Well, they probably didn't understand it and if they did, the BBC won't air an anti-monarchical message and what happened after the USSR fell is highly comparable to this ending. Russia's industry was sold of to new rulers who were at least as unscrupulous as the Tzarist Emperors.
@@oxey_ They're just the first stage of what came to be the current evangelical movie industry. Like you said about their holiday movies, their romance movies also just push the idea that people must be in a fantasized, straight relationship to be happy.
Actually… Tom is wrong here about one crucial little detail… Animal Farm was *originally* about the rise of NAZI GERMANY. (In other words, George *stole* the work from a Jewish Woman that originally had that idea.)
What, you mean the company with a crown as its logo might not be too concerned with the representation of humans as the ruling aristocracy in Animal Farm?
Genuinely, in animal farm it shows Snowball being far worse than the humans, even though they both sucked Snowball was by far worse. I used to have an animation of it and I watched it a lot as a child
@@stevenhetzel6483tf you mean "gone woke"? Science fiction is the definition of wokeness, the genre is about exploring morality and the human condition in allegory or through the use of pretend technologies.
we had to watch this in english class for the book and i remember thinking at the time, even when i was still fairly politically uneducated, “wow ok, so the Americans just drive up in their Cadillac and take over? great moral” it produced a lot of discussion in the 8th grade class that day lol
I mean it kind of makes sense, especially when you consider the fact that an oligarchic, capitalistic regime took over Russia in the aftermath of the Soviet Union.
Interesting idea. That's definitely how I'd read it. I imagine that's not how it was pitched to the board, but I could see a clever writer branding it as a happy ending while actually having a deeper message.
@@Levittchen4G That’s the point, if we are to read the new family as liberal capitalism, yes. Note how it’s also the point of how the “ruling class” of animals become more human-like throughout the novel. The whole point of the novel is basically saying that in Russia, they didn’t so much have a revolution as a change of management.
@@-xirx- "The CIA adapted Animal Farm‽" They funded the production of an animated adaptation of the novel by British animation studio Halas & Batchelor in the 1950s. I've seen it as a kid more than once, it's actually not bad, doesn't veer off from the book that much and changes the ending in a far better way than Hallmark.
@@GeoNeilUK well I never! Thanks for the tip, I'll be checking that out. *edit: ahh, _that_ version of Animal Farm. I never knew it was funded by the CIA though.
@@-xirx- they got around didn't they! "Oh hey, look something to use against the soviets! Does it equally criticise us? Is it worse? Who cares send them the money. Install that unelected south american despot. Etc"
@@-xirx- Yes because it's ultimately anti-communist propaganda which painted the soviets in an extremely negative light. What was actually going on was nothing like what animal farm made it out to be. You'd have to be really incompetent as a government agency to not see the potential AF had as cultural fuel against an enemy nation.
The ending would be more post-USSR if instead of someone buying the farm and moving in people just stumbled upon the farm and started selling it for scraps creating an oligarchy
Yeah, considering Orwell wrote the book before the fall of the USSR, it does totally track to add an ending where Napleon looses power and someone, human or animal, gains power in a metaphor for post-USSR Russia. But it needs to be tragic the same as the original ending
But then one of the minor pigs came back, who liked the lack of freedom but not the sharing of property . renamed everything and started locking people up/invading other farms but still had the oligarch thing even though they said they'd stop it.
Imagine if George Orwell wrote greeting cards. Happy Birthday, you are assigned a cell close to sewer and one extra dirty blanket. (meaning to be interpreted)
Okay but this could be interpreted as your standard number of blankets (1) being dirtier than usual or an above standard number (2) of blankets that are dirty. So this could literally be interpreted in multiple ways
The misinterpretations of 1984 are honestly even worse. People miss the forest for the trees and use it as a stand in for any censorship when the most interesting part of it was always eliminating the concept of dissent from language (alongside panopticism and rewriting history, but those are far from revolutionary ideas). They also miss it was a denunciation of Stalin and very explicitly not the anarchists he fought with or socialism broadly.
@@Levittchen4G I don't think people think that. Maybe some people in the US, since it was the epicenter of propaganda. Though maybe the numbers are rising because now that Putin is on full blast, capitalists will shy away from criticizing it as a neoliberal regime. But I think that's mainly gonna be conservative grifters, that love to classify every neoliberal leader of third and second world countries as socialists.
