# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The hugely popular live American television plays of the 1950s have become the stuff of legend. Combining elements of theater, radio, and filmmaking, they were produced at a moment when TV technology was growing more mobile and art was being made accessible to a newly suburban postwar demographic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. The Cold War

2. Joseph McCarthy and the Rise of McCarthyism

3. 'Have you no sense of decency, sir?'

4. The Fall of Joseph McCarthy

During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the prospect of communist subversion at home and abroad seemed frighteningly real to many people in the United States. These fears came to define-and, in some cases, corrode-the era's political culture. For many Americans, the most enduring symbol of this "Red Scare" was Republican Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin.

Senator McCarthy spent almost five years trying in vain to expose communists and other left-wing "loyalty risks" in the U.S. government. In the hyper-suspicious atmosphere of the Cold War, insinuations of disloyalty were enough to convince many Americans that their government was packed with traitors and spies. McCarthy's accusations were so intimidating that few people dared to speak out against him. It was not until he attacked the Army in 1954 that his actions earned him the censure of the U.S. Senate.

The Cold War

In the years after World War II ended, events at home and abroad seemed to many Americans to prove that the "Red menace" was real. In August 1949, for instance, the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb. Later that year, Communist forces declared victory in the Chinese Civil War and established the People's Republic of China. In 1950, North Korea's Soviet-backed army invaded its pro-Western neighbors to the South; in response, the United States entered the conflict on the side of South Korea.

Did you know? Along with the Army-McCarthy hearings, journalist Edward R. Murrow's exposés of McCarthyism played an important role in the senator's downfall. On March 9, 1954, millions of Americans watched as the national news program "See It Now" attacked McCarthy and his methods.

At the same time, the Republican-led House Un-American Activities Committee (known as HUAC) began a determined campaign to extirpate communist subversion at home. HUAC's targets included left-wingers in Hollywood and liberals in the State Department. In 1950, Congress passed the McCarran Internal Security Act, which required that all "subversives" in the United States submit to government supervision. (President Truman vetoed the Act-he said it "would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights"-but a Congressional majority overrode his veto.)

Joseph McCarthy and the Rise of McCarthyism

All of these factors combined to create an atmosphere of fear and dread, which proved a ripe environment for the rise of a staunch anticommunist like Joseph McCarthy. At the time, McCarthy was a first-term senator from Wisconsin who had won election in 1946 after a campaign in which he criticized his opponent's failure to enlist during World War II while emphasizing his own wartime heroics.

In February 1950, appearing at the Ohio County Women's Republican Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, McCarthy gave a speech that propelled him into the national spotlight. Waving a piece of paper in the air, he declared that he had a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who were "working and shaping policy" in the State Department.

The next month, a Senate subcommittee launched an investigation and found no proof of any subversive activity. Moreover, many of McCarthy's Democratic and Republican colleagues, including President Dwight Eisenhower, disapproved of his tactics ("I will not get into the gutter with this guy," the president told his aides). Still, the senator continued his so-called Red-baiting campaign.

In 1953, at the beginning of his second term as senator, McCarthy was put in charge of the Committee on Government Operations, which allowed him to launch even more expansive investigations of the alleged communist infiltration of the federal government. In hearing after hearing, he aggressively interrogated witnesses in what many came to perceive as a blatant violation of their civil rights. Despite a lack of any proof of subversion, more than 2,000 government employees lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy's investigations.

'Have you no sense of decency, sir?'

In April 1954, Senator McCarthy turned his attention to "exposing" the supposed communist infiltration of the armed services. Many people had been willing to overlook their discomfort with McCarthyism during the senator's campaign against government employees and others they saw as "elites"; now, however, their support began to wane. Almost at once, the aura of invulnerability that had surrounded McCarthy for nearly five years began to disappear.

First, the Army undermined the senator's credibility by showing evidence that he had tried to win preferential treatment for his aides when they were drafted. Then came the fatal blow: the decision to broadcast the "Army-McCarthy" hearings on national television. The American people watched as McCarthy intimidated witnesses and offered evasive responses when questioned. When he attacked a young Army lawyer, the Army's chief counsel thundered, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" The Army-McCarthy hearings struck many observers as a shameful moment in American politics.

The Fall of Joseph McCarthy

By the time the hearings were over, McCarthy had lost most of his allies. The Senate voted to condemn him for his "inexcusable," "reprehensible," "vulgar and insulting" conduct "unbecoming a senator." He kept his job but lost his power, and died in 1957 at the age of 48.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Joseph McCarthy - Senator, Cold War & Death | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Joseph R. McCarthy, a U.S. senator from Wisconsin, is best known for his high-profile attempts to expose communists in the U.S. government during the 1950s.

