George Orwell

Orwell and the CIA

The CIA's influence on cultural productions during the Cold War era has been a subject of intrigue, with notable example being the film adaptations of George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm". Journalist and historian Francis Saunders in her written investigation "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters", proves CIA's involvement with funding the films "Animal Farm" and 1984. American intelligence officer and prolific author E. Howard Hunt wrote about his involvement with the funding of the film "Animal Farm". Hunt served as an officer in the Central Intelligence Agency from 1949 to 1970.

Animal Farm

In the early 1950s, the CIA embarked on an ambitious venture to harness the power of film for psychological operations (PsyOps) during the Cold War. The CIA agency strategically utilized its influence to mold cultural narratives that aligned with its anti-communist stance. At the heart of this covert endeavor was the adaptation of George Orwell's allegorical novella, "Animal Farm", which emerged as a prime candidate for the CIA's intervention in shaping public perceptions. Howard Hunt, a seasoned CIA operative with a background in espionage and a successful career as a novelist, spearheaded the initiative.

Hunt strategically obtained the film rights from Sonia Orwell, George Orwell's widow, who, unaware of the CIA's involvement, was motivated by financial interests and a desire to meet Clark Gable. To create a buffer between the agency and the project, producer Louis de Rochemont, known for his anti-communist stance, was enlisted.

The Marshall Plan funds, originally intended for post-World War II European reconstruction, took an unexpected turn when a portion of these funds was diverted for a covert operation known as Operation Mockingbird. Under the direction of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), these funds were used to finance the production of the animated film adaptation of "Animal Farm".

The animated adaptation of "Animal Farm" found itself in the hands of the British animation duo John Halas and Joy Batchelor. The CIA's interest in this project was not a mere coincidence. Halas and Batchelor, with their experience in wartime propaganda animation, proved to be instrumental in advancing the agency's covert cultural agenda. The synergy between British talent and the CIA's ideological goals exemplifies the broader collaboration between intelligence agencies and creative forces during this period.

The film's production, however, encountered significant challenges. Script revisions became a battleground where Hunt, driven by the CIA's anti-Soviet agenda, clashed with the filmmakers, Joy Batchelor and John Halas. The CIA insisted on alterations to the characters, especially the animal allegories of Stalin and Trotsky, making them less sympathetic. Additionally, the CIA sought to diminish the story's critique of capitalism by portraying all farmers as not inherently bad.

The film's climax centered on the ending and its perceived endorsement of anarchism, a narrative that clashed with the CIA's evolving imperialist agenda. As John Stuart Martin, a writer of propaganda films, joined the project, pressure mounted to align the narrative with the agency's ideological objectives.

The production faced prolonged delays and escalating costs as Batchelor and Halas, committed to Orwell's original vision, resisted the imposed changes. The CIA, cognizant of the scrutiny over diverted Marshall Plan funds, issued a decisive ultimatum, threatening to withdraw additional financing unless their narrative alterations were accepted.

In a last-ditch effort, Halas suggested reverting to the original, more ambiguous ending, but the CIA held firm. The ending of the film was changed to remove the scene where the pigs are sitting and celebrating with the humans, instead the pigs are by themselves. The films revisionist ending has the animals creating a new revolution and overthrowing the pigs. The film, completed in 1954 after three years of production, reflected a compromise that favored the agency's anti-totalitarian agenda. The narration, voiced by American actor Gordon Heath, was meticulously controlled by the CIA, serving as the final instrument to convey their intended message. Vivien Halas, daughter of John Halas and Joy Batchelor, has said — "The changes came about as the film evolved. There were at least nine versions of the script and heated discussions about the end. My mother especially felt it was wrong to change the ending".

While the film mostly adheres to Orwell's allegory, subtle modifications were made to serve the CIA's anti-communist narrative and to decrease the anti-Stalinist angle of the original novel. The portrayal of the pigs, representing the Soviet leadership, becomes a vehicle for critiquing the oppressive nature of communism. The nuanced alterations in character dynamics and plot elements echo the CIA's strategic effort to emphasize the failures of the Soviet system.

The film was distributed around the world by the United States Information Agency (USIA) through its overseas libraries. "Animal Farm" premiered on December 29, 1954, marking a significant achievement as the first feature-length animated film from the UK. The film's production had been an extensive endeavor, requiring 300,000 man-hours and 250,000 drawings. Despite the monumental effort, reviews were mixed. Left-leaning critics criticized its broad condemnation of communism, while right-wing critics argued it didn't go far enough. The revised ending faced particularly harsh opposition in the UK, and the film can be considered a commercial flop by contemporary standards.

