farm has been materialized.

Animal Farm’s trade with the outside world flourishes. Embittered by this success, Jones along with some other farmers once again attempt to take over the farm. Though they are defeated, Jones succeeds in blasting the windmill, striking a great blow to the farm. A disheartened Boxer takes up the task of rebuilding the windmill, but with his failing health, collapses beside it one night. Napoleon sends a carriage in the pretext of taking him to a hospital. Benjamin notices that the van belongs to Mr. Whymper's glue factory, where Boxer is likely to be poached and attempts to mount a rescue, but fails. Squealer delivers a phony speech, claiming to have been at Boxer's side at his deathbed, and his last words being to glorify Napoleon. The animals finally realize how they are being cruelly exploited by Napoleon.

As years pass, the pigs start wearing clothes and walking on two legs. One day, pig delegates from afar come to visit them. Around this time, Benjamin notices that the seven commandments have been finally reduced to one phrase:

·         All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

This aggravates the animals everywhere. They gather in the animal farm, revolt against Napoleon under the leadership of Benjamin and manage to overthrow his regime. The film ends with a portrait of Napoleon being smashed and an indication that he is being beaten to death by the animals.

It would be helpful at this point to list down the relationship of the characters and events in the film with the actual characters and events in history:

• Old Major is the counterpart for Lenin, while Snowball is for Trotsky and Napoleon for Stalin. Boxer is a metaphor for the proletariat or the working class.

• Jones’s oppression is a symbolism for the Tzar rule in Russia, while the animals overthrowing Jones is a metaphor for the Bolshevik revolution

• The allegory correctly represents Lenin as the driving force of the 1917 revolution. (Though he was alive, after it happened) Trotsky apart from being the first leader of the Red Army, was also a Marxist revolutionary and theorist. He rose in power after the revolution and became a member of the first politburo. However, during Stalin’s rule, he was expelled from the communist party, driven out of Russia and executed on Stalin’s orders. This is perfectly paralleled in the allegory of Napoleon driving Snowball out of the farm and killing him. Napoleon’s use of dog goon squad for slaughtering animals, that defy him, is a reference to the mass executions that were brought about by Stalin.

• Animalism is a metaphor for Communism, a practice of the theories of Socialism and Marxism that was implemented by Lenin after U.S.S.R came into existence. The violation of these principles during Stalin’s rule is reflected in the modification of the commandments to suit the pigs, on Napoleons orders.

• The establishment of trade between Animal Farm and Mr. Whymper is, in my opinion a reference to the 1939 non-aggression pact between U.S.S.R and Nazi Germany (Stalin and Hitler). The animals were shocked by Napoleon’s dealing with a representative of humans, after they had revolted against the tyranny of another representative of the same race (Jones). Indeed, the world had been shocked by this treaty between the extreme left and the extreme right wing political entities.

• The second attack on the farm by Jones and other farmers is a symbolism for Hitler’s invasion of U.S.S.R in 1941, a crucial event in the history of World War II. U.S.S.R was heavily affected by the war in spite of being on the winning side. The blasting of the windmill is perhaps a reference to this fact.

There are differences and improvisations in the film as compared to the book. The major one among them is in the ending, which is quite apt in my opinion. While the book ends in a melancholy tone, with the animals rendered helpless, the film ends with the animals revolting against Napoleon. This was quite a foresight, since Stalinism did come to an end in U.S.S.R, though not in the same way as portrayed in the allegory.

For an animation made in 1954, the film is surprisingly well made in terms of technique. Though it banks upon the potential of Orwell’s book, directors John Halas and Joy Batchelor, the creative team and the animation director John F Reed deserve equal credit for their adaptation. The treatment, the dialogs, the expressions put on the cartoon animals and humans, the meticulously conceived scenes of the animals working and the spontaneous flow of the film's narrative hand in hand with the theme are brilliant. Special mention must be made of Matyas Seiber, for his music. Maurice Denham’s ventriloquist talents are commendable. He single handedly gives voice to all the animal and human characters in the movie.