# data[].attributes.headline
The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)

# data[].attributes.subject
The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, investigated allegations of communist activity in the U.S. during the early years of the Cold War (1945-91). Established in 1938, the committee wielded its subpoena power as a weapon and called citizens to testify in high-profile hearings before Congress. This intimidating atmosphere often produced dramatic but questionable revelations about Communists infiltrating American institutions and subversive actions by well-known citizens. HUAC's controversial tactics contributed to the fear, distrust and repression that existed during the anticommunist hysteria of the 1950s. By the late 1950s and early 1960s, HUAC's influence was in decline, and in 1969 it was renamed the Committee on Internal Security. Although it ceased issuing subpoenas that year, its operations continued until 1975.

The Cold War: Investigating the Red Menace

Upon its formation in 1938, the official role of the House Un-American Activities Committee was to investigate Communist and fascist organizations that had become active during the Great Depression, though it also examined the activities of other groups on the political left. From the outset, the committee proved to be a source of political discord. Its defenders argued it uncovered vital information that bolstered national security, while critics charged it was a partisan tool bent on discrediting the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945).

Did you know? One of the members of HUAC in the late 1940s was a first-term U.S. representative from California named Richard Nixon. Nixon played a prominent role in the Alger Hiss spy hearings in 1948; 20 years later, he was elected the 37th president of the United States.

As tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union intensified following World War II (1939-45), the committee took up its investigations of communist activities with new vigor. Particularly after 1947, HUAC assumed new heights of prominence and notoriety, and the committee conducted a series of high-profile hearings alleging that Communists disloyal to the U.S. had infiltrated government, schools, the entertainment industry and many other areas of American life.

Subpoenas and Blacklists

The committee employed several controversial methods to accomplish its goal of ferreting out suspected Communists. Typically, an individual who raised the suspicions of HUAC received a subpoena to appear before the committee. During the hearing, the suspected Communist was grilled about his or her political beliefs and activities and then asked to provide the names of other people who had taken part in allegedly subversive activities. Any additional figures identified in this manner also received subpoenas, widening the committee's probe.

Individuals who refused to answer the committee's questions or to provide names could be indicted for contempt of Congress and sent to prison. Subjects of HUAC investigations had the option of invoking their right to avoid self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, but "pleading the Fifth" created the impression that they were guilty of a crime. In addition, those who refused to cooperate were often blacklisted by their employers. They lost their jobs and were effectively prevented from working in their chosen industry.

Critics claimed that HUAC's tactics amounted to a witch hunt that trampled on citizens' rights and ruined their careers and reputations. These critics argued that most people who were called before the committee had broken no laws, but instead were targeted for their political beliefs or for exercising their right to free speech. Supporters of the committee, on the other hand, believed that its efforts were justified given the grave threat to U.S. security posed by communism.

Targeting Hollywood and Alger Hiss

The HUAC investigations delved into many areas of American life, but they paid special attention to the motion picture industry, which was believed to harbor a large number of Communists. Not wishing to get on the wrong side of Congress or the movie-going public, most film industry executives did not speak out against the investigations. In addition, many of the major studios imposed a strict blacklist policy against actors, directors, writers and other personnel implicated in Communist activity.

The film industry investigations reached their peak with the events surrounding the Hollywood Ten, a group of writers and directors who were called to testify in October 1947. The all-male group of screenwriters, producers and directors (Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Jr., John Howard Larson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo) refused to cooperate with the investigation and used their HUAC appearances to denounce the committee's tactics. All were cited for contempt of Congress and sentenced to prison terms, in addition to being blacklisted from working in Hollywood.

HUAC also sounded an alarm about Communists infiltrating the federal government. The most infamous case began in August 1948, when a self-confessed former member of the American Communist Party named Whittaker Chambers (1901-61) appeared before the committee. During his dramatic testimony, Chambers accused Alger Hiss (1904-96), a former high-ranking State Department official, of serving as a spy for the Soviet Union. Based on allegations and evidence provided by Chambers, Hiss was found guilty of perjury and served 44 months in prison. He spent the rest of his life proclaiming his innocence and decrying his wrongful prosecution.