There was an ironic twist in the fact that George Orwell, a Democratic Socialist critical of totalitarianism, had an adaptation funded by the CIA.

However, Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's anti-communist propaganda effort, continued until its exposure by investigative journalists in the 1970s. This revelation uncovered a vast network of influence, co-opting writers from major publications. Meanwhile, Howard Hunt had moved on to new challenges, actively participating in anti-communist operations, notably the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion in an attempt to depose Fidel Castro. The geopolitical landscape had shifted, with a real and proximate threat to national security emerging from a Soviet puppet state just 90 miles from the United States.

In essence, "Animal Farm" stands as a cinematic artifact illustrating the covert influence of intelligence agencies on cultural production during a critical period in the ideological struggle of the Cold War.

1984 (1956)

Examining key individuals associated with the film "1984" made in 1956, such as director Michael Anderson and actor Michael Redgrave, reveals their history in wartime propaganda films—a connection that adds depth to the CIA's influence on cinematic endeavors.

The film's deviation from Orwell's original work becomes apparent, raising suspicions of external involvement. Changes in terminology, such as replacing "vaporizing" with "liquidating," and renaming the memory hole as the "vaporizer," suggest deliberate alterations. These modifications, seemingly inconspicuous, hint at a larger agenda, prompting speculation that the CIA played a role in steering the narrative to suit its own objectives.

The film's shortcomings, including the strange and off-putting miscasting of Edmond O'Brien and Jan Sterling, point to a potential lack of genuine artistic intent. The suggestion that the CIA aimed to create a deliberately unpleasant and tedious portrayal of life in a Soviet-like totalitarian state raises questions about the agency's motives. The film's overt anti-communist stance and its depiction of a futuristic, dystopian world align with the broader Cold War context, where the U.S. sought to counter Soviet influence.

Despite the film generally lacking in artistic quality, the film did give birth to the iconic "Big Brother is Watching You" image. This symbol has permeated alternative media, serving as an unwitting emblem of rebellion against the very system it represents. The film's impact on popular culture underscores the agency's ability to influence narratives subtly and underscores the power of cultural manipulation.

In essence, the CIA's involvement in the film adaptation of "1984" extends beyond mere cinematic production. It reflects a calculated effort to either subvert or co-opt Orwell's anti-totalitarian message, using the medium of film to influence public perception. What the agency did was appropriate a work that condemns the very authoritarianism it sought to combat, highlighting the intricate web of cultural subversion during a critical period in history.

It is a bitter irony that Orwell who hated propaganda, became himself a propaganda tool during Cold War and that two of his film adaptations were funded by CIA.

So-called "Orwell's List

In 2003 Guardian published material which claimed that George Orwell created a list of individuals whom he considered unsuitable for participating in anti-communist propaganda activities conducted by the Information Research Department (IRD), a secret propaganda organization of the British state under the Foreign Office.The list, prepared in 1949 shortly before Orwell's death, was a compilation of names of people whom Orwell deemed sympathetic to Stalinism and, as a result, unsuitable for involvement in the IRD's propaganda efforts. Celia Kirwan, a close friend of Orwell and an assistant to Robert Conquest at the IRD, visited Orwell at a sanatorium where he was being treated for tuberculosis. Orwell provided Kirwan with the list, and it was enclosed in a letter. Release of George Orwell's list in 2003 brought attention to a previously unknown aspect of his activities, particularly in relation to the Information Research Department (IRD). The sudden appearance of the list after many years suggests that it might have been fabricated with intent to smear the reputation of the writer.

The release of George Orwell's list in 2003 could indeed be seen as a moment when the political and social climate might have influenced the decision to bring it into public view. It's important to consider the broader context of the early 2000s, which included concerns about government surveillance, debates over civil liberties, and the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. These factors could have contributed to a reevaluation of historical figures and their associations.

Orwell's "1984" is a dystopian novel that explores themes of totalitarianism, government surveillance, and the manipulation of truth. In the early 2000s, with increasing awareness of government surveillance programs and debates over civil liberties in the context of the War on Terror, Orwell's work gained renewed relevance.

George Orwell who became a Cold war warrior against his will and his works were put on a pedestal as anti-communist propaganda tool suddenly became not so useful for ruling elite anymore. Sociey was becaoming Orwellian and faking documents was a common case in dirty tricks with culture.