Humans do not just represent the Tsarist ruling class in Animal Farm, they represent the bourgeoisie more generally, for example how Mr. Frederick attacks the farm. From this perspective it makes more sense to understand this adaptation as advocating for a regime change in the Soviet Union, returning to a bourgeois dictatorship but a friendlier one this time (such as through an American intervention). I don't know if this was intentional, but it is not far fetched from the perspective of the liberals of then (and of course of today)
@@gorimbaud yes of course, I am not saying it is any more positive, I am just trying to point out that this seemingly (and substantially) absurd thing is something pretty normal in liberal politics.
@@TheDocfri It's also known as Chile and more recently Iraq. "Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority really believed that Iraq could become a pure neo-liberal economic model state, with wholesale privatisation of all state assets, flat tax rates, minimal financial regulation and no trade unions."
I mean given the farm in Animal Farm is a thinly veiled metaphor for the Soviet Union, a “happy” ending where it is later bought by a new ruling class is pretty damn accurate
But the existence of “nice humans” considering the allegory of humans being the dominant class fits the UK conservative discourse surrounding the monarchy
The metaphor of breaks down if we try to read it like that, it would probably be better read as something along the lines of modern social democracy, outwardly nice, and the animals are treated better, but they are still fundamentally exploited, and in the end, nothing has meaningfully changed
When this came out I interviewed its director for an article. IIRC, he explained that the ending was a nod to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union, but also more or less said that the film would be stronger if it just ended with the propaganda film sequence.
i "love" adaptations that destroy and make an insult of the source material. especially when new gens who were only introduced to the adaptation , take it as a higher authority source than the actual source !
no, animal farm has no point It’s just pseudo-leftist romanticism for some utopian “let people be” type of system that naturally can’t exist because there are bad people out there. Orwell was blind despite being politically knowledgeable... but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised considering he was a traitor and an UK secret service informant.
@Dev For Fun Yes, they did, the end was banishing the human element and showing they could be monsters in their own righg without them. Bringing in more humans shits on that.
My dad went to blockbuster and rented Animal Farm (John Stephenson) and The Matrix for me when I was 13. Those films fundamentally changed the way I viewed the world in just one weekend.
My memory is fuzzy but I thought it ended with the pigs in the farmers house having dinner with other farmers, basically becoming what they rebelled against
@@camelopardalis84 yeah the soviet union, which animal farm is about. Orwell was disappointed/horrified what the ideals of socialism turned into in practice. The pigs literally represent the communists. They overthrew the ruling class and became just like them.
@@camelopardalis84 Putin is basically the cousin of that familly, that came to administer the farm after the new owners proved even more incompetent at managing the farm than the pig
Reminds me of transphobes appropriating the matrix even though its written by trans people and awakening from the matrix is symbolic to coming out and self discovery.
Not really tho. Wachowski's weren't trans at the time. And from what I know both of them started considering transitioning only after first movie got released. And although I have to say I see themes you're talking about in Matrix, I would argue that it was about self discovery on a broader scale, rather than just transgender one. So I wouldn't call it neither transphobic by any means, but I wouldn't call first one as propagating transgender as a thing per se, rather pro transgender by proxy. And I'm talking only about first one. Later ones, and especially whole trilogy is pretty hard to analyse in such straightforward terms. That being said, yeah. It's quite hilarious to see transphobes appropriating it.
@@dylanschmeichel2008 That's a bit more complicated than that, but overall I agree, kinda. But that's besides the point. What I wanted to say, was that I believe at the time neither of the sisters were even considering that they're not male. At least one of them I'm pretty sure wasn't. Sorry I wasn't clearer and put it in wrong words. My bad.
@@nihili4196 by the way your comment is literally one of the trans Erasure comments centered around the Matrix that we were literally talking about. By trying to take away the fact that the creators said it was a trans thing and trying to make it for everyone is literally the kind of comment we are talking about you are the problem
I think it sort of adds to what Orwell was poking at, given what happened to Russia after the Soviet regime fell, but that may not have been deliberate on Hallmark's part. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Shocked you didn’t do the cartoon version where they had the animals rise up and overthrow Napoleon…because the CIA told the animation studio to do it.
I feel saying that the book is written tightly indicates very elaborate writing or very well adapted criticism of the Bolsheviks, which Orwell did not really manage to do. Not calling it a bland mess of assertions would already be a positive.
@@Ballardian He wasn't a snitch for MI5. His list was for the Information Research Department, an anti-communist propaganda bureau. All that happened to the people on his list is they weren't invited to write anti-communist propaganda.
Even if it was intentional or not I think it makes sense for Hallmark to make a "happy" regressive ending. If they formulated an ending where the animals figured out a way to get along by themselves it would still be pro-communist. Edit - I'm not saying this was a good decision though!!
