Interesting behind-the-scenes photo right at the beginning. In the actual movie, I don't think all three of them are ever in the frame at the same time. I believe there is only a single scene, the initial Two Minutes Hate, where in theory Winston, Julia and O¨Brien are all present in the same room at the same time. (Edit: As we see at 10:37, Julia also appears in a "vision" next to O'Brien in Room 101, just before Winston breaks down.)
Yes, well-spotted. Until the edit I hadn't considered that scene. She is there in Room 101 too in the vision. I can't think of another one. All in the film. In the book, she does accompany Winston to the meeting with O'Brien which is not depicted in the 1984 film, though it is in the 1954 (BBC) adaptation and the 1956 film.
Strange that none of them just shot big brother when he was becoming a tyrant back in the beginning. Did they think they could make big brother good again, or did they just not have the time?
If we extrapolate from the Kirov assassination in 1934, which was surely on Orwell's mind, then Big Brother used this to claim that there was an even wider terrorist plot against his own life. The purges that swept up Winston, and so many others, may well have been sparked by an assassination attempt against BB loyalists within the Party's senior leadership. One of the reasons the likes of O'Brien trawled for useful idiots like Winston and Julia is precisely because they lent credibility to Big Brother's paranoia. The Thought Police were undoubtedly under pressure to get signed confessions in order to keep the purges expanding. In short, assassinating Big Brother was not only all but physically impossible - it played into BB's hands in the worst possible way.
Maybe there is no big brother and power is collectively held by a small cadre of the most powerful members of the inner party, and the trio were deemed unecessary for that ruling group, despite being useful in gaining power. Given how Obrien wrote Goldstein's book its not a stretch to assume the tro created the concept of Big Brother.
BB is just a symbol that the entire inner party uses. The idea that one person could get away with being in that position in the society described in the text without, as you say, being purged eventually is unlikely. They didn't think they could make big brother good the inner party knew they just had to make the outer party believe he was
I see BB is kind of like crowd surfing... the person doing the crowd surfing is the idea, and you play your part in moving it along until you're not needed anymore. Then the next group takes over until they aren't needed anymore... and so on, and so on. The problem for the Inner Party is: they think this can go on forever. Sooner or later someone reptilian desire for self-preservation will kick in and refuse to participate.
Yes, I think you're right. It's one big test by the inner part to recruit from the outer party. O'Brien was on the verge of recruiting Winston into the inner party and laid traps for him, but Winston, because he's an NPC, fell into every single trap laid for him. The book is littered clues throughout. Actually, O'Brien is the hero because he gave Winston a chance to improve his position in life.
1984 is #3 in my list of favorite books. It was mandatory reading in my 1980 high school, and since it was required, I didn't care for it. When I entered college and my adult life, a renewed interest struck me like a bell, and I started re-reading 1984 every several years, ever since. I completed my most recent read only two months ago, and by some quirk of chance, I came across your channel. With every episode I watch, I enjoy the challenge of chewing over the small details like choice phrases, and expanding what I thought I knew about Orwell's story. Many thanks: I love your channel. You realize, of course, we are all doomed to the Ministry of Love for discussing this?
@Daniel13-jx4nk Great question. #1 is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (originally read in 1973 during month's stay in hospital after accident, 8 yrs old). #2 is Zelazny's Amber series. As mentioned, these are books I love so much that I re-read them ever three years or so. #4 is Time Machine, #5 is Treasure Island. #6 is Great Expectations....
It seems that the Inner Party has it's own function in maintaining the power of the party. That is to serve as a source of prominent exceptional peoples enemies.
While it is quite apparent that Orwell based the world of 1984 on the Soviet Union I have to wonder if he wasn't also thinking about the French Revolution as well. The downfall of Rutherford, Jones, and Aaronson puts me in mind of what happened to Robespierre and others during the Reign of Terror. Each is an instance of people who broke the original social order falling to the unrestrained forces that they unleashed.
These three guys continuing to hang out *together* in a cafe with a playlist designed to shame them for their ostensible betrayal of one another can be read as kind of bizarrely hopeful (by 1984 standards). It's almost like a weekly support group. I suppose it's equally likely that the Party forced the trio to meet there periodically to compound their sense of failure, but that flavor of torment doesn't seem to quite match their style. Given the hopeful Postscript of the novel, I think it's at least plausible that these men had been broken and forgotten by society, but hadn't necessarily forgotten each other... maybe they were even re-arrested in part because they were still committing resistance in their own small way (by meeting in a public place.)
