Monday, 23 May 2011

Tweets from Judy Golding's talk on 'William Golding and Lord of the Flies'




Monday, 28 March 2011

William Golding Digital Animation Competition!

William Golding Centenary 2011
Digital Animation Competition

William Golding Limited announces a competition for the best short digital video animation (minimum 4 minutes, maximum 8 minutes) portraying a scene, characters or an imaginative interpretation from any William Golding novel EXCEPT Lord of the Flies, The Spire and The Ends of the Earth Trilogy.   For a list of eligible items see http://www.william-golding.co.uk/library.aspx.
Entries will be judged on originality, creativity, technical competence and fidelity to the power and wit of Golding's writing.  The winner of the competition will receive a cheque for £1000 and the runner-up will win £750.  An additional prize of £250 will be given to the video that receives the most number of ‘likes’ on YouTube.  Entrants are encouraged to share their videos on social networking sites.
Entries should be uploaded to YouTube and clearly include the title of the animation and ‘WGL comp 2011’. The URL and embed code from YouTube should be sent to the competition email address, along with the application form.
On receipt of the application form, the entry will be added as a ‘favourite’ on the William Golding Author channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WilliamGoldingAuthor and added to the ongoing competition blog at http://goldingblog.blogspot.com/.
Application forms may be downloaded from www.william-golding.co.uk and should be returned to info@william-golding.co.uk.  The deadline for submissions is 31 December 2011.
Entrants can follow details of the competition on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/OfficialWilliamGolding and Twitter: http://twitter.com/GoldingWilliam

Prize details
1st prize £1000
Runner-up £750
Popularity Prize* £250
*This prize will be awarded to the video that receives the most number of ‘likes’ on YouTube.