I don’t think this should have been made into a film because it takes away the thought provoking element of the book and it gives you the answer instead of making the connections while reading it.
If you look at it differently it is symbolic of the fact that no matter if the working class remove the upper class and another government fails to retain power through tyranny there is always another power ready to come in but in just a different way.
Fun fact: Orwell made a list of "known communists" and hand them in to the colonialists for them to be jailed or possibly killed. He didn't do this for pay or notoriety, he just did it because he wanted to. He would also often point out the race of the individuals in question, especially if they were Jewish. More often than not, "black" was more than enough to be put on his list of alleged terrorists. And to make matters worse, this is just he list he actually ended up submitting. Apparently had to make a bunch of cuts because the original list was far worse. The Orwell family refuses to give up the draft for what should be obvious reasons. Everyone sees him as being a revolutionary anarchist but the truth couldn't be any further from that reputation. At best he's a federal informant white supremacist who REALLY didn't like black people and Jews. At worst? Well there's got to be a REALLY good reason why the Orwells don't want anyone seeing that original list.
@@omegahaxors3306wow, somebody that lived almost a hundred years ago thought differently than most people do now? That's crazy. We should definitely judge them on today's standards and bitch about it in a UA-cam comment section. 🤡
One of the whole points of Animal Farm's allegory was that although the humans (Tsarists) were bad, Napoleon (Bolsheviks) were worse. The book itself advocates for Monarchy, or at least anti-Communism. Even the name of Napoleon refers to the historical Napoleon who hijacked a revolution and started two major wars that left millions dead (which would not have began under the kings he replaced) and could potentially also refer to Robespierre who led the Reign of Terror, executing thousands of fellow "revolutionaries" to consolidate power. The only difference that adaptation adds is instead of the dystopian Communistic regime remaining, that the lesser evil of Monarchy will return.
I would say a more interesting interpretation of this is that the humans at the beginning are the tsarist monarchy, the animals in middle are obviously the Soviets, and then the humans buying the farm at the end after the fall of his regime are the new capitalist oligarchs who control modern Russia. Under that lens, I think it actually makes it more interesting because it follows the modern trajectory of Russia, but also kind of doubles down on the downer ending. Obviously that wasn't the intent, but this is a possible interpretation.
I think I read somewhere that, as the story of the book was the fight against the Tsarist monarchy and the subsequent brutal communist regime, the ending of the movie was an homage of the collapse of the USSR itself, were the ruling party class (the pigs) was abusing and using the rest of the farm animals, until the farm (the whole USSR) crumbled under its own failings.
tyranny isn't justified when people that came from a lower class is in command, it is only justified when it is the special people chosen by god, at least that is the pro monarchy point of view
I like this interpretation of the story. In a sense, it foretold the doomerism that it's so widespread right now: no matter how hard you struggle, the rich and powerful will always come out on top
It's pretty much already how it ends: the pigs start acting like humans and even working with them. Orwell was essentially calling out the nomenklatura, the small group of men that ran the Soviet Union, for becoming the very thing they had overthrown.
I actually really like the end. In the allegory as I saw it it was the fall of the Soviet Union and in comes the new Russian democracy, hence the dog wondering if the new owner would be better. . . Turns out they were not
Looking at modern Russia - and even the US - absolute power being held by whoever has the money to buy the farm is an entirely accurate representation of what happened. Presenting it favourably is still a problem, though.
Considering the environment that Hallmark/TNT adapted that story in, post-Soviet Russia, pre-Putin Russia, the whole world was drinking the whole "Perestroika/End of History" Kool aid, and the film was emphasizing the naive optimism of that viewpoint before it was destroyed as a concept by the subsequent decade. Trust me, the writers didn't think it through that much and just interpreted it as a lazy way of symbolizing the optimism of a Post-Soviet Russia for a 1990s television viewing audience.
I'd argue that the nice family at the end is just a nicer version of original farmer, meaning you go from monarchist capitalism to Neo-liberal Capitalism, the USSR going full circle from hell to hope and into hell-lite again
I find it pretty good as am adaptation tbh. We can consider the new humans as allegorical to the capitalist regime that followed the fall of the USSR. That is they're similar to the Tzarist regime, but not quite the same. I'd assume that if there was a sequel we'd see the farm itself after the new family bought the farm, it'd soon be bought out by a cooperation in which we see all the hallmarks of a capitalist society. Such as manufactured concent, moral panics, and the humans see themselves pitted against the animals in some racist way so as the true enemy, the cooperate owners of the farm, are never questioned.