The storyline, though intended as a satire on Stalinism, goes beyond the confines of a particular period in history and establishes a fundamental truth of the human society; ‘Even if the oppressed come to power, they eventually become the oppressors’. This has been proved right innumerable times in history. Thus, the appeal of this film is timeless.

Note: This article was first published in Silhouette Magazine Volume 10-1. The link is:

http://silhouette-mag.wikidot.com/vol10-1-riddhiman

References and Further Reading:

1.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm_%281954_film%29

2.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

3.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky  

Obscure Surrealist Classic – Un Soir Un Train

Lovers of surrealist cinema are acquainted mostly with the names of Bunuel, Tarkovsky and at the most that of Cocteau and Has. However few people can profess to have heard the name of Andre Delvaux(1926 – 2002), a celebrated Belgian filmmaker, in this regard. I had the opportunity to watch his 1968 film ‘Un Soir Un Train’(A Night in the Train), based on Johan Daisne's book ‘De trein der traagheid’ and was enthralled by the subtlety of the narration, the use of multilayered metaphors and the beautiful intertwining of dreams and reality adding to the aspect of ambiguity in the movie. It is a very demanding film and requires multiple viewing to make sense out of it. A brief synopsis of the film is as follows.

Mathias(Yves Montand) is professor of linguistics in a Belgian university, at a time when Belgium is plagued by Walloon movements. He is a writer of Flemish plays as well and is morally opposed to the cause of Walloons.  Although middle-aged, he is unmarried, but has a mistress, Anne(Anouk Aimée), who is a Frenchwoman, working as a costume designer for a theatre. It is revealed that she is currently working on the production of Mathias’s play ‘Elkerlyc’. Their relationship looks as if it may be coming to an end. Anne feels alienated in her Flemish surroundings and is also further aggravated by the fact that Mathias shows no inclination to formalize their relationship.  After a passionless dinner together, Mathias and Anne board a bus which would take them to the railway 

                 

station, since Mathias needs to catch a train to a town where he is to give a lecture. Anne wants to accompany him on the train, but Mathias is uncomfortable about introducing her in his circle. This sparks a heated debate among them. After alighting from the bus, Anne resolves to break off their relationship and declares that she would be leaving Mathias forever.

 However, on the train, Mathias is delighted to see Anne enter his compartment, in spite of his initial reservations about Anne accompanying him.  The couple find themselves incapable of speaking to each other and Mathias falls asleep. He has a series of dreams. Through multiple jump cuts, we are shown a flashback of the couple’s tour of England, the previous year, Mathias watching Anne stand by the window of the train, a scene in the woods and finally overlapping images of a train accident and Mathias and Anne lying beside each other. Mathias awakes from this dream to find his train has stopped and Anne has vanished.  When he leaves the train to investigate along with an old colleague Professor Hernhutter(Hector Camerlynck) and an ex-student Val(François Beukelaers) , the train continues on its way, leaving Mathias and the other two men stranded in the open countryside.  Under nightfall, the three men make their way to a nearby village which is strangely silent. Throughout the journey, Mathias recounts the circumstances under which he had met Anne. When they finally meet the locals, Mathias and the others are unable to recognize their language. They go to a nearby restaurant and are served food by a beautiful waitress whose name is later revealed to be Moira(Adriana Bogdan). The band stars playing a tune and Moira tries to engage them in the dance. Val succumbs in spite of Mathias’s warning. After the dance gets over Mathias is unable to find either professor Hernhutter or Val. He confronts the waitress and suddenly goes into a fit.

                                   

                                            

The scene jump cuts to the site of the train accident and Mathias wakes up from the fit. He finds the lifeless body of Anne in the barn along with Val and breaks into tears.