Winston explains that the place was generally a haunt for dissidents and radical types earlier on, as well as more open and forthright (though not necessarily unorthodox) thinkers like Syme. I believe that over the years it has kind of become a leper colony for the survivors of the Ministry of Love, partially based on this earlier reputation. The new Sandra Newman non-cannon novel 'Julia' also seems to concur with this interpretation of the place. In essence, other Party members don't want to be around such people and so they naturally gravitatte to places like the Chestnut Tree Café which most Outer Party folk will avoid anyway given its earlier reputation. It's just a theory, but makes sense. 🤔
The plight of the three characters seems to be an allusion to the historical travails of USSR's Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev, who had also been purged from the Party, reinstated, then purged and finally executed.
No. Orwells theory says that Ingsoc was always a movement of power-hungry technocrats. One has to get rid of the assumption that Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford were idealistic figures. They are only insufficient technocrats and victims of a kind of evolution of the party. O'Brien and his kind are the heirs.
@@nineteen-eighty-four-lore the relationship seems personal enough to give them infamy in a sense of old friends not getting the position (this still works if bb wasnt real, these 3 wouldve just been the 'worthy sacrifice'). They very much represent the armchair socialists and powerful ultra right wing theorists in the wrong place at the wrong time. My guess is to why they dont fight it is if you believe in this type of thinking (willingly or not) then they must follow it to the end as well. Consistent with the cult nature of the tros
@@lukeblankenberg7371 the one betrayed by Krushchev. Beria gets a bad wrap because he let himself become the monster the nation needed to protect the revolution. It was a great and terrible sacrifice on his behalf.
Interesting behind-the-scenes photo right at the beginning. In the actual movie, I don't think all three of them are ever in the frame at the same time. I believe there is only a single scene, the initial Two Minutes Hate, where in theory Winston, Julia and O¨Brien are all present in the same room at the same time. (Edit: As we see at 10:37, Julia also appears in a "vision" next to O'Brien in Room 101, just before Winston breaks down.)
Yes, well-spotted. Until the edit I hadn't considered that scene. She is there in Room 101 too in the vision. I can't think of another one.
All in the film. In the book, she does accompany Winston to the meeting with O'Brien which is not depicted in the 1984 film, though it is in the 1954 (BBC) adaptation and the 1956 film.
The waiter in the Chestnut tree Café has a really relaxed job it seems.
Strange that none of them just shot big brother when he was becoming a tyrant back in the beginning. Did they think they could make big brother good again, or did they just not have the time?
let's just say that happened;
one of them would become BB (it probably already did happen)
If we extrapolate from the Kirov assassination in 1934, which was surely on Orwell's mind, then Big Brother used this to claim that there was an even wider terrorist plot against his own life. The purges that swept up Winston, and so many others, may well have been sparked by an assassination attempt against BB loyalists within the Party's senior leadership. One of the reasons the likes of O'Brien trawled for useful idiots like Winston and Julia is precisely because they lent credibility to Big Brother's paranoia. The Thought Police were undoubtedly under pressure to get signed confessions in order to keep the purges expanding. In short, assassinating Big Brother was not only all but physically impossible - it played into BB's hands in the worst possible way.
Maybe there is no big brother and power is collectively held by a small cadre of the most powerful members of the inner party, and the trio were deemed unecessary for that ruling group, despite being useful in gaining power. Given how Obrien wrote Goldstein's book its not a stretch to assume the tro created the concept of Big Brother.
BB is just a symbol that the entire inner party uses. The idea that one person could get away with being in that position in the society described in the text without, as you say, being purged eventually is unlikely. They didn't think they could make big brother good the inner party knew they just had to make the outer party believe he was
I see BB is kind of like crowd surfing... the person doing the crowd surfing is the idea, and you play your part in moving it along until you're not needed anymore. Then the next group takes over until they aren't needed anymore... and so on, and so on.
The problem for the Inner Party is: they think this can go on forever. Sooner or later someone reptilian desire for self-preservation will kick in and refuse to participate.
Does anyone else think the photo was originally given to winston as a test right at the start?
Possibly. The Party does like its little sting operations: Charrington and O'Brien, for example.
Yes, I think you're right. It's one big test by the inner part to recruit from the outer party. O'Brien was on the verge of recruiting Winston into the inner party and laid traps for him, but Winston, because he's an NPC, fell into every single trap laid for him. The book is littered clues throughout. Actually, O'Brien is the hero because he gave Winston a chance to improve his position in life.
1984 is #3 in my list of favorite books. It was mandatory reading in my 1980 high school, and since it was required, I didn't care for it. When I entered college and my adult life, a renewed interest struck me like a bell, and I started re-reading 1984 every several years, ever since. I completed my most recent read only two months ago, and by some quirk of chance, I came across your channel. With every episode I watch, I enjoy the challenge of chewing over the small details like choice phrases, and expanding what I thought I knew about Orwell's story. Many thanks: I love your channel. You realize, of course, we are all doomed to the Ministry of Love for discussing this?
