Last week, Warner Bros released some news that would probably have the most hardcore feminists on their feet. Warner Bros has decided to make a remake of the classic "Lord of the Flies." The original book, written by William Golding in 1954, is about a group of young boys who crash on an island. With nothing but their wits, the boys must learn to survive; they have to figure out how to hunt and camp. But what starts out as a sad survival story about a group of young boys who need help turns into a brutal exposure of mankind's darkest secret: our unconscious savagery. Taking place after WWII, the book dives deep into how a couple of young innocent boys can turn into blood-thirsty savages because deep down inside, that's what all humans contain: savagery, anger and jealousy. While the original plot was an all-male cast, the new version is going to have a big twist. It's an all-female cast.
While I'm all for equality — and I mean it, I'm the biggest feminist you'll probably find — I'm not ready for this all-female cast. It's like asking for an all-male cast of "Mean Girls." It just won't be the same. The point of this classic book is to show the aggressive side of men, to show how beneath our logic and reasoning, there will always be chaos and savagery.
I'm not saying that women can't be aggressive and savage. Have you seen us in the shoe section on a Black Friday? But save it for another plot. Doing this type of remake of the movie would destroy the book's entire point. The point of the book is to show man's dark side. The story is beautifully written, and that's why it's a classic, even in today's society which is all about equality. The story exposes a male audience on purpose, and you can't twist that. It defeats the purpose of the book.
While an all-female cast would be somewhat empowering by showing women can be just as savage, we also have to look at another perspective to realize that an all-female cast just won't do. The background of Golding's story comes from Golding's personal experience. Remember how the story itself takes place after WWII? That setting was done on purpose because Golding fought in WWII. He saw the savagery of soldiers on the battlefield, how they were tested and pushed to the point where killing was just a job. The enemy was the enemy and nothing more. Soldiers were trained to think like robots, to not realize that their enemy also had wives and children, brothers and sisters. During WWII, it was rare for women to be on the front and fighting, and that's the purity of the story. It comes from Golding's pure experience. Putting women in the story just wouldn't fit the historical setting.
Don't get me wrong; today, a group of young girls can be just as savage, just as dark and just as evil as a group of young boys if their survival skills are put to the test. But we're talking about changing a classic. A classic with an amazingly-written plot and deep meaning. Some classics should just remain the way they are. After all, that's why they're classics.
Who knows? 50 years from now, "Mean Girls" might be the future's classic, and let's be honest: no one could ever replace Lindsay Lohan.