Monday, 31 January 2011

The Spire - WIlliam Golding

William Golding’s fifth book, The Spire, was originally published in 1964 and, according to the blurb on Faber’s 2005 edition is ‘a dark and powerful portrait of one man’s will, and the folly that he creates’.  This description of the novel is entirely accurate.  Briefly, the novel is about a senior cleric at a cathedral in England who becomes obsessed with his vision for a spire to be built on the cathedral.  He refuses to listen to advice from the master builder, Roger Mason, who insists that the spire cannot be supported because there are no building foundations and the spire becomes known as Jocelin’s folly.  Jocelin states that the spire is ‘God’s folly’ and demands that the spire is built despite the ‘cost’.  This cost is not financial, although the funding for the spire provides an important twist in the plot.  The cost that Jocelin acknowledges is the human cost of the spire; for example, the murder of Pangall, the death of several builders, the tragedy of Goody Pangall and Roger Mason, and ultimately Jocelin’s descent into the madness of obsession and desire.   As the building reaches higher and higher, the ground under the cathedral begins to ‘creep’ and the pillars ‘sing’ under the enormous strain.  Everyone involved in the building and resident at the cathedral also become unbearably affected by the strain of this seemingly impossible task.
            I am currently re-reading The Spire just a month or so after I originally read it.  It is rare for me to read a book for the second time so close to the first but The Spire is a book that demands another reading.  It is superbly written and plotted but at times, the narrative is so subtle that only after reaching the end of the book can the reader fully appreciate Golding’s achievement.  Thus, a re-reading offers such reward in understanding the symbolism and events that one cannot fully comprehend at first.  This is one of the reasons why I highly commend and recommend this novel.
The lack of an entirely omniscient or reliable narrator allows readers to draw many of their own conclusions about incidents in the novel.  Key examples of this are the fate of Pangall, Jocelin’s desire for Goody, and the truth behind the ‘angel’ on Jocelin’s back.  The story is told in a mixture of third and first person but always from Jocelin’s point of view. However, his view of events is skewed by self-denial, his unshakeable belief in the feasibility of the spire and his utmost determination to complete his vision.  He justifies his actions throughout the novel – many of which are distinctly unfitting for a man in his position – as necessary in order to fulfil his vision of the spire.  Therefore, when Pangall, the lame and impotent caretaker, reports that the workmen employed to build the spire ‘torment’ him and warns that ‘one day, they will kill me’ (14), Jocelin fails to do anything of note to help him.  Pangall begs him to send them away but Jocelin only requests that the master builder speaks to his men and ask them to stop bullying Pangall.  It appears later that Pangall’s prediction is correct although Jocelin’s description of the event is far from conclusive as he watches the workmen chase Pangall near the pit.
He saw men who tormented Pangall, having him at the broom’s end.  In an apocalyptic glimpse of seeing, he caught how a man danced forward to Pangall, the model of the spire projecting obscenely from between his legs – then the swirl and the noise and the animal bodies hurled Jocelin against stone, so that he could not see, but only hear how Pangall broke… (90)
After this, the next we hear of Pangall is that he has ‘run away’ (92).  Jocelin occasionally wonders ‘where is Pangall’ and images of the incident by the pit run through his mind but he quickly dismisses this as ‘the cost’ of the spire (105).  It is only towards the end of the novel that the reader can finally begin to understand Pangall’s fate; and this is only revealed because of Jocelin’s madness.
After becoming concerned at Jocelin’s neglect of his religious duties and the spiralling cost of the spire, a group of church officials come to interview him, which Jocelin describes as a trial.  He begins to tell the story of the building work and declares ‘there were three sorts of people.  Those who ran, those who stayed, and those who were built in’ (166).  The Visitor asks him to elaborate on what he means about ‘people being built in’ but he cannot answer.  Later, Jocelin visits Roger Mason who has ‘turned to drink’ after his experience working on the spire.  Jocelin asks him rhetorically: ‘what holds [the spire] up Roger?  I?  The nail?  Does she, or do you?  Or it is poor Pangall, crouched beneath the crossways, with a sliver of mistletoe between his ribs?’ (212).  With this, Jocelin reveals that he ‘knows’, or at least very strongly suspects that Pangall was part of a sacrifice made by the workmen to guard against the evil of the stinking pit and the creeping ground.  A second reading of the novel elicits further clues to this; the recurring symbol of mistletoe and the workmen’s references to ‘bad luck’ and their paganism.    Although Jocelin’s insanity is so far advanced at this stage that the reader still cannot be sure if his accusation is true, it is likely that this was indeed Pangall’s fate and Jocelin knew it all along.  Thus, his failure to punish or remove the workmen is even more abhorrent.  He allows himself to be so utterly determined to complete the spire that Pangall is also Jocelin’s sacrifice.  Along with Roger Mason, who eventually attempts suicide, and Goody Pangall who dies in childbirth, Pangall represents the true ‘cost’ of the spire. 
Ultimately, Jocelin is also sacrificed.  The warmth on his back, which he often referred to as a ‘guardian angel’ is revealed to be an illness, which eventually kills him.  In keeping with the style of the narrative, the reader only discovers this through Jocelin’s rare moments of lucidity in which he hears snatches of conversations.  When he is attacked by the villagers, a woman shouts: ‘Holy Mother of God.  Look at his back’ (215).  On his deathbed he hears: ‘It is a wasting, a consumption of the back and spine’ (218).  Jocelin’s fate seems linked to that of the spire.  As the building work begins to disintegrate, the pain in his back becomes unbearable.  ‘Then his angel put away the two wings from the cloven hoof and struck him from arse to head with a whitehot flail.  It filled his spine with sick fire and he shrieked because he could not bear it yet knew he would have to’ (188).  However, as Jocelin lays dying he manages to ask of the spire: ‘Fallen?’ to which Father Adam replies, ‘Not yet’ (218).  At the novel’s conclusion, Jocelin is dead but the spire still stands.
            The Spire is a remarkable novel, filled with immense symbolism and a narrative that so finely captures the complexities of the protagonist.  It is also beautifully written; with many passages exquisitely describing the spire’s construction and potential fall.  I have included two of my favourite quotations here.  First, Jocelin’s initial response to the building work: 'There was outside and inside, as clearly divided, as eternally and inevitably divided as yesterday and today' (12).  Later, Roger Mason explains the problem of the spire to Jocelin: ‘Sooner or later there’d be a bang, a shudder, a roar.  Those four columns would open apart like a flower, and everything else up here, stone, wood, iron, glass, men, would slide down into the church like the fall of a mountain’ (118).
            Golding is, of course, best known for his debut novel, Lord of the Flies, which is regularly cited as one of the best novels ever. The Spire certainly deserves the same level of attention. 

Wednesday, 5 January 2011

Piggy: What's in a Name?


