Fahrenheit 451 (1966)

And explained he wrote this story about the time televisions were taking over homes!! He hated this and tried to imagine life without books!!! A good idea can come from anywhere! I liked this version and did not like the recent remake. Cheers!

FAHRENHEIT 451 is a Dystopian science fiction drama film which takes place in a controlled society, in an indefinite future, where books and written texts are prohibited, while, individual thought has become a question of consciousness. The books have become public enemy number 1. The story has a demonstrative character, regardless of the lack of strong emotions. This idea is not well treated, because it comes down, in a rougher sense, on a fight between the books and the media. A kind of revolution is a excessive background of the story. It is based on the 1953 novel of the same name by Ray Bradbury.In the future, an oppressive government maintains control of public opinion by outlawing literature and maintaining a group of enforcers known as "firemen" to perform the necessary book burnings. One of the firemen, Montag, meets one of his neighbors, Clarisse, a schoolteacher who may be fired due to her unorthodox views. The two have a short discussion about his job. Montag begins to question the morality of his vocation. Curious about the world of books, he soon falls in love with a beautiful young member of a pro-literature underground - and with literature itself...Mr. Truffaut has edited the contrasts with a large dose of the enthusiasm. People are going to save the world, but only if they become books. The books will save the world, as soon as they become people. A world that rejects literature fits in a sad and depressing atmosphere. The direction is unclear and undefined. The characterization had to be better.Oskar Werner ( Guy Montag), Julie Christie ( Linda Montag/Clarisse) and Cyril Cusack (Captain) are carefree and pompous characters at the same time. A book brings unrest in their characters, which manifests itself through desire, fear, anger, pain and a kind of love in the end.Watching this movie, I have an impression that I was on a promising party, which has eventually become uncomfortable and depressing.

This film is a rather paced review of the life and times of "fireman" Guy Montag. A model citizen of his community he is committed to service. He serves the public trust by cleansing society of its deplorable elements. In this case books. Because books are the tools of free thought. Which creates free speech and free expression. Which has proved offensive and has brought a need to bring order. By burning books.Our fireman is good at his work and has come due for promotion. His superiors believe he is their man. At home his obedient , care free wife is thrilled by the promotion as now a second full sized television can be bought to stream the state approved news. Yet in all of this worker's paradise there remains dissent and disharmony. Persons committed to hiding books and who defiantly express a different opinion. Daring to grow long hair , audaciously leaving their collar unbuttoned at work. Suddenly to Montag the dream looks rather like a nightmare.As he grows closer to a recently befriended woman , he discovers she too is a reader of books. His inability to reconcile the cause of equality in the burning of books as pronounced by the select few of the state , and the rights of individuality's that these security measures trample and smash , causes him madness and uproots his life.His wife quietly spies on him during this period he struggles with. As any good member , a patriot , would do she reports him to the state , and leaves him , removing herself from the toxic influence of a being that is both emotional and has developed morality independent of collective populist opinion. After this event Montag's boss , brings Montag to his house to persecute him for being the domestic terrorist he has now become. His boss is proved correct when Montag kills him with a flamethrower in his own home. After which Montag is pursued relentlessly by the state police for this murder.He finds refuge outside of town with a literary group of terrorists , who are so fanatically indoctrinated by their evil , they have gone to the length of memorizing the works of great authors verbatim. A rouge agent of the cell returns to town to commit suicide in order to pass the belief that Montag is dead. So he remains in the isolated camp cut off from civilization and free to explore thought and emotion.A good look at how a society can willfully promote ignorance through misinformation , non disclosure and blind obedience or nationalism.

i thought this was a really bad movie because:horrible acting. The timing of miss-en-scene. Dialogue. Really bad. - empty sound-design. - Super tacky props. - the sloppy camera-moves (that were too ambitious) - having 2 completely different characters played by the same person and have them look pretty much the same, is saying that you, the viewer, are stupid. Come on. Unless there is some weird reason why they'd look the same, why do it? In the beginning one its stated she looks like the wife, but thats something else as to say "i look EXACTLY alike'. And no, people in 1966 weren't stupid. - The film-stock was ugly. Very flat. Felt more like TV than film, and this is supposed to be a science fiction film. The only shots that looked good were the ones with fire in them. - perhaps this wasn't yet a standard practice yet, but i think this film would've been a bit better if it were filmed in anamorphic, helping the science fiction feel. - these guys in white latex shirts and pants. Whut? - The 'niece' running from the law but getting out of public transport at her usual stop (a 1 minute walk from her own house) - did i mention the sound-design? - While i do appreciate looking for new forms of editing and camera-moves, lots of them did not help the story, but just felt like gimmicks. Some unwarranted slow-mo's, zoomed in on the film-negatives. - the baby with the tiny book. Really? If it were a comedy, ha ha. With this film; not so much. - The whole change of mindset by Montag was done so fast, i really didn't know why he actually changed. - Jet packs. - the guy with the apple. - that handshake. - the man doubting if he should report any one. overacted. very predictable. - Montag's bathrobe. - He's taking the stairs instead of the pole. WHAT A REBEL!!!1! - was that fire suit some reference to the KKK? - The blood bag thats given to Montag's wife. - skin-colored lipstick. - that train set-piece you know probably costs half of the total budget. - the grandmaster of finding hidden things hides all his OWN books exactly at those places he's telling his pubescent students to look, including the toaster. and, worst of all: the whole concept of people burning books because they make you unhappy is just stupid. Maybe the film didn't do the book justice (i really hope so). It wasn't made believable at all. I was waiting to be convinced but it didn't happen. What i also found very weird, and a little bit disturbing, is that if you're going to talk about books being banned, i am going to think of religious texts first (its clearly a non- religious society, in a religious society it would be the non-religious books) but not 1 single reference of a bible, Koran, or any other religion. Also, the believability of people reciting a book and trusting that to be a good preservation method is just laughable. Especially by a kid listening to a mumbling dying man. people, this film was not good for its time. This was a bad movie. Maybe there was little money? Then make a smaller film. Good for its time? 2001 a space odyssey was probably in production at that time. Solyaris was made a couple of years after that. So yeah no.8 thumbs down for this film. 2 thumbs up because Truffaut made the 400 blows which was amazing.