I'd say it's pretty on brand for Hallmark Entertainment to encourage the continuation of royalty.
Well, they probably didn't understand it and if they did, the BBC won't air an anti-monarchical message and what happened after the USSR fell is highly comparable to this ending. Russia's industry was sold of to new rulers who were at least as unscrupulous as the Tzarist Emperors.
Yes very on brand!
hallmark christmas movies are literally nuclear family propaganda lol
@@oxey_ They're just the first stage of what came to be the current evangelical movie industry. Like you said about their holiday movies, their romance movies also just push the idea that people must be in a fantasized, straight relationship to be happy.
Actually… Tom is wrong here about one crucial little detail…
Animal Farm was *originally* about the rise of NAZI GERMANY.
(In other words, George *stole* the work from a Jewish Woman that originally had that idea.)
"Accidentally" this is Hallmark we're talking about here
What, you mean the company with a crown as its logo might not be too concerned with the representation of humans as the ruling aristocracy in Animal Farm?
Genuinely, in animal farm it shows Snowball being far worse than the humans, even though they both sucked Snowball was by far worse. I used to have an animation of it and I watched it a lot as a child
But also Sci Fi has gone woke, and in the process compleeeeeteleeeey missed the point in many of these adaptations.
@@stevenhetzel6483tf you mean "gone woke"? Science fiction is the definition of wokeness, the genre is about exploring morality and the human condition in allegory or through the use of pretend technologies.
we had to watch this in english class for the book and i remember thinking at the time, even when i was still fairly politically uneducated, “wow ok, so the Americans just drive up in their Cadillac and take over? great moral”
it produced a lot of discussion in the 8th grade class that day lol
Guess you've had good feeling about how things sometimes tend to work.
I mean it kind of makes sense, especially when you consider the fact that an oligarchic, capitalistic regime took over Russia in the aftermath of the Soviet Union.
@@hotcoals2291 it seems Russia just needs a daddy at all times
@@truffeltroll6668 Czaddy
@@truffeltroll6668
Russia: UwU step-dictator help me I'm stuck 😩😳
The 'nice' family would obviously represent modern liberal capitalism and that is definitely no accident
Aged like the finest Milk then
Interesting idea. That's definitely how I'd read it. I imagine that's not how it was pitched to the board, but I could see a clever writer branding it as a happy ending while actually having a deeper message.
the nice family will kill the animals still lol
@@Levittchen4G That’s the point, if we are to read the new family as liberal capitalism, yes. Note how it’s also the point of how the “ruling class” of animals become more human-like throughout the novel. The whole point of the novel is basically saying that in Russia, they didn’t so much have a revolution as a change of management.
How could you insert shock doctrine into the metaphor?
They took "four legs good, two legs better!" to the next level.
When you make a worse adaptation of Orwell than the literal CIA...
The CIA adapted Animal Farm‽
@@-xirx- "The CIA adapted Animal Farm‽"
They funded the production of an animated adaptation of the novel by British animation studio Halas & Batchelor in the 1950s.
I've seen it as a kid more than once, it's actually not bad, doesn't veer off from the book that much and changes the ending in a far better way than Hallmark.
@@GeoNeilUK well I never! Thanks for the tip, I'll be checking that out.
*edit: ahh, _that_ version of Animal Farm. I never knew it was funded by the CIA though.
@@-xirx- they got around didn't they! "Oh hey, look something to use against the soviets! Does it equally criticise us? Is it worse? Who cares send them the money. Install that unelected south american despot. Etc"
@@-xirx- Yes because it's ultimately anti-communist propaganda which painted the soviets in an extremely negative light. What was actually going on was nothing like what animal farm made it out to be. You'd have to be really incompetent as a government agency to not see the potential AF had as cultural fuel against an enemy nation.
The ending would be more post-USSR if instead of someone buying the farm and moving in people just stumbled upon the farm and started selling it for scraps creating an oligarchy
That would have worked
Yeah, considering Orwell wrote the book before the fall of the USSR, it does totally track to add an ending where Napleon looses power and someone, human or animal, gains power in a metaphor for post-USSR Russia. But it needs to be tragic the same as the original ending
The young dogs to over and now it's a security service's state
But then one of the minor pigs came back, who liked the lack of freedom but not the sharing of property . renamed everything and started locking people up/invading other farms but still had the oligarch thing even though they said they'd stop it.
@@hens0w The young hound Pudding.
Imagine if George Orwell wrote greeting cards.