‘He was shorter than the fair boy and very fat.  He came forward, searched out safe lodgements for his feet, and then looked up through thick spectacles’ (7).
This is our first visual introduction to Piggy on the opening page of William Golding’s extraordinary novel Lord of the Flies and this description serves us well for the rest of the book.  Piggy is perhaps the most famous and enduring character from Lord of the Flies; his large stature, spectacles and insistence on rules and order makes him instantly recognisable. His often-priggish attitude to life on the island causes annoyance to the other boys and frustration on the part of the reader, who can appreciate the good Piggy is trying to do, but his manner usually ends up alienating him from the group.
            What is most interesting about Piggy is that we never find out his real name.  During his first meeting with Ralph, he ask Ralph his name, and is surprised when Ralph doesn’t ask for his.  Eventually he gives up hinting to Ralph to ask for his name and instead declares, ‘ I don’t care what they call me …so long as they don’t call me what they used to call me at school’ (11).  This makes Ralph ‘faintly interested’ and he asks Piggy for the nickname without requesting his actual name.   Piggy, in his desire for friendship, makes his first mistake on the island by revealing the name given to him from former tormenters.  Later during the first meeting, Jack calls him ‘Fatty’ but Ralph interrupts with a shout: ‘His real name’s Piggy!’ (23).   All the boys unite in laughter while Piggy cleans his glasses in embarrassment and shame.  Shortly after, Piggy confronts Ralph over the revelation of his hated name: ‘I said I didn’t care as long as they didn’t call me Piggy; an’ I said not to tell and then you went an’ said straight out’ (26).  Ralph, understanding his mistake, tries to reassure him, ‘Better Piggy than Fatty’ (27).
Throughout the novel, he is always referred to as Piggy and, even though several biographical details about him emerge – he lives with his aunt who has a sweet shop, his father is dead and he has asthma – his real name is never revealed.  When Ralph is rescued by the officer during the book’s thrilling conclusion, he weeps ‘for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy’ (223).  Ironically, of course, this ‘true, wise friend’ is not called Piggy at all, and the way Golding has structured this sentence – emphasising the fact that he is ‘called’ Piggy – suggests that Ralph regrets his failure to discover his real name.  This also serves as a reminder to Ralph that it is his fault that Piggy was so-named on the island and is another source of regretful shame.
            Although we never determine Piggy’s name, Piggy himself is keen to find out exactly who everyone is on the island.  He says,  ‘I expect we’ll want to know all their names…and make a list’.  When other boys join them on the beach after Ralph blows the conch shell, Piggy dutifully collects names and tries to tell Ralph who again, is uninterested.  In a bid to placate Piggy over the upset of his nickname, Ralph tells him that it is his ‘job’ to take names while he, Jack and Simon explore the island, which calms Piggy’s indignation.  However, without the support and presence of the leader, the boys disperse and Piggy is unable to complete his register.   This causes a problem during the fire on the mountain when one of the small boys disappears.  Piggy rightly insists that the lack of rules and chaos are the cause of this disappearance and predicts further problems unless some kind of order is established.  ‘How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?’ (50).   
When Piggy makes these statements, backed up by his possession of the conch, the other boys, particularly Jack, usually shout him down.  Indeed, Piggy firmly believes in the power of the conch, even after the conflict on the island and the stealing of his spectacles.  When Ralph, Piggy, Sam and Eric go to confront the other boys about the theft Piggy says, ‘You let me carry the conch, Ralph.  I’ll show him the one thing he hasn’t got’ (189).  Piggy tries to reason with them, backed up by the ‘white magic shell’ (199) by shouting ‘Which is better – to have rules and agree, or to hunt and kill?’ (199).  The response of Roger, a member of Jack’s tribe, is to drop an enormous rock onto Piggy.  Beautifully written by Golding; ‘the rock struck Piggy a glancing blow from chin to knee; the conch exploded into a thousand white fragments and ceased to exist’ (200).  The destruction of Piggy and the conch symbolises the end of any semblance of order and exposes Piggy’s naiveté; his hope that the boys would still recognise the authority of the conch is destroyed in the most brutal manner.
            The tragic murder of Piggy is the most shocking event in Golding’s novel.  Although Simon is killed a few chapters earlier, it was unintentional, as the boys mistook him for the beast in their excitement, fear and panic.  Roger executes Piggy’s murder ‘with a sense of delirious abandonment’ (200) and if the officer hadn’t arrived on the island, Ralph would certainly have been killed next.  Piggy’s death elucidates the savage results of societal breakdown and disorder.  Perhaps this is why he continues to fascinate readers to such an extent; this character - known only as ‘Piggy’ - who is so insistent on rules, order and democratic processes, is destroyed not just because of the lack of them, but because he believed in them.  