Hiss' conviction bolstered claims that HUAC was performing a valuable service to the nation by uncovering Communist espionage. The suggestion that Communist agents had infiltrated senior levels of the U.S. government also added to the widespread fear that "Reds" (a term derived from the red Soviet flag) posed a serious threat to the nation. HUAC's work served as a blueprint for the tactics employed by U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s. McCarthy led an aggressive anticommunist campaign of his own that made him a powerful and feared figure in American politics. His reign of terror came to an end in 1954, when the news media revealed his unethical tactics and he was censured by his colleagues in Congress.

By the late 1950s and early 1960s, HUAC's relevance was in decline, and in 1969, it was renamed the Committee on Internal Security. Although it ceased issuing subpoenas that year, its operations continued until 1975.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, investigated allegations of communist activity in the U.S. during the early years of the Cold War (1945-91). Established in 1938, the committee wielded its subpoena power as a weapon and called citizens to testify in high-profile hearings before Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation: C N Trueman "What was the Cold War?"
historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 25 May 2015. 3 May 2018.

The Cold War is the name given to the relationship that developed primarily between the USA and the USSR after World War Two. The Cold War was to dominate international affairs for decades and many major crises occurred - the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Hungary and the Berlin Wall being just some. For many, the growth in weapons of mass destruction was the most worrying issue.

A clash of very different beliefs and ideology - capitalism versus communism - each held with almost religious conviction, formed the basis of an international power struggle with both sides vying for dominance, exploiting every opportunity for expansion anywhere in the world.

Note that USSR in 1945 was Russia post-1917 and included all the various countries that now exist individually (Ukraine, Georgia etc) but after the war they were part of this huge country up until the collapse of the Soviet Union (the other name for the USSR).

Logic would dictate that as the USA and the USSR fought as allies during World War Two, their relationship after the war would be firm and friendly. This never happened and any appearance that these two powers were friendly during the war is illusory.

Before the war, America had depicted the Soviet Union as almost the devil-incarnate. The Soviet Union had depicted America likewise so their 'friendship' during the war was simply the result of having a mutual enemy - Nazi Germany. In fact, one of America's leading generals, Patton, stated that he felt that the Allied army should unite with what was left of the Wehrmacht in 1945, utilise the military genius that existed within it (such as the V2's etc.) and fight the oncoming Soviet Red Army. Churchill himself was furious that Eisenhower, as supreme head of Allied command, had agreed that the Red Army should be allowed to get to Berlin first ahead of the Allied army. His anger was shared by Montgomery, Britain's senior military figure.

So the extreme distrust that existed during the war, was certainly present before the end of the war........and this was between Allies. The Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, was also distrustful of the Americans after Truman only told him of a new terrifying weapon that he was going to use against the Japanese. The first Stalin knew of what this weapon could do was when reports on Hiroshima got back to Moscow.

So this was the scene after the war ended in 1945. Both sides distrusted the other. One had a vast army in the field (the Soviet Union with its Red Army supremely lead by Zhukov) while the other, the Americans had the most powerful weapon in the world, the A-bomb and the Soviets had no way on knowing how many America had.

So what exactly was the Cold War?

In diplomatic terms there are three types of war.

this is actual warfare. All talks have failed and the armies are fighting.

this is where talks are still going on and there would always be a chance of a peaceful outcome but armies, navies etc. are being fully mobilised and war plans are being put into operation ready for the command to fight.

this term is used to describe the relationship between America and the Soviet Union 1945 to 1980. Neither side ever fought the other - the consequences would be too appalling - but they did 'fight' for their beliefs using client states who fought for their beliefs on their behalf e.g. South Vietnam was anticommunist and was supplied by America during the war while North Vietnam was pro-Communist and fought the south (and the Americans) using weapons from communist Russia or communist China. In Afghanistan, the Americans supplied the rebel Afghans after the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 while they never physically involved themselves thus avoiding a direct clash with the Soviet Union.

The one time this process nearly broke down was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

So why were these two super powers so distrustful of each other?

This lack of mutually understanding an alien culture, would lead the world down a very dangerous path - it led to the development of weapons of awesome destructive capability and the creation of some intriguing policies such as MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.
See also: Cold War Timeline and Causes of the Cold War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What was the Cold War? - History Learning Site

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Cold War is the name given to the relationship that developed primarily between the USA and the USSR after World War Two. The Cold War was to dominate international affairs for decades and many major crises occurred - the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Hungary and the Berlin Wall being just some.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The leader of Communist Russia, Joseph Stalin, was paranoid of opposition. It was this paranoia that led to the Great Purge where millions of people were

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

On May 10, 1933 student groups at universities across Germany carried out a series of book burnings of works that the students and leading Nazi party members associated with an "un-German spirit." Enthusiastic crowds witnessed the burning of books by Brecht, Einstein, Freud, Mann and Remarque, among many other well-known intellectuals, scientists and cultural figures, many of whom were Jewish. The largest of these book bonfires occurred in Berlin, where an estimated 40,000 people gathered to hear a speech by the propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, in which he pronounced that "Jewish intellectualism is dead" and endorsed the students' "right to clean up the debris of the past."