Happy Birthday, you are assigned a cell close to sewer and one extra dirty blanket. (meaning to be interpreted)
The gift of heat!
Okay but this could be interpreted as your standard number of blankets (1) being dirtier than usual or an above standard number (2) of blankets that are dirty.
So this could literally be interpreted in multiple ways
The misinterpretations of 1984 are honestly even worse. People miss the forest for the trees and use it as a stand in for any censorship when the most interesting part of it was always eliminating the concept of dissent from language (alongside panopticism and rewriting history, but those are far from revolutionary ideas).
They also miss it was a denunciation of Stalin and very explicitly not the anarchists he fought with or socialism broadly.
Only kind if, it's also about facism and how capitalism helps establishing it.
Good job Orwell, you made the best anti-socialist propaganda imaginable
@@Levittchen4G Orwell was talking about the USSR, only a political illiterate could interpret his work as anti socialist and pro capitalist.
@@Cancn12 Well people in the west don't even get that Russia isn't communist anymore, so not much political literacy there
@@Levittchen4G I don't think people think that. Maybe some people in the US, since it was the epicenter of propaganda. Though maybe the numbers are rising because now that Putin is on full blast, capitalists will shy away from criticizing it as a neoliberal regime. But I think that's mainly gonna be conservative grifters, that love to classify every neoliberal leader of third and second world countries as socialists.
Humans do not just represent the Tsarist ruling class in Animal Farm, they represent the bourgeoisie more generally, for example how Mr. Frederick attacks the farm. From this perspective it makes more sense to understand this adaptation as advocating for a regime change in the Soviet Union, returning to a bourgeois dictatorship but a friendlier one this time (such as through an American intervention). I don't know if this was intentional, but it is not far fetched from the perspective of the liberals of then (and of course of today)
that is essentially what happened to russia post-ussr, with where they are today being pretty direct consequence of it.
@@gorimbaud yes of course, I am not saying it is any more positive, I am just trying to point out that this seemingly (and substantially) absurd thing is something pretty normal in liberal politics.
Orwell was a socialist afterall. He just hated the authoritarianism of stalins ussr.
@@TheDocfri It's also known as Chile and more recently Iraq. "Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority really believed that Iraq could become a pure neo-liberal economic model state, with wholesale privatisation of all state assets, flat tax rates, minimal financial regulation and no trade unions."
Now, I haven't read Animal Farm, but considering what the pig's name is, I wonder if it's Russia it's about?
hallmark writers be like "whoopsiee"
"I'm gonna need you to get all the way off my back about this."
Ryan George references?!
@@tulleuchen TIGHT!
I mean it’s literally stated that life is worse for the animals under Napoleon than under Mr. Jones, so technically being back humans is an upgrade
I remember having to watch this in class years ago and the teacher said something similar
Except Orwell was a vocal supporter of monarchism so this is actually a very accurate, if unflattering, interpretation of Orwell
Hallmark: We know what we said.
I mean given the farm in Animal Farm is a thinly veiled metaphor for the Soviet Union, a “happy” ending where it is later bought by a new ruling class is pretty damn accurate
But the existence of “nice humans” considering the allegory of humans being the dominant class fits the UK conservative discourse surrounding the monarchy
Some people dont even do it accidentally. I have seen a lot of people defend the Tsar-family.
Oh NO! How could somebody defend the bloody tsar family, who were harshly oppressing the innocent Bolsheviks! Those people are psycopaths!
I think they saw Anastasia as kids and internalized the movie's presentation of who the "good guys" were.
i mean humans coming back could be seen as the emergence of putin's authoritarianism
But the movie portraits the ending as happy
@@tomlxyz Because from the point of americans, american neo-liberalism is the best thing that could happen
The metaphor of breaks down if we try to read it like that, it would probably be better read as something along the lines of modern social democracy, outwardly nice, and the animals are treated better, but they are still fundamentally exploited, and in the end, nothing has meaningfully changed
This is literally 1984.
No it's animal farm
@@organicrobot6425 literally 1984 (furry version)
George orwells... book, 1984?
@@ehtresih9540 yep
@@piglover3719lol have you read them
They're nothing alike
Also worth noting: The animated 1950s Animal Farm where the animals randomly kill Napoleon even after the normal ending plays out.
When this came out I interviewed its director for an article. IIRC, he explained that the ending was a nod to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union, but also more or less said that the film would be stronger if it just ended with the propaganda film sequence.
i "love" adaptations that destroy and make an insult of the source material. especially when new gens who were only introduced to the adaptation , take it as a higher authority source than the actual source !