Sunday, 14 November 2010

On re-reading Lord of the Flies


I, like so many of you reading this, had to read Lord of the Flies at school.  I loved the majority of my English lessons and had a truly superb English teacher, who is largely responsible for the fact that I’m now studying for a doctorate in Eng Lit.  However, I was always a little suspicious of set texts and disliked the way we would waste entire lessons reading out the text with each of us taking a part (unless I had a really big role, in which case I loved it).  Hearing some of the greatest works in English literature read in faltering (sometimes incoherent) tones by bored teenagers who were more concerned with other matters was depressing and uninspiring.  The good students read the book themselves at home so it was an entirely pointless exercise.
            Lord of the Flies was different to many of the other set texts on the English curriculum.  For one thing, it was far more modern – forty years old when I was studying English – and it seemed so much more relevant to us as young people than many other texts.  It contained at least one swear word – ‘bollocks’ – which was a source of amusement and the murders of Simon and Piggy were shocking and violent.  I remember that even the students who didn’t excel at English and barely had any involvement in the class seemed genuinely fascinated by this story of societal breakdown and children’s descent into violence.  This is, of course, the enduring power of this book: its ability to reach out and grab the reader and disrupt our pre-conceived notions of childhood innocence.
             I read and studied Lord of the Flies at the age of fourteen and regularly cited it as one of my favourite books.  Throughout my 20s, I taught the book in various guises – tutor and youth worker – and saw that it still struck resonantly with young people but I didn’t actually re-read it.  I concentrated on particular passages either for answering essay questions or to provide an example of disintegrating behaviour.  So, at the age of thirty, I undertook to read Lord of the Flies again.  I wondered whether studying and teaching the book over the years had diminished its achievement. The main narrative is so familiar to those who haven’t even read the book before; Lord of the Flies has influenced so many aspects of popular culture, for example, the television series Lost and Survivor, episodes of The Simpsons and South Park and the title is now a synonym for survival situations and savage behaviour.  Would a second reading elicit literary surprises? Would I simply read in anticipation of key famous events such as the finding of the conch, the encounter with the beast, the murder of Piggy?
            Having completed my reading, I can answer with a definitive ‘yes’ to my first question.  Lord of the Flies is still an immense literary achievement and the narrative so perfectly paced from start to finish.  Golding creates a number of characters, similar in age and background, but manages to give each boy their own distinct personality (perhaps with the exception of Sam and Eric, but really they are classed as one anyway).  The character that is perhaps most interesting is Roger, who is truly menacing even before the group splits into two. He watches the ‘littluns’ play in the sea and begins throwing stones at one of them, although he aims to miss.  Golding writes, ‘There was a space around Henry, perhaps six yards in diameter in which [Roger] dare not throw.  Here, invisible and strong, was the taboo of the old life.  Round the squatting child was the protection of parents and school and the policemen and the law.  Roger’s arm was conditioned by a civilisation that knew nothing of him and was in ruins’ (67).  Roger shows here that, although he is still constrained by society’s rules, he wishes to cause harm to others, including those he can dominate by size.  Roger eventually pushes the stone that will kill Piggy.  When the boys are rescued, I wondered what sort of person Roger would become, as he is the only boy amongst the survivors to deliberately commit murder.   Although most of the boys are involved in the slaughter of Simon, they mistake him for the ‘beast’ in the dark and excitement of the bonfire.  Would Roger be able to forget his atrocious act?  Had he strayed so far beyond acceptable and lawful behaviour that it would be impossible to exist in ‘decent’ society? Was he inherently evil?  These are questions that the reader cannot answer but show the incredible vividness and believability of Golding’s characters.
            To answer my second question, I suppose I did read the novel in anticipation of the key events.  This is surely inevitable when re-reading any novel, particularly such a well-known one.  However, because I did know what was coming next in the novel, I was able to appreciate the clues placed by Golding to future events and the subtleties of the changing nature of some of the boys.   For instance, the pretend attack on Robert in Chapter seven when he acts like a pig and the other boys circle around him prefigure the attack on Simon.  When Robert, rubbing his sore ‘rump’ reminds the boys they need to find a real pig to kill, Jack jokingly suggests they ‘use a littlun’ (127).  In the same incident, Roger is ‘fighting to get close’ to Robert the ‘pig’ (126).
            The concluding part of the novel – Jack and the savages chasing Ralph after smoking him out of the undergrowth – loses none of its intensity when the outcome is known.  To say I ‘devoured’ this part of the book is horribly clichéd and overused but I read these final nine pages at a blistering pace.  And I know the end!  There is something quite extraordinary in the pacing of this last chapter with long descriptive paragraphs detailing Ralph’s predicament, disrupted by short, stand-alone sentences for Ralph’s thoughts: ‘Think’.  ‘Hide then’ (216-7).  The final ‘reveal’ of Jack as ‘a little boy who wore the remains of an extraordinary black cap on his red hair, and who carried the remains of a pair of spectacles at his waist (222)’ jolts the reader back into reality; the horrors on the island have been committed by children.  Only the arrival of an adult can provide this perspective. 
            I’ve read some reviews on the internet – prompted by the poor film adaptation in 1990 – that say Golding’s novel no longer has the power to shock because of various tragedies that have occurred.  Incidents such as school massacres and gang killings have shown that children and young people are capable of murdering each other.  However, regardless of events that occur in our ‘real world’, Golding’s novel has not lost any of its tragic beauty and remains a haunting allegory.
            

