Animal Farm Rewritten: Hollywood Betrayed Orwell’s Anti-Communist Classic
Why Read This
What Makes This Article Worth Your Time
Summary
What This Article Is About
Richard Salsman reviews a new animated film adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm directed by Andy Serkis, arguing that it fundamentally betrays the original novella by inverting its moral framework. Where Orwell’s 1945 allegory vilifies communist tyranny — specifically dramatising the Bolshevik Revolution and Stalin’s betrayal of its ideals — the new film replaces the corrupt pig Napoleon as antagonist with a greedy capitalist billionaire intent on exploiting the farm. Salsman draws on Orwell’s own 1947 preface to the Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm, in which Orwell explicitly states that the novella’s episodes were drawn from the actual history of the Russian Revolution, to establish that the film’s inversion is not a creative liberty but a distortion of documented authorial intent.
Salsman then uses the article as a vehicle for a broader critique of Orwell himself, arguing that Orwell’s lifelong commitment to democratic socialism created a contradiction at the heart of his most famous works: he wrote Animal Farm not primarily to condemn socialism but to destroy the “Soviet myth” — the association between the USSR and genuine socialism — in order to revive socialism’s reputation in Britain. Salsman finds this dishonest, pointing to Orwell’s admission that he would not condemn Stalin’s “barbaric and undemocratic methods.” The article closes by arguing that Serkis’s conflation of economic and political power — treating a billionaire and a dictator as equivalent threats — mirrors the same intellectual error Salsman attributes to Orwell and to socialists generally.
Key Points
Main Takeaways
The Film Inverts Orwell’s Moral Framework
In the original, the villain is Napoleon — the pig who represents communist tyranny. In the new film, the villain is a greedy capitalist billionaire. The anti-communist allegory has been turned into an anti-capitalist one.
Orwell’s Own Words Confirm the Anti-Communist Intent
In his 1947 preface to the Ukrainian edition, Orwell explicitly states that the novella’s episodes were drawn from the actual history of the Russian Revolution — placing the blame squarely on Soviet communism, not capitalism.
Orwell Wrote to Revive Socialism, Not Bury It
Salsman argues that Orwell’s true motive was to destroy the “Soviet myth” — the idea that the USSR represented genuine socialism — in order to rehabilitate socialism’s reputation in Britain, not to warn against socialism itself.
Orwell Would Not Condemn Stalin’s Methods
In his own preface, Orwell admitted he “would not condemn Stalin and his associates merely for their barbaric and undemocratic methods.” Salsman considers this a damning contradiction in a writer celebrated as a champion of free thought.
Serkis Conflates Economic and Political Power
Director Andy Serkis defends the adaptation as being about the “corrupting nature of power” broadly. Salsman argues this conflates economic power (the capacity to produce) with political power (the capacity to coerce) — treating a billionaire as equivalent to a dictator.
Russia in 1917 Was Not Capitalist
Salsman argues the Bolshevik Revolution was not an uprising of workers against capitalism: Russia in 1917 was a feudal-agrarian state, not a capitalist-industrial one, making an anti-capitalist reading of the revolution historically inaccurate.
Master Reading Comprehension
Practice with 365 curated articles and 2,400+ questions across 9 RC types.
Article Analysis
Breaking Down the Elements
Main Idea
The New Film’s Inversion Is Unfaithful — and the Original Was Itself Contradictory
Salsman makes two distinct arguments. First, that the Serkis film is a clear and reckless betrayal of Orwell’s documented intent, which was explicitly anti-communist. Second — and more provocatively — that Orwell himself was not the clear-eyed socialist critic he is remembered as: he wrote Animal Farm to rehabilitate socialism, admitted he would not condemn Stalin’s violence, and spent decades defending “genuine” socialism against its obvious historical record.
Purpose
To Critique Both a Film and a Deeper Ideological Pattern
Salsman uses the film review as a launchpad for a broader ideological argument. His purpose is twofold: to defend the historical and literary integrity of Orwell’s work against a distorting adaptation, and to challenge the persistent socialist habit — shared, he argues, by both Serkis and Orwell himself — of insulating socialist ideology from its catastrophic historical record by claiming that failures were never “genuine” socialism.
Structure
Film Critique → Orwell’s Intent → Orwell’s Contradictions → Serkis’s Defence → Ideological Argument
Salsman opens with a description of the film’s inversion, establishes Orwell’s documented anti-communist intent using primary sources (the 1947 preface), then pivots to a sustained critique of Orwell’s own ideological contradictions drawn from the same preface. He closes with Serkis’s defence and his own rebuttal. The structure moves from literary fidelity to historical accuracy to political philosophy — widening progressively beyond the film review it nominally is.
Tone
Polemical, Erudite & Unapologetically One-Sided
Salsman writes in the combative register of ideological advocacy. He is not trying to be even-handed — he regards the film as a betrayal and Orwell as a contradictory figure — and he does not conceal this. The article is well-sourced, drawing on Orwell’s own words, but its conclusions are sharply partisan. Readers should approach it as a case being made, not a balanced analysis; its strength lies in the textual evidence it marshals, not in acknowledging counterarguments fairly.
Key Terms
Vocabulary from the Article
Click each card to reveal the definition
Build your vocabulary systematically
Each article in our course includes 8-12 vocabulary words with contextual usage.
Tough Words
Challenging Vocabulary
Tap each card to flip and see the definition
Combines or merges two or more distinct things into one — often incorrectly or misleadingly, as when genuinely different concepts are treated as equivalent.