They literally missed the point completely!🥴
did they ? really ?
no, animal farm has no point
It’s just pseudo-leftist romanticism for some utopian “let people be” type of system that naturally can’t exist because there are bad people out there. Orwell was blind despite being politically knowledgeable... but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised considering he was a traitor and an UK secret service informant.
@Dev For Fun Yes, they did, the end was banishing the human element and showing they could be monsters in their own righg without them. Bringing in more humans shits on that.
@@devforfun5618 say you haven’t read animal farm without directly saying it
@@dennile_7355 they didn't miss the point, they wanted to change the point of the story
this is the most british looking person i have ever seen
he looks like Grian
You can see it as Hallmark telling us that its an endless cycle
My dad went to blockbuster and rented Animal Farm (John Stephenson) and The Matrix for me when I was 13. Those films fundamentally changed the way I viewed the world in just one weekend.
But... didn't humans actually end up buying that particular farm? I'm just sayin' Putin really fits the hallmark version...
Perhaps, though he is ex-KGB after all, so more of a pig I'd say (in more ways than one)
@@void-creature LOL, fair...
My memory is fuzzy but I thought it ended with the pigs in the farmers house having dinner with other farmers, basically becoming what they rebelled against
@@Musicanimedork01 That's true. The "hallmark" version literally a "good family" buys the farm... I think it's in the piece itself.
I remember the commercials for this thing, made it look like a horror movie.
It is kind of a horror story in a way.
I admit I read it three decades ago but IIRC, the animals eventually concluded that it didn't really work without humans.
Maybe this wasn't an endorsement but a prophecy. Considering that Russia went straight back to authoritarianism with Putin they were spot on.
Fair enough
A lot has happened in-between the last tsar and Putin.
@@camelopardalis84 yeah the soviet union, which animal farm is about. Orwell was disappointed/horrified what the ideals of socialism turned into in practice. The pigs literally represent the communists. They overthrew the ruling class and became just like them.
@@camelopardalis84 Putin is basically the cousin of that familly, that came to administer the farm after the new owners proved even more incompetent at managing the farm than the pig
Reminds me of transphobes appropriating the matrix even though its written by trans people and awakening from the matrix is symbolic to coming out and self discovery.
Not really tho. Wachowski's weren't trans at the time. And from what I know both of them started considering transitioning only after first movie got released.
And although I have to say I see themes you're talking about in Matrix, I would argue that it was about self discovery on a broader scale, rather than just transgender one.
So I wouldn't call it neither transphobic by any means, but I wouldn't call first one as propagating transgender as a thing per se, rather pro transgender by proxy.
And I'm talking only about first one. Later ones, and especially whole trilogy is pretty hard to analyse in such straightforward terms.
That being said, yeah. It's quite hilarious to see transphobes appropriating it.
@@nihili4196 people are always trans if they where trans mate, just because they didn’t transition yet doesn’t mean they didn’t know they where trans.
@@nihili4196 but your point is fair I’m just saying is all
@@dylanschmeichel2008 That's a bit more complicated than that, but overall I agree, kinda. But that's besides the point.
What I wanted to say, was that I believe at the time neither of the sisters were even considering that they're not male. At least one of them I'm pretty sure wasn't. Sorry I wasn't clearer and put it in wrong words. My bad.
@@nihili4196 by the way your comment is literally one of the trans Erasure comments centered around the Matrix that we were literally talking about. By trying to take away the fact that the creators said it was a trans thing and trying to make it for everyone is literally the kind of comment we are talking about you are the problem
I think it sort of adds to what Orwell was poking at, given what happened to Russia after the Soviet regime fell, but that may not have been deliberate on Hallmark's part. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Can’t forget 1977’s “Animals” by Pink Floyd, heavily inspired by this book
This guy understood the book better than your middle school english teachers.
Wow, that’s probably the only realistic Hallmark movie ever.
Kinda true to life with what has happened in recent decades, though, starting with "shock therapy" and ending in Putin's dictatorship.
I can't believe someone would do this to Jorge Irwin's 198-Farm.
And as such “off with their heads” applies as much to emperors as it does pirates. Be careful not to propagate kleptocracy either.
That last scene was drunkard Yeltsin
Shocked you didn’t do the cartoon version where they had the animals rise up and overthrow Napoleon…because the CIA told the animation studio to do it.
Isn't that what happened with the French Revolution? After all that beheading and Napoleonic wars a king was put back on the throne.
I feel like that kinda ruins the part where the pigs turn into humans
Apparently the 'happily ever after' ending was added because they wanted to update it to represent the fall of the Soviet Union, so yeah...