Sunday, 24 October 2010

Lord of the Flies on Film




When William Golding’s Lord of the Flies was published in 1954, it met with almost universal critical acclaim.  By the 1960s, the novel was also a phenomenal commercial success, particularly in America, where the book had captured the imaginations of undergraduates and become a set text on many literature programs.  From its initial publication, a number of studios, both British and American, were interested in the film rights although the violence depicted in the novel meant that any film adaptation would only receive an ‘X’ certificate which studios were unhappy with.  Eventually, the theatre director Peter Brook secured a small amount of funding to make the film, which was released in 1963.
            Brook’s film is entirely shot in black and white and filmed on an island off the coast of Puerto Rico.  Budgetary constraints meant that he couldn’t bring boys from England so he cast the film ‘from English boys who happened to be closer to hand’ (John Carey, William Golding: The Man who wrote Lord of the Flies, 274).  The majority of the boys were not ‘actors’ as such, and the script was largely improvised.  In addition to the inexperience of the child actors, many of the crew members had never been involved in film production before.
            All these elements contribute to the power of the film and its documentary-like feel. The background to the crash on the island is dealt with in a series of stills featuring quintessential shots of English schoolboys followed by images of evacuation, planes and warheads.  Much as Golding’s original text did not delve into the detail of this war, the film also offers little explanation for the war.  Brook clearly identifies that the action on the island is at the heart of this story rather than the background. 
The film is generally faithful to Golding’s original text; many of the lines spoken come directly from the book.  Brook ensures that the audience can distinguish between the boys by having the main characters introduce themselves at the beginning of the film.   The scene where Jack and his singing choir walk across the beach in harmony is prophetic of events to come and when Roger introduces himself, those viewers ‘in the know’ can sense something different about him.  The bullying of Piggy begins in this all-important scene, as does the struggle for leadership and power between Ralph and Jack.  Simon faints at the meeting and Jack tells the others that this is a frequent occurrence, thus setting Simon apart from the others.  The quality of the performances from the child actors varies considerably throughout the film but the actor playing Jack (Tom Chapin) is superb, bringing just the right amount of arrogance and imperiousness to the role.   
One notable aspect of the book missing from the film is Simon’s conversation with the pig’s head.   Of course, this would be difficult to film without looking ludicrous, particularly without the benefit of special effects or CGI.   However, Simon stares intently at the pig’s head and the camera lingers on the pig’s mouth, perhaps giving the impression of conversation.  After his encounter with the pig’s head, Simon discovers the truth behind the beast and rushes back to the beach to tell the others.  This scene, when Simon returns to the boys who are all dancing around the fire chanting ‘kill the beast’ and is beaten to death, is emotionally intense and beautifully shot.  It is dominated by the screams of boys, the heavy impact of sticks and the crashing of either thunder or waves (perhaps both).  As we see Simon’s dead body in the sea, the camera pans to lights reflected in the ocean backed with haunting choral music.
The final chase sequence at the end is exhilarating.  Jack’s group chase Ralph through burning foliage, getting progressively louder as they begin to catch up to him.  This cacophony of sound is abruptly quieted when Ralph runs into a man on the beach.  The arriving sailors survey the boys in bewilderment as Ralph cries into the camera.   The final scene does disappoint me in one respect - the naval officer does not speak when he finds the boys.  In Golding’s novel, the officer at first thinks that the boys have been playing until Ralph tells him that two boys have been killed.  The realisation of the savagery and war on the island leads to the officer’s ironic statement, ‘I should have thought that a pack of British boys…would have been able to put up a better show than that’ (LOTF, 222).   It is surprising that Brook chose to omit this particularly as Jack says early on in the film, ‘After all, we’re not savages.  We’re English’.