The response to the book burnings was immediate and widespread. Counter demonstrations took place in New York and other American cities, including Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Chicago. Journalists in the American and world press expressed shock and dismay at these attacks on German intellectual freedom, and various authors wrote in support of their assaulted German brethren. Artists, writers, doctors, and other intellectuals fled Germany, prompted by the barbarity of the book burnings and by continuing acts of Nazi persecution.

Such barbarity was just the beginning, however. One can see in retrospect how the book burnings and other steps to remove "Jewish influence" from German institutions foreshadowed much more catastrophic Nazi plans for the Jews of Europe. Eerily, among the books consigned to the flames in 1933 were the works of the nineteenth century Jewish poet Heinrich Heine, who in 1822 penned the prophetic words, "Where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings too."

The following bibliography was compiled to guide readers to selected materials on the 1933 book burnings that are in the Library's collection. It is not meant to be exhaustive. Annotations are provided to help the user determine the item's focus, and call numbers for the Museum's Library are given in parentheses following each citation. Those unable to visit might be able to find these works in a nearby public library or acquire them through interlibrary loan. Follow the "Find in a library near you" link in each citation and enter your zip code at the Open WorldCat search screen. The results of that search indicate all libraries in your area that own that particular title. Talk to your local librarian for assistance.

Background Information

Whitfield, Stephen J. " Where They Burn Books..." (external link) Modern Judaism 22, no. 3 (2002): 213-233. (BM 195 .M63 v.22) [ Find in a library near you (external link)]

Examines the occasions throughout history when Jewish religious and literary works have been singled out for destruction and relates how this destruction has often been associated with violence against Jews. Reviews how acts of book burning have been treated in Jewish literary history. Includes bibliographic references.

Book Burnings of 1933

English

Stern, Guy. " The Burning of the Books in Nazi Germany, 1933: The American Response." (external link) Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual 2, (1985): 95-114. (D 804.3 .S5953 1984 v.2) [ Find in a library near you (external link)]

Explores the response to the Nazi book burnings among many outraged literary figures and the burnings' later use as a political lightning rod among the growing community of German exiles in the United States. Includes bibliographic references.

German

Related Works

English

German

Film and Video

Web Resources

Exhibitions: Fighting the Fires of Hate / America and the Nazi Book Burnings

On online exhibition created in conjunction with the special exhibit, "Fighting the Fires of Hate/America and the Nazi Book Burnings," held at the Museum from April 30, 2003 through October 13, 2003. Reviews the history and significance of the book burnings, the immediate American responses to the event, the use of the book burnings in wartime American propaganda, and the ongoing symbolism of book burnings as a counterpoint to the free exchange of ideas. Provides a partial list of targeted authors and burned books, with excerpts from these works and background on each author, and offers video of a discussion between the exhibit curators on the history and symbolism of the Nazi book burnings. Includes the reproductions of numerous photographs, book covers, propaganda posters, and historically significant documents, along with historical film footage. Also provides an online discussion board for addressing themes presented in the exhibit.

When Books Burn (external link)

Online exhibit sponsored by the University of Arizona Library documenting the Nazi book burnings. Reprints the texts (in both German and English) of some of the speeches, chants and declarations delivered on May 10, 1933. Provides a timeline of events surrounding the burnings and a list of books banned by the Nazis. Includes a bibliography, lesson plans for teachers, and photographs.