What is 1 and 2
@Daniel13-jx4nk Great question. #1 is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (originally read in 1973 during month's stay in hospital after accident, 8 yrs old). #2 is Zelazny's Amber series. As mentioned, these are books I love so much that I re-read them ever three years or so. #4 is Time Machine, #5 is Treasure Island. #6 is Great Expectations....
I love lore your lore videos on minor characters. They are very interesting and scary insights into that horrid world.
Thanks again friend.
I agree that the party played that song when they were in the chestnut cafe
Interesting vid mate.
Thanks. 👍
It seems that the Inner Party has it's own function in maintaining the power of the party. That is to serve as a source of prominent exceptional peoples enemies.
please continue to upload, i love everything about 1984 and have enjoyed several of your videos 🫶
Thanks. I should be uploading for some time yet (all things being equal). Lots of videos yet to come. 🤞👍
Excellent video!
Thanks. 👍
While it is quite apparent that Orwell based the world of 1984 on the Soviet Union I have to wonder if he wasn't also thinking about the French Revolution as well.
The downfall of Rutherford, Jones, and Aaronson puts me in mind of what happened to Robespierre and others during the Reign of Terror. Each is an instance of people who broke the original social order falling to the unrestrained forces that they unleashed.
These three guys continuing to hang out *together* in a cafe with a playlist designed to shame them for their ostensible betrayal of one another can be read as kind of bizarrely hopeful (by 1984 standards). It's almost like a weekly support group. I suppose it's equally likely that the Party forced the trio to meet there periodically to compound their sense of failure, but that flavor of torment doesn't seem to quite match their style. Given the hopeful Postscript of the novel, I think it's at least plausible that these men had been broken and forgotten by society, but hadn't necessarily forgotten each other... maybe they were even re-arrested in part because they were still committing resistance in their own small way (by meeting in a public place.)
Fascinating stuff.
An interesting analysis, given we know almost next to nothing about all three.
"14 - 2 - 1984" 🎉🎉 was my 27th birthday 😂
The conclusion of the 9th 3-year plan!
Why do they always go to the chestnut cafe before they’re killed?
Winston explains that the place was generally a haunt for dissidents and radical types earlier on, as well as more open and forthright (though not necessarily unorthodox) thinkers like Syme.
I believe that over the years it has kind of become a leper colony for the survivors of the Ministry of Love, partially based on this earlier reputation.
The new Sandra Newman non-cannon novel 'Julia' also seems to concur with this interpretation of the place.
In essence, other Party members don't want to be around such people and so they naturally gravitatte to places like the Chestnut Tree Café which most Outer Party folk will avoid anyway given its earlier reputation.
It's just a theory, but makes sense. 🤔
@@nineteen-eighty-four-lore thank you so much! That makes perfect sense to me
The plight of the three characters seems to be an allusion to the historical travails of USSR's Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev, who had also been purged from the Party, reinstated, then purged and finally executed.
Maybe Ingsoc started out like an idealistic movement before it was hijacked by power-hungry technocrats.
No. Orwells theory says that Ingsoc was always a movement of power-hungry technocrats. One has to get rid of the assumption that Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford were idealistic figures. They are only insufficient technocrats and victims of a kind of evolution of the party. O'Brien and his kind are the heirs.
Why didn’t they get rid of bb
I think they tried or tried to take power and were outmanoeuvred.
@@nineteen-eighty-four-lore maybe
@@nineteen-eighty-four-lore the relationship seems personal enough to give them infamy in a sense of old friends not getting the position (this still works if bb wasnt real, these 3 wouldve just been the 'worthy sacrifice'). They very much represent the armchair socialists and powerful ultra right wing theorists in the wrong place at the wrong time. My guess is to why they dont fight it is if you believe in this type of thinking (willingly or not) then they must follow it to the end as well. Consistent with the cult nature of the tros
i wish this is what youtube was like
I doubt the world would be much different, regardless of who won the power struggle. Same tyranny, different logo.
The party didn't need a Trotsky. They needed their version of the selfless man who could have saved the USSR if he had the chance: Laverntiy Beria
Are we thinking of the same Beria?
@lukeblankenberg7371 It's bait, look at the name.
@@Notto-tn9dy name ain't got shit to do with it
@@lukeblankenberg7371 the one betrayed by Krushchev. Beria gets a bad wrap because he let himself become the monster the nation needed to protect the revolution. It was a great and terrible sacrifice on his behalf.
@@ThugShakers4Christyeah you force yourself on a couple of 14 year olds and all of a sudden your the bad guy.