Ray Bradbury wrote a novel that was, not about science fiction adventure, but a timeless tale about the importance of history. What Francois Truffaut's film adaptation succeeds in is telling the story. What it fails at is just about everything else. The timelessness of the novel is completely lost in the quasi postmodernist design of the sets that looks purely like a set trying to look futuristic in the 1960's. In other words, the film is dated. The acting by Oskar Werner more resembles a Casper Van Dien performance than what the novel aims for. Montag is not meant to be an action hero. As Clarisse, Julie Christie, mentions in the film and book: "you are different from the others, Montag." Werner does not make so much an effort to seem different, as he makes to seem like he was wronged. This acting choice was proven problematic on set with Truffaut to the point he is said to have mentioned that if this hadn't been a dream project, he would have left altogether. With all that said, however, Fahrenheit 451 is not a complete waste. The message is still relayed just as in the book, though with less emphasis on the problem and more on the solution. The cinematography is also on the plus end, with its intense close ups of burning books and the fire that consumes them. Perhaps the main flaw with the movie is not the acting or the sets, but the lack of philosophy. Francois Truffaut was an auteur of modernist philosophy and Fahrenheit fails to pick up on this. Truffaut was born and raised in the independent free film movement and Fahrenheit 451 is just too Hollywood. With some works of art, the adaptation is remembered more than the original. If Fahrenheit is remembered years from now, it will not be for the movie.
Score: 7️⃣ #CinephileCommunity#MovieReview#Fahrenheit451#RayBradbury#Montag#Bradbury#FrancoisTruffaut#Truffaut#Movies#Cinema#JulieChristie#OskarWerner