I feel saying that the book is written tightly indicates very elaborate writing or very well adapted criticism of the Bolsheviks, which Orwell did not really manage to do.
Not calling it a bland mess of assertions would already be a positive.
It'd be like if the movie 1984 ended with America invading, defeating Oceania, and Winston begins therapy.
"Eat Freedom"
That new family was supposed to represent america/the president
a racist, a homophobe and a snitch walks into a bar and the bartender says "Good morning Mr Orwell"
Okay, I know he was a snitch for MI5, but can you point me to the evidence of him being racist and homophobic.
@@BallardianRead what he had to say about the Burmese in his memoirs and the notes on people in his famous snitch note.
@@Ballardian He wasn't a snitch for MI5. His list was for the Information Research Department, an anti-communist propaganda bureau. All that happened to the people on his list is they weren't invited to write anti-communist propaganda.
I’m racist and proud
Even if it was intentional or not I think it makes sense for Hallmark to make a "happy" regressive ending. If they formulated an ending where the animals figured out a way to get along by themselves it would still be pro-communist.
Edit - I'm not saying this was a good decision though!!
Monarchists out here like: Wow, Hallmark really does care about us!
This is just like George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia"
No, I have not read it, why do you ask?
they advocated for reinstating the ruling class which happened with american shock therapy after Gorbacev
I don’t think this should have been made into a film because it takes away the thought provoking element of the book and it gives you the answer instead of making the connections while reading it.
I guess Hallmark Entertainment thought some adaptations were more equal than others.
It's not surprising, really.
What is a corporation if not a totalitarian authoritarian regime?
Insane how people still all think this is generally anticommunist when the whole book was antistalinist while pro democratic socialism
If you look at it differently it is symbolic of the fact that no matter if the working class remove the upper class and another government fails to retain power through tyranny there is always another power ready to come in but in just a different way.
Fun fact: Orwell made a list of "known communists" and hand them in to the colonialists for them to be jailed or possibly killed. He didn't do this for pay or notoriety, he just did it because he wanted to. He would also often point out the race of the individuals in question, especially if they were Jewish. More often than not, "black" was more than enough to be put on his list of alleged terrorists.
And to make matters worse, this is just he list he actually ended up submitting. Apparently had to make a bunch of cuts because the original list was far worse. The Orwell family refuses to give up the draft for what should be obvious reasons.
Everyone sees him as being a revolutionary anarchist but the truth couldn't be any further from that reputation. At best he's a federal informant white supremacist who REALLY didn't like black people and Jews. At worst? Well there's got to be a REALLY good reason why the Orwells don't want anyone seeing that original list.
Based Orwell
@@nnnncccc1263 Your life must be extremely fulfilling and full of friends.
He was exposing Stalinists. He was well known for his not so dislike for the ussr, So I'd say he's pretty based.
@@omegahaxors3306wow, somebody that lived almost a hundred years ago thought differently than most people do now? That's crazy. We should definitely judge them on today's standards and bitch about it in a UA-cam comment section. 🤡
One of the whole points of Animal Farm's allegory was that although the humans (Tsarists) were bad, Napoleon (Bolsheviks) were worse. The book itself advocates for Monarchy, or at least anti-Communism. Even the name of Napoleon refers to the historical Napoleon who hijacked a revolution and started two major wars that left millions dead (which would not have began under the kings he replaced) and could potentially also refer to Robespierre who led the Reign of Terror, executing thousands of fellow "revolutionaries" to consolidate power. The only difference that adaptation adds is instead of the dystopian Communistic regime remaining, that the lesser evil of Monarchy will return.
when did ramsay bolton decide to make youtube videos
God save the tzar
Yes I am supporter of the White Movement (White Russian) and I also support the FrieKorps
I would say a more interesting interpretation of this is that the humans at the beginning are the tsarist monarchy, the animals in middle are obviously the Soviets, and then the humans buying the farm at the end after the fall of his regime are the new capitalist oligarchs who control modern Russia.
Under that lens, I think it actually makes it more interesting because it follows the modern trajectory of Russia, but also kind of doubles down on the downer ending. Obviously that wasn't the intent, but this is a possible interpretation.
It was actually a pretty clear allegory for the kgb coup and the oligarchy which now rules Russia
Things were better with the Tsar back in charge?
That checks out, they won't make the same mistake twice at least.