The acting in the movie is top grade, especially in the roles played by Yves Montand and Anouk Aimée(she appears in quite a contrasting avatar compared to her role in Fellini’s ‘Eight and Half’). The music by Frédéric Devreese blends perfectly with the enigmatic tone of the film. The treatment by Andre Delvaux is very effective, with a straightforward narrative towards the beginning, intended to disarm the viewers and make them unprepared for the non-linear imagery that follows in the latter part of the movie. Let us now look at the film from an analytical angle.

A principal theme of the movie is the linguistic barrier between the Flemish Belgians and the Walloons (French speaking Belgians), which has a long history in Belgium. The relationship between Mathias and Anne becomes a metaphor for this linguistic barrier. The fact that they are unable to speak on the train is a further hint of this situation. However as the synopsis reveals, the latter part of the movie is exceedingly complex since it becomes difficult to gauge the transitions between dream and reality. On closer speculation, multiple interpretations spring up, imparting an ambiguous nature to the film.

On first viewing, it seems that the scene of the train accident shown earlier is not part of a dream, rather a real event demarcating Mathias’s first dream from his second. Mathias passes out due to the accident and dreams of the two other people, the village and his experiences out there.

However, on repeated viewing, several aspects take on new proportions and hint towards other possible interpretations. Early in the movie, the actors enacting Mathias’s play hold a discourse about the appearance of death. They debate whether death should be represented in the traditional getup according to middle age texts or should be inconspicuous (As Werner(Domien De Gruyter) puts it, “In Mathias’s adaptation, death is among thousand other things which could occur”). This discussion becomes relevant if we concentrate on the following facts.

Firstly, the name of the waitress is Moira, which literally means fate. Secondly, when Mathias warns Val about dancing with her and says, “You don’t know what game she is playing”,

      

Val replies, “Her name is Moira. I understand her language. It’s a miracle”. Later Mathias finds Val’s corpse along with that of Anne’s.  These observations hint that Moira could be the personification of fate or death (indistinguishable from any normal person unlike the death in Bergman’s ‘The Seventh Seal’). According to this interpretation, the village can be thought of as a transition state between life and death. Hence, the language barrier between Mathias and the villagers act as a double metaphor, one being the symbolism for the linguistic barrier between the Flemish and the Walloons and the other being the barrier between life and death. Val understands Moira’s language when he submits to her, thereby crossing the barrier. Mathias escapes her and comes back to life from this near death experience.

Yet another possible interpretation could be considering the whole sequence of events after Mathias getting on the train as a series of multilayered dreams (in the same lines as ‘Inception’), from which he does not wake up within the span of the movie. Though this interpretation is a bit ambitious, certain facts like the entry of Anne into the compartment in spite of their previous heated argument and the two of them being unable to communicate, somewhat supports this conclusion. Moreover, the final sequence of Mathias breaking down into tears beside Anne’s corpse is reminiscent of the image of the two of them lying beside each other, which was a part of the first(in this case the first level of) dream, which is also suggestive of the above interpretation. According to this interpretation, flashback of the England tour, the other overlapping imagery and the train accident are part of the first level of dream. Mathias relapses into a second level of dream where his interactions with the other two people and the experiences in the village take place. On waking up from this second level of dream, he moves back to the first level where he confronts the death of Anne and Val as a continuation of the train accident. Mathias’s subconscious is troubled by his treatment of Anne, the fact of their breakup and fabricates the event of Anne’s death as an instrument of rebuke.

       

  

It is difficult to say if Delvaux wanted stress on any single interpretation. It is more likely that he wanted to keep the film open-ended, which follows from the fact that he had given equal hints for each of the possible interpretations. Therefore, it would be unfair to impose any specific interpretation on this movie which aspires to remain ambiguous. This gem of a movie showcases Delvaux’s mastery in every aspect of his craft. It is immensely rewarding for people who enjoy surrealist, enigmatic, ambiguous and intellectually satiating cinema.