Additional Resources

Subject Files

Ask at the reference desk to see the following subject files for newspaper and periodical articles:

Subject Headings

To search library catalogs or other electronic search tools for materials about the Nazi book burnings and the fate of literature during the Third Reich use the following Library of Congress subject headings to retrieve the most relevant citations:

Book burning

Censorship--Germany

Exiles--Germany

German literature--Jewish authors

German literature--20th century

National socialism and literature

Prohibited books--Germany

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On May 10, 1933 student groups at universities across Germany carried out a series of book burnings of works that the students and leading Nazi party members associated with an "un-German spirit." Enthusiastic crowds witnessed the burning of books by Brecht, Einstein, Freud, Mann and Remarque, among many other well-known intellectuals, scientists and cultural figures, many of whom were Jewish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1984 (1956) EXCLUSIVE New Widescreen Trailer (720p HD)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Exclusive New Widescreen Trailer in HD. Watch the full feature in 720p HD. https://vimeo.com/midnightpixondemand/vod_pages MIDNIGHTPIX ON DEMAND. Rent for $0.99/1-week streaming period. Buy for $2.99/Stream + download anytime on any device. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/midnightpix For Exclusive Previews go to our Vimeo Channel: https://vimeo.com/channels/midnightpix

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Directed by Michael Radford. With John Hurt, Richard Burton, Suzanna Hamilton, Cyril Cusack. In a totalitarian future society, a man, whose daily work is re-writing history, tries to rebel by falling in love.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Directed by Michael Anderson. With Edmond O'Brien, Michael Redgrave, Jan Sterling, David Kossoff. In a totalitarian future society, Winston Smith, whose daily work is re-writing history, tries to rebel by falling in love.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Directed by François Truffaut. With Oskar Werner, Julie Christie, Cyril Cusack, Anton Diffring. In an oppressive future, a fireman whose duty is to destroy all books begins to question his task.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
was published by George Orwell, or Eric Blair, in 1948. Fahrenheit 451 was published in 1951 by Ray Bradbury. Both are works of dystopian fiction, though of a somewhat different nature. In this essay, I hope to illustrate the differences and similarities between the two novels.

One of the most glaring similarities, perhaps, is the character development arc. Both main characters, at the start, lead meaningless, bland lives; one day, a girl (or woman) appears, changing them forever; they rebel completely against their society, but eventually they calm down.

However, the character of Guy Montag (Fahrenheit 451) ultimately triumphs - he evades the government, finds peace in a community of like-minded people, and escapes destruction in the nuclear war. Winston Smith, on the other hand, fails and eventually submits to brainwashing.

While the theme of a government which alters history is present in both of said books, the alteration is much more in the foreground of than it is in Fahrenheit 451, and it is used extensively to indicate the nature of the regime itself.

This is shown in the way Orwell transitions from a war with Eurasia, changing suddenly to a war with Eastasia halfway through, to an ending of: "Oceania was at war with Eurasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia".

In both novels, the idea of a hugely desensitised society, where (in Fahrenheit 451) children run people over and shoot one another for fun and (in such things as footage of "a ship full of refugees being bombed" and "a wonderful shot of a child's arm going up" are used for amusement.

The role of Smith in the vast machine of the party is similar to that of the "Fireman" Guy Montag in that he frequently alters writing (as incineration is also a form of alteration) to suit the needs of those in power. However, the figures IN power are fundamentally different.

For example, while both of the books involve war as a background, the nature of war in is fundamentally different from that of Fahrenheit 451, as Orwell's concept of war is that of a tool for the perpetuation of scarcity and paranoia, while Bradbury's is all-out total annihilation.

Furthermore, the government in relies largely on brainwashing and totalitarian policies that involve mass surveillance and spies, with organisations, namely the Spies and the Youth League, similar to the Hitler Youth: "'You're a traitor!' yelled the boy". In short, the Party cares for the thought, not the act.

In contrast, Bradbury's government keeps tabs on all those who deviate from the majority, but does not care too much about thoughts of rebellion. It prefers to use television to numb the minds of the population and it will gladly burn the opposition to reach this goal, be they books or humans.

In short, both societies are desensitised, with governments that control the people through the control of the flow of information and a system whereby deviants are simply marked down and eliminated. However, the novels are noticeably different on a fine level, from the writer's perspective to the book's atmosphere.

Apart from anything else, can also be considered a sort of satirical romance, whereas Fahrenheit 451 has no real element of romance whatsoever. It involves an inner conflict and occasionally uses Montag's wife as a McGuffin, while in 1984 Julia's relationship is the act of rebellion in itself.

The setting is in fact post-nuclear war for both books ("We've started and won two atomic wars since 2022", "when the atom bomb was dropped on Coventry"), though of course the effects these wars have had on the respective settings of both books is very different.

For example, in Fahrenheit 451, the USA has emerged from at least two wars victorious and eventually embroils itself in another one, causing the obliteration of at least one of its cities ("City looks like a heap of baking powder").

