Lord of the Flies is one of those classic novels that many of us are made to read in school, and whether you love it or hate it, it’s hard to deny the story's sticky narrative. It seems fitting that the latest book-to-screen adaptation of William Golding’s novel comes from Jack Thorne, who raked in awards for last year’s Adolescence, and while critics are raving over the upcoming Netflix show, audiences who have seen the four-part miniseries strongly disagree.
In Lord of the Flies, Jack Thorne tackles similar themes to Adolescence, in that it features young boys doing terrible things that reflect a bigger truth about their world, and Miranda Collinge of Esquire notes how he treats the characters with greater empathy than the source material. Collinge praises the young actors, writing:
From the leads, particularly Lox Pratt as Jack and McKenna as Piggy, there are performances of maturity and subtlety that create characters who feel like psychologically coherent individuals more than moral (or immoral) cyphers. Does this mean that Thorne’s Lord of the Flies feels entirely faithful to the mood of the book? Well, maybe, maybe not. ... But his choices certainly make for an engrossing human drama that portrays the fear, shame and self-loathing that can bring out the worst in scared little boys, and big ’uns too.
In fact, the critics seem to agree, their scores for the BBC series (which can be streamed with a Netflix subscription) combining for a Certified Fresh 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. The series is “a psychedelic, scary, brutal attack on the senses,” Emily Baker of The i Paper says, rating it 5 out of 5 stars. Her review of Lord of the Flies reads:
Article continues belowThis version of Lord of the Flies is an all-out horror. ... It’s experimental, bold and takes big swings – it’s not afraid of its source material, but neither is it in reverence to it. I’m sure some fans will be upset with its arthouse take on such a classic, but it’s hard not to be entranced and swept along into the frenzy. There’s never been a TV adaptation of Lord of the Flies before and after this masterful version, there probably should never be another.
Nick Hilton of The Independent gives it 4 out of 5 stars, writing that for the second time in a year, Jack Thorne has created a show that will terrify parents. Like other critics, he shouts out the actors, particularly Lox Pratt — who has been cast as Draco Malfoy in the upcoming Harry Potter TV show — and David McKenna. Hilton says:
Even if some exchanges feel clunky, Lord of the Flies works because its coterie of child stars is largely very well cast. McKenna, as Piggy, is particularly convincing, as is Pratt, as the unravelling Jack. And while some elements of this adaptation – the use of fisheye photography, or the uncanny CGI wild pigs – don’t quite work, it is overwhelmingly a bold, ambitious vision for the novel.
Audiences Give Lord Of The Flies A Much Lower Score
The critic above pointed out the fisheye lens and CGI, but it doesn’t seem like the critics were as bothered by those things as the audience. Lord of the Flies was released by the BBC in February, so many people were able to see the four episodes ahead of its Netflix release. Those viewers gave the series a combined 58% RT rating — much lower than the critics’ 92%. Chris W. left a 1-star review, calling the show:
Garbage—all style over substance. The director and cinematographer should be run out of the business for their incessant reliance on camera tricks and fish-eye lenses instead of simply shooting the action without ornamentation. This glorified music video is almost unwatchable... which is a shame because there are some talented kid actors here. The director should have gotten out of the way and let them do their job.
At least they agree on the acting, with Tobias L. adding in his 1.5 star assessment:
Incoherent mess, cheep fx, very strange camera angle choices that real didn’t work and just confusing for an audience & the stripped back sound a is an odd decision for the tropical island setting . Found myself more annoyed the more I watched. Casting was good but that’s about it. Real shame had high hopes.
Steve D. says he’s a fan of the book, but the series was too slow for him, and there didn’t seem to be a reason behind the stylized choices. He left a half-star rating, writing:
I love the original book, but this is so slow moving, with horrendous music. The camera angles seem designed to show what a clever person the director is, without adding to viewer enjoyment. Hated it.
Another half-star review came from James H., who said he was impressed with the on-location views, only to have them turned into “stylised gush” that killed the flow of the plot. James wrote:
Less is more and this was MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE and therefore less... For me the horror of the novel is missed by a director over cooking everything...
Given how much critics liked the series and found relevance in today’s world, it’s surprising that the audience was too distracted by filming choices to grab onto the story. If you want to check out the series on Netflix to draw your own conclusions, you can do so starting Monday, May 4, when all four episodes drop at once.