References and Further Reading:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Delvaux
2. http://filmsdefrance.com/FDF_Un_soir_un_train_rev.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walloon_movement
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waloons  

Note: This article was first published in Volume 9-4 of Silhouette e-magazine.  
           The link is as follows:

         http://silhouette-mag.wikidot.com/vol9-4-riddhiman

 

The K File – A bold take on the Kasab conundrum

26/11/2008 - A day that would forever be etched in the memory of Indians. On that day, lots of disbelieving eyes were glued to the television set, witnessing the rape and humiliation of their commercial capital. The shock that such a full-fledged terrorist attack could be executed, that their country was so vulnerable to the intelligence agency of their neighbour, was perhaps more than the horror of the actual events. That day, they came to know the name of Muhammad Ajmal Kasab, for the very first time. Ajmal, the 20 year old, belonging to the Kasab(butcher) tribe had indeed justified his name to a sinister extent. His young age drew no sympathies. The people detested him, hoping for a quick and exemplary punishment.

The scenario three and a half years later -  Kasab had been found guilty and sentenced to death numerous times by several courts in India, the latest being Bombay High Court on 21 February 2011. On 30 July 2011, he moved to the Supreme Court of India challenging this sentence and managed to obtain a stay order on the previous verdict. These three and a half years have perhaps been the most comfortable time in his life. Staying under the protection of the government, getting his choicest meals in jail, this was a life Lashkar-a-Taiba could never give him.  The question that has naturally sprung up is that why, even after all these years has this brute not been brought to justice? What is the reason for this delay, when the nature of the convictions are nothing but certain? There have been speculations. Is it India’s penchant for fairness, even in the face of such an appalling crime? Or is it something deeper, the desperate effort by the government to maintain its secular image, a deliberate inaction to secure the vote bank of a particular community. Whatever be it, it has resulted in an immense frustration for the Indian citizens.

It is from this frustration (or rather because of it?) that Oorvazi Irani’s short film ‘The K File’ takes off. From this splice in space time in the territory of fact, the film takes a leap into the realm of fiction and spins off an alternate history of our contemporary times.

The film begins with the footages of 26/11 and the verdict of death penalty for Asab(the counterpart of Kasab in the film, played by Sanjay Nath). Next we see Asab in jail, where he speaks in a mocking tone about his last wish of having mutton biryani. This is a tricky reference to the fact that Kasab is being given his choicest food in jail, as well as his confidence that despite the death sentences, he will be hanging around for long.

Next we see the home minister(Tushar Ishwar) in conversation with a judge. In this segment, he describes his dilemma and the tricky position he is into, since he wants to bring Asab to justice without endangering the Muslim vote bank. Throughout the sequence, the camera is focussed on him. This monologue like treatment is perhaps intended to stress the fact that the onus of handling the actual matter and of being accountable to his party and the public lies on the home minister alone and the person(s) giving opinions on what could be done have hardly any significance in this context. When the minister negates every opinion, we come to understand the fix he is into.

With the passing of months, the helplessness of the minister and Asab going through a train of thoughts are depicted. Asab’s coming to a decision is portrayed though a stiffness in facial expression and a shadow movement on the wall. He bribes the minister with information on ISI in exchange for his freedom. After his phone conversation with the minister, we witness the minister’s thoughtful expression. It seems that the he is perplexed. However, this is only a red herring, as we find out later.

In the jail sequence, the wasp sitting on the minister’s hand sets the stage for the drama to follow. When the minister appears to be tacking a wasp that got into his clothes, thereby exposing the gun in his coat pocket, the buzzing soundtrack makes the audience a part of the deception along with Asab. He snatches the gun, holds the minister on gunpoint and tries to make an escape. In the final scene, we see Asab being shot through the glass of the car window. This is portrayed through a bullet time sequence (that is generally accompanied with a heartbeat, no exceptions here) and a change from natural colour to a colourless tone (a de-saturation or draining of colour), which are both effective in portraying Asab’s approaching death. When Asab tries to shoot the minister in turn and finds the gun not loaded, he finally realizes the trap he has played into.  The person shooting Asab is deliberately masked, giving a point-of-view shot thereby placing the audience in the role of the shooter. Indeed, the shooter is an embodiment of the collective hatred of Indians towards (K)Asab. The minister gives a sly smile, befitting his intelligence, and the film ends with a close up of the bullet hole in the glass. 