“Serkis improperly conflates opposites: economic power (the power to produce) and political power (the power to coerce).”
The act of treating something sacred or greatly revered with contempt or disrespect; used here metaphorically for Serkis’s treatment of Orwell’s celebrated work.
“How does Andy Serkis, the producer of the new animated film, explain his desecration of the classic satire?”
The practice of concealing unpleasant facts or serious failings by presenting a misleadingly positive account — glossing over wrongdoing rather than honestly confronting it.
“Orwell didn’t consider such brazen, defensive, apologetic whitewashing as part of what he labeled ‘totalitarian propaganda to control opinion’.”
A formal charge or strong criticism of a person, system, or ideology; used here to describe Animal Farm as a damning accusation against left-wing idealism and communist tyranny.
“Not just as a terrible indictment of left-wing idealism and Communist tyranny…”
Faithfulness and accuracy in representing a source, original, or set of facts — used here to describe the standard by which adaptations of literary works should be judged.
“For those interested in accuracy and fidelity to the original source material of Animal Farm…”
Departure from what is considered officially correct, accepted, or standard in a belief system or ideology — deviating from the authorised doctrine.
“I saw innocent people being thrown into prison merely because they were suspected of unorthodoxy.”
Reading Comprehension
Test Your Understanding
5 questions covering different RC question types
1According to the article, Andy Serkis claims that his version of Animal Farm has a fundamentally different theme from Orwell’s original, centred on anti-capitalism rather than anti-authoritarianism.
2According to Salsman’s reading of Orwell’s 1947 preface, what was Orwell’s primary motivation for writing Animal Farm?
3Which sentence most directly expresses Salsman’s own critique of Orwell, as opposed to merely describing or quoting Orwell’s views?
4Evaluate whether each of the following statements is supported by the article.
According to Orwell’s 1947 preface, he initially conceived the idea for Animal Farm after watching a boy whipping a large cart-horse, which led him to think about how men exploit animals as the rich exploit workers.
Salsman argues that the Bolshevik Revolution was not an overthrow of capitalism because Russia in 1917 was a feudal-agrarian society rather than a capitalist-industrial one.
The article states that Orwell was born under the name Eric Arthur Blair in 1903 and was a committed socialist from early childhood.
Select True or False for all three statements, then click “Check Answers”
5Salsman argues that Serkis’s claim that Animal Farm is about the “corrupting nature of power” broadly — treating billionaires and dictators as equivalent threats — is an intellectual error. Based on the article, what does Salsman believe is the crucial distinction Serkis ignores?
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
In Orwell’s 1945 novella, the farm animals’ rebellion against their human farmer represents the Russian Revolution of 1917. The pigs — particularly Napoleon — represent the Bolshevik leadership and specifically Stalin. The gradual corruption of the revolution’s founding principles, culminating in the pigs becoming indistinguishable from the human masters they overthrew, represents Stalin’s betrayal of communist ideals and his creation of a tyranny worse than what preceded it. The famous line “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” captures the hypocrisy of Soviet ideology versus Soviet reality.
The “Soviet myth,” in Orwell’s own words, was the widespread belief in Western left-wing circles that the USSR was a genuine, admirable experiment in socialism. Orwell believed this myth was damaging the socialist cause in Britain, because Stalin’s atrocities were being attributed to “real” socialism. By writing Animal Farm to expose what the Soviet revolution actually produced — totalitarianism and betrayal — Orwell hoped to separate the idea of socialism from the Soviet example, allowing Western socialists to pursue “genuine” socialism unencumbered by association with Stalin. Salsman argues this reveals that Orwell’s aim was to rehabilitate socialism, not condemn it.
This article is clearly written from a strongly pro-capitalist, anti-socialist perspective. Salsman writes for The Daily Economy and approaches the film review as an opportunity to make a broader ideological argument about socialism’s historical record and intellectual dishonesty. He is dismissive of both the film and of Orwell’s socialist commitments, and he does not present counterarguments or alternative interpretations fairly. Readers should treat it as advocacy writing grounded in textual evidence — valuable for the primary source quotations it marshals, but not a neutral critical analysis. The article is particularly useful for exam students learning to distinguish an author’s stated facts from their interpretive claims.
Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.
This article is rated Advanced. Salsman writes with the dense rhetorical sophistication of ideological commentary, embedding multiple layers of argument — film critique, textual analysis, historical argument, and political philosophy — within a single piece. Readers must carefully distinguish between what Orwell said, what Salsman says Orwell meant, and what Salsman himself argues. The article uses complex vocabulary (expropriation, totalitarian, conflates, whitewashing, proletariat) and assumes familiarity with the history of the Russian Revolution, Marxist theory, and the plot of Animal Farm. Excellent practice for advanced RC comprehension, particularly for students preparing for CAT or GMAT critical reasoning.
Richard Salsman is an economist, financial historian, and writer with a strong pro-free-market, libertarian-leaning perspective. He is a regular contributor to The Daily Economy, a publication that consistently advocates for free-market economics and is critical of government intervention, socialism, and collectivism. His reviews and essays frequently use cultural or literary subjects — like this film review — as vehicles for broader economic and political arguments. Readers should note that the publication’s editorial orientation shapes the framing of all its content, and that Salsman’s conclusions about Orwell’s motivations, while supported by quotations, represent one interpretive position among several plausible readings of Orwell’s complex views.
The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.