Despite this small disappointment, the film is a wonderful adaptation of Golding’s novel and one that Golding himself approved of.  Golding’s daughter Judy states that she felt ‘her father was very impressed by Brook’s film’ (Carey, 275).  To read more about Brook’s thoughts on the film follow this link http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/56-lord-of-the-flies
Unfortunately, the same praise cannot be applied to the second adaptation of Lord of the Flies.  Released in 1990 and directed by Harry Hook, the British public school boys have been replaced by American military cadets.  Many critics have complained about the change of nationality but I think the biggest problem lies in making the boys military cadets.  Cadets would have been taught basic survival skills and would be used to following orders and therefore would find surviving on the island far easier than Golding’s schoolboys.  The chain of command on the island already seems established before their initial meeting with the younger children calling Ralph ‘sir’. When Ralph declares himself to be chief, Jack concedes with almost no protest, making his later demand for power rather inexplicable. 
 The boys in Golding’s novel appear to be strangers when they crash on the island (with the exception of Jack’s choir) but in Hook’s film, they appear to know each other.   This makes it difficult for the viewer to differentiate between the majority of the boys – they aren’t introduced and due to a lack of distinguishing features, appear almost homogenous. Piggy endures a similar level of bullying in the film as he does in the book but Ralph explains to him that this is because he is the ‘new boy’.  Piggy is bullied in the novel because of the way he looks and his priggish behaviour, not because of any prior conflict or relationship.    
The major factor in the novel that propels the boys into savagery is the fact that there aren’t adults.  As Ralph says, ‘There aren’t any grown-ups.  We shall have to look after ourselves’ (36).  However in the film, the pilot is rescued from the sea and lies in a tent, seriously injured but alive.  These boys are not by themselves and the pilot’s presence is entirely unnecessary.  Some of the children discuss what to do about the man, implying an act of violence, so he escapes from the boys’ camp and hides in a cave.  When he is eventually spotted, he becomes the ‘beast’.  Before his escape, Simon is charged with looking after the pilot and in an attempt to show that Simon has some kind of special ability, he has foreboding dreams of death, bordering on the prophetic.  However, Hook entirely fails with the episode with the pig’s head; it is inappropriately described by Jack as a ‘present’ [which just sounds plain wrong] for the ‘monster’ and Simon’s encounter with the head is quickly dismissed.
The major flaw of the film, aside from the boys being military cadets is the character of Jack.  As discussed above, he seems happy to let Ralph be leader but when more details are revealed about him, it transpires was forced to be in the military cadets because of a previous misdemeanour.  Thus Jack is a ‘criminal’ before the crash on the island and therefore already has the capacity to commit savage acts.  This entirely misses the point of Golding’s novel; the book has such an impact because these are ordinary boys who are driven to behave in such a way because of a lack of authority and consequence for their actions.  Although Golding’s Jack is clearly arrogant and haughty, he is the head boy of his school, which suggests that he is well behaved and a figure of respect. 
All in all, neither of the film adaptations are perfect but Brook’s 1963 film comes closest to realising Golding’s vision.  It is a beautifully shot and enthralling dystopian nightmare.  Hook’s 1990 film is, to be frank, best avoided.