What is the beast?


I could not tell. Is it a Japanese soldier or is there an animal beneath a helmet?

Velvet Voice

reply

If I remember correctly (haven't read the book for years), the whole thing is set during a world war, and the beast was a crash landed soldier, carried along by his parachute (which is why he appears to move and frightens the boys).

reply

[deleted]

I'm pretty sure in the book Goldig describes the pilot crash landing on the island whilst the boys were still on it, and this is the "beast".

reply

The beast is meant to represent the violence in Humanity, there is no real beast but ourselves.

reply

how very true.

reply

Hey folks,

It has also been more than a decaded since I read the novel, but my wife and I just watched the 1963 film again last night. The book was written about 1954 or 1955, and, as I recall the planload of boys crash landed on a South Pacific island during or shortly after some unnamed war.

On one level, the beast was initially created in the boys' imaginations upon hearing frightening noises in the jungle at night. A pilot, presumably from the war some time earlier, had ejected from his airplane by parachute, was killed upon landing, and decomposed in his 1950s jet type flight suit. The skeletal remains in the flight suit with helmet and oxygen mask were later seen by several of the boys, but they obviously did not recognize it for what it was. Their fright and imaginations caused them to only look at it very briefly before taking flight in fear of the "beast" they thought it was. Later in the film, another boy discovers the dead pilot, takes the time to view the parachute, flight suit, and helmet, and he obviously recognizes it as a dead pilot and realizes it is not a "beast."

On another level, the beast may be the potential for savagery in otherwise civilized people when we stop practicing rational thought and substitute mysterious ideas and invent unsupported dogma.

It seems somewhat like the idea, "We have met the beast, and he is we."

I read this book as a fairly young lad when it first came out, and I was captivated by it. I also thought the 1963 film was also very good in its own right.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

reply

The beast was initially a figment of the boys' imagination (they were hearing strange noises at night on a lonely island, a normal thing for kids to think is that it must be some kind of monster).

Then the pilot becomes the beast. Everyone sees it but no one knew what it was, except Simon who was the only one who dared to approach it.

But the pilot isn't one from the war. He is THEIR pilot. The same one who crashed the plane and got them stranded there in the first place...at least that's what I always thought. :)

reply

[deleted]

If you read the book, you'd know he is definitely NOT their pilot [...]
I honestly don't know why half the people post on these boards when they don't know what the heck they're talking about. The war Golding mentions is a nuclear war, sometimes in the 1950s. The parachuter is not the boys' pilot. Read the GD book, morons.


If you want to preach to people for not reading the book, got to the Amazon.com message boards, not IMDB. This site is for discussing movies.

In any case, the fact that the book has it one way does not necessarily mean that the same facts exist in the film. If you want a good example of this, watch the 1971 film "Walkabout" and then read the book on which it was based.

reply

[deleted]

Golding didn't specifically mention a nuclear war, although he would certainly have known that a future war would include nuclear weapons. At the time of writing (early 1950s) no-one really knew what a 'nuclear war' would be like, and the first nuclear missiles were not developed until after the book was written. Doomsday scenarios came later, in the early 60s.

Peter Brook wanted to stay as close to the book as possible, but he added the missile stills in the title sequence to suggest a nuclear war, because by the time he made the film, they were at the forefront of everybody's mind - Kubrick was making Dr Strangelove while Brook was completing post-production on Lord of the Flies. But apart from that, he tried to leave the story much as Golding wrote it.

Although Golding suggests that the aircraft carrying the evacuated schoolboys was attacked (Ralph describes seeing the pilot's cabin in flames), he describes another aerial combat (in the opening paragraph of chapter 6 'Beast From Air') in the night sky above the island, in which a dead airman drops by parachute onto the mountainside. The children are asleep and don't hear it. So the dead airman isn't 'their' pilot, but he is shot down while they're on the island.

However, as noted elsewhere on this thread, the 'Beast' isn't any one particular thing - it's a myth conjured up by the children.

reply

At the time of writing (early 1950s) no-one really knew what a 'nuclear war' would be like...


Just gotta be pedantic... But even excluding books and magazine stories (see CHESLEY BONESTELL - Atomic Bombing of New York, Collier's Magazine interior illustration, 1948 - for a graphic image), Rocketship X-M (1950) showed a deveastated post holocaust Mars full of cave-man mutants from their nuclear war and Captive Women (1952) depicted post-nuke ruins of NYC and populations of normal survivors, reverting to savagely and mutants...
I love my nuclear nightmares and think that Golding was fully aware of such.

reply

If you read the book, you'd know he is definitely NOT their pilot [...]
I honestly don't know why half the people post on these boards when they don't know what the heck they're talking about. The war Golding mentions is a nuclear war, sometimes in the 1950s. The parachuter is not the boys' pilot. Read the GD book, morons.


If you want to preach to people for not reading the book, got to the Amazon.com message boards, not IMDB. This site is for discussing movies.

In any case, the fact that the book has it one way does not necessarily mean that the same facts exist in the film. If you want a good example of this, watch the 1971 film "Walkabout" and then read the book on which it was based.

reply

I have read the book. That was just my interpretation of THE MOVIE. It was never clearly stated in either who it was. Get over yourself, Douche.

reply

It is highly unlikely that it would be the boys' pilot, since he had a deployed parachute. A pilot flying either a passenger or cargo plane full of kids isn't likely to bail out, nor would it be easy for him to do so if he tried. On the other hand, a fighter pilot is in a cockpit designed with easy bail-out in mind.

reply

There is no beast. It was only the dead pilot with a parachute. Only Simon notices this (thus when he is yelling about a "dead man on a hill") and goes to warn the others but he is killed before they figure it out

_______

I ran. I ran until my muscles burned and my veins pumped battery acid. Then I ran some more.

reply

I first thought it was one of the teachers on the same plane as them, what actually happened to the teachers? drownwed?

But now yes I believe a Japanese or American soldier who landed there

reply

Originally the pilot who had injured his head from the crash and was wandering around with a brain injury was seen as the monster by the kids who were still trying to follow orders.

Once the nature of humans started getting out when some kids realized there was no order, the head of the pig symbolized the monster, aka human nature, in humans. The fact that the kids with Jack run rampant killing people and all things.. the fact that, without authority and rules, they become animals. THIS is the monster.. there is no real monster.

reply

[deleted]

I always assumed that the dead body was that of the pilot that flew the plane that crashed with the kids. Why else would there be no sign of him on the island after the plane crashed?

reply

Yeah.

reply