On the contrary, in the nuclear war has stopped any further use of atomic weapons and in fact has ensured the dictatorships will remain stable forever. The idea behind this is a possible reference to the theory of mutually-assured destruction, or MAD for short.

As well as this, in Orwell's universe tactics revolve around the use of extremely large vessels known as "Floating Fortresses" to defend strategic areas ("the new Floating Fortress anchored between Iceland and the Faroe Islands") and consciously fanciful research projects ("producing artificial earthquakes").

The focus, it is to be noted, of Fahrenheit 451 is that of a silent revolution going on outside the vision of the government, whereas in 1984 it is that of a depressed world where there is no 'outside the vision of the government', because the government sees and knows all.

As well as this, there is the character of O'brien, seen as an intelligent, powerful and utterly invincible zealot, who is seen as the primary antagonist of the novel, contrasted with Beatty, a disillusioned but ultimately expendable character, killed off by Montag at the end of the book.

The government, although occasionally referred to in either novel, remains largely a mystery in Fahrenheit 451, but in its structure is well-explained and understood; in fact, the inner workings of Smith's rulers is key to the plot of the book.

In conclusion, I will re-state my earlier point that the two books have many fine, inconspicuous differences that nonetheless very much separate them under close examination. Therefore, one can safely say they are very different novels while at the same time putting them in the same category.
Buy 1984 for $11.28 with free worldwide delivery Buy a study guide to 1984 for $7.08 with free worldwide delivery. Buy Fahrenheit 451 for $9.72 with free worldwide delivery. Buy the study guide to Fahrenheit 451 for $22.37 with free worldwide delivery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1984 versus Fahrenheit 451 - a comparison - EscapeArtistes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
was published by George Orwell, or Eric Blair, in 1948. Fahrenheit 451 was published in 1951 by Ray Bradbury. Both are works of dystopian fiction, though of a somewhat different nature. In this essay, I hope to illustrate the differences and similarities between the two novels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fahrenheit 451 devrait bientôt débarquer sur le petit écran. Après l'adaptation au cinéma de François Truffaut sortie en 1966, le roman de Ray Bradbury s'apprête à revenir sur les devants de la scène. Selon le site The Wrap, HBO est actuellement en préparation d'un téléfilm basé sur ce classique de la science-fiction.

Publié en 1953, Fahrenheit 451 propose une vision effrayante du futur. Dans une société oppressante où les livres sont bannis, Guy Montag est un pompier chargé de brûler des livres. Ce dernier devient un dangereux criminel le jour où il rencontre une jeune femme et décide de lire. Le titre fait référence à la température, exprimée en degrés Fahrenheit, où le papier se consume et s'enflamme.

Pour l'adaptation, la chaîne a fait confiance à Ramin Bahrani, qui se chargera de l'écriture et de la réalisation du téléfilm. L'Américain d'origine iranienne s'est déjà fait remarquer ces dernières années avec son film 99 Homes qui a remporté le Grand Prix du Festival du cinéma américain de Deauville en 2015.

Guillaume Asskari

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La chaîne américaine HBO prépare une adaptation de Fahrenheit 451

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fahrenheit 451 devrait bientôt débarquer sur le petit écran. Après l'adaptation au cinéma de François Truffaut sortie en 1966, le roman de Ray Bradbury s'apprête à revenir sur les devants de la scène. Selon le site The Wrap, HBO est actuellement en préparation d'un téléfilm basé sur ce classique de la science-fiction.

# data[].attributes.body
Released in 1966

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Farenheit 451: un plaidoyer pour la liberté - Zéchiel Breton-Houle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Il est certain que le récit dystopique de Ray Bradbury comporte plusieurs aspects excessivement importants tant de par le regard cynique et critique que cet ouvrage porte sur ce que certains qui sont plus en peu nombreux, appellent le droit à ne pas être offusqué (induisant le political correctness ambiant d'aujourd'hui) ou encore la vision future d'une Amérique qui n'a plus grand-chose d'inconnu pour nous.

# data[].attributes.headline
                                         1984 by GEORGE ORWELL

# data[].attributes.subject
                                         1984 by GEORGE ORWELL

# data[].attributes.headline
                                   FAHRENHEIT 451 by RAY BRADBURY

# data[].attributes.subject
                                   FAHRENHEIT 451 by RAY BRADBURY

# data[].attributes.headline
                          INFORMATIONS ABOUT THE TEXTS

# data[].attributes.subject
                          INFORMATIONS ABOUT THE TEXTS