For a 10minute film, this has quite a number of elements related to cinematography. Martin Xavier’s camera work is commendable. The dimly lit sequences in the jail and Asab’s shadow on the wall as well as the de-saturation effect towards the end and the close up of the bullet hole are very well executed. There is an interesting aspect in the camera angle with which Asab is portrayed. Towards the beginning, he is captured from a low angle. As the film progresses, the camera moves up culminating in a crane shot when he gets into the car along with the minister. This hints towards a gradual loss in the significance of Asab, from the audiences’ point of view. While towards the beginning, he had seemed a gargantuan presence, towards the end he is reduced to a plaything in the hands of the minister. (This was hinted at in Oorvazi’s Interview on making the film) However, this is not apparent until one has witnessed the complete plot and therefore requires multiple viewing to appreciate.

Ayan Dey’s soundtrack is perfectly in sync with the pace of the movie, especially the use of a fast paced track in the climax sequence and the violin in the final sequence with the minister smiling. Besides doing the background score, Ayan has also handled the editing for this film.

Both the actors have done justice to their roles. One aspect of the film is that is it quasi-realistic, hence it does not strive to align itself with the reality. Hence, the character of Asab is not exactly Kasab, but is rather a personification of our projection of a terrorist as amoral, fanatic and without remorse. Sanjay Nath carries off this archetype brilliantly. His expressions emphasize the heartlessness of a terrorist throughout. He makes the sudden switch from a defensive to an offensive mode very believable. Tushar Iswar looks sharp and blends perfectly with his role of a responsible minister as well as a political mastermind. His smile in the final sequence is very measured, it aptly reflects a satisfaction of beating Asab at his own game, rather than joy or relief.

Oorvazi, as a director prefers the surrealist and avant-garde genre.  From this standpoint, 26/11 was a different and challenging subject for her to make a film on. However, her foray into the thriller genre (I prefer to call this film a thriller rather than a political drama) has been immensely rewarding. She has done a lot of groundwork for the film through the process of interviewing common people, a senior crime investigation journalist, as well as the victims of 26/11, recordings of which have been used as promotional videos for the film. I remember telling her in light humour, that I have never seen this kind of an hour long promotion for a ten minute film. But in reality, I admired her sincerity in getting immersed into the subject, which is a preliminary criterion for any filmmaker, yet which is seldom practiced. Her earnest efforts have paid off. She indeed holds a mirror to our contemporary times, highlighting its stark realities, through her quasi-realist film.

The script by celebrated novelist/screenwriter Farrukh Dhondy is certainly a winner. The representation of the dichotomy of Asab; a man without principles, someone who wants to betray ISI in exchange for his life, yet someone who screams ‘Jihad Zindabad’ when he secures a gun, was interesting. The conceptualisation of the home minister as a young, intelligent and thoughtful person was also very apt. However, the script really stands out for the sheer brilliance of its idea.

And finally it would be a crime not to make a mention Sorab Irani, Oorvazi’s father and the producer of this film who was responsible for bringing this script to her and supporting the film throughout with his constant encouragement. With his years of experience as a veteran producer, he had the vision to recognize the immense potentiality of Farrukh’s script. According to Oorvazi, this film would not have been made, if not for him.


The best thing about this film is that it reflects the current political scenario in India, that is perhaps responsible for the delay in Kasab’s punishment(thus giving voice to the common people’s speculations), yet refrains from making any statement against it; rather comes up with a bold solution within the feasibility of the current framework. There lies the USP of the film and the script.

In the end, it must be said, that in spite of a good script, this film would not have been so well executed without the efforts of all the people associated with the film and above all the director, who knit it together, with passion and precision.






‘The K File’ has been released on the Internet on 28^th May, 2012 and is available in the following youtube link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEg7fGT5pLQ&feature=youtu.be