I think I read somewhere that, as the story of the book was the fight against the Tsarist monarchy and the subsequent brutal communist regime, the ending of the movie was an homage of the collapse of the USSR itself, were the ruling party class (the pigs) was abusing and using the rest of the farm animals, until the farm (the whole USSR) crumbled under its own failings.
My English teacher didn't think that it was about monarchy
Will you can think about it like this "no matter what you do change will usually be reverted in politics"
Aftee watching this short.
I'm confident someone out there said "based" to the concept of being ruled by monarchy
Also isn't the point of the book that Napoleon becomes as good as a human owner by the end? All bringing in actual humans does is reiterate the point
tyranny isn't justified when people that came from a lower class is in command, it is only justified when it is the special people chosen by god, at least that is the pro monarchy point of view
lol I saw both movies in english class. The Hallmark on is the most end of history thing ever
Monarchy, when done by a good ruler, is the best political system.
I like this interpretation of the story. In a sense, it foretold the doomerism that it's so widespread right now: no matter how hard you struggle, the rich and powerful will always come out on top
It's pretty much already how it ends: the pigs start acting like humans and even working with them. Orwell was essentially calling out the nomenklatura, the small group of men that ran the Soviet Union, for becoming the very thing they had overthrown.
Accidentally based.
Return to tradition. Reestablish the Zhar!
Yeah no, maybe don't do that
I actually really like the end. In the allegory as I saw it it was the fall of the Soviet Union and in comes the new Russian democracy, hence the dog wondering if the new owner would be better. . . Turns out they were not
Not every monarchy is bad kids, especially if the democracy your under is the one USA had anything to do with
Yes, instead of advocating for an authoritarian monarchy, just leave the dictatorship of the proletariat in charge.
Looking at modern Russia - and even the US - absolute power being held by whoever has the money to buy the farm is an entirely accurate representation of what happened.
Presenting it favourably is still a problem, though.
and predicting the future from the sounds of it.
“Accidentally “
What a coincidence that I'm getting this recommended now! Was considering to see a stage play adaption of Animal Farm in a couple of weeks haha
It's not that unthinkable. After the French Revolution the monarchy came back. And the Dutch Republic also made place for a return of monarchy.
“Brutal tsarist regime”
Nigga WHAT
Historically accurate though
Benevolent and competent authoritarian monarchies are the best form of government (good luck finding one tho)
Considering the environment that Hallmark/TNT adapted that story in, post-Soviet Russia, pre-Putin Russia, the whole world was drinking the whole "Perestroika/End of History" Kool aid, and the film was emphasizing the naive optimism of that viewpoint before it was destroyed as a concept by the subsequent decade.
Trust me, the writers didn't think it through that much and just interpreted it as a lazy way of symbolizing the optimism of a Post-Soviet Russia for a 1990s television viewing audience.
I thought you were a young Carl Frederickson
Hallmark new what they were doing.
You can't make movies about Christmas Princes if you don't have a few monarchies floating around.
This guy went all in on the dude from Up! look
You look like you could be a grand kid of the old guy from UP, I love it
If Hallmark had done their due diligence they'd have ended it with Gorbachev tearing down the fencw built in another farm's territory.
I'd argue that the nice family at the end is just a nicer version of original farmer, meaning you go from monarchist capitalism to Neo-liberal Capitalism, the USSR going full circle from hell to hope and into hell-lite again
It wasn't an accident. Theocracy is fine with authoritarian monarchy
Yeah that’s the hallmark standard. Deliriously happy visions of a reality we don’t live in, wherein the status quo is something to be loved.
They were either going for American interventionism or predicting Putin
Or considering Animal Farm was an allegory for the Stalinist Russia. The reformed Soviet Union or the new Russian federation that formed in 1991.
It's not shocking if you know how many people think Animal Farm is an anti-communist book.
It is anti-communist and anti fascist. He was a socialist and monarchist.
That updated the story nicely, after napoleon different oligarchs took over. They new what they were doing.
I find it pretty good as am adaptation tbh. We can consider the new humans as allegorical to the capitalist regime that followed the fall of the USSR. That is they're similar to the Tzarist regime, but not quite the same. I'd assume that if there was a sequel we'd see the farm itself after the new family bought the farm, it'd soon be bought out by a cooperation in which we see all the hallmarks of a capitalist society. Such as manufactured concent, moral panics, and the humans see themselves pitted against the animals in some racist way so as the true enemy, the cooperate owners of the farm, are never questioned.
You could view it as brutal commentary on post-Soviet Russia, but I highly doubt it was meant that way.
The next Animal Farm movie needs a cinematic universe based on Putin (once he’s done for)
Bro said JOJOWOAS