There was a time when the phrase Big Brother meant a whole lot more than an increasingly freakish reality TV show. It is such grotesque legitimisation of surveillance culture as public spectacle, however, which in part fuels While this new version adapts Orwell's novel in full, the starting point for Icke and Macmillan was not the novel itself, which charts
"The appendix really changes your perception of the main story," Icke says of The Principles of Newspeak, which refers to the novel's ideologically driven minimalist language. "It's a strange part of the novel, that's written as an academic essay in oldspeak and in the past tense.
"There's a footnote in the novel that refers to the appendix, so really, you should read the first five pages of the novel and then go to the appendix, which says that Newspeak should have been the official language by 2050, but also implies that it didn't happen.
"So clearly the appendix is set in a future time after the novel has ended, which raises all sorts of questions about the reliability of the text that you've just read. Clearly
"In this respect the narrative of the book becomes slippier and harder to pin down than it first appears to be, and it's a much more ambiguous novel than you think. The left have claimed it as a novel of the political left, and the right have claimed it as a novel of the political right, but it's actually very difficult to get the book to fall on one side or the other.
"It's very balanced in that way, and at the book's heart is this love story that takes up great chunks of the book alongside these questions about what do we do when we live in an age where people don't trust politicians and the system is broken.
"The story is set during an age of austerity when there is disenchantment with the political system, so it's not that far removed from where we are now, especially with Wikileaks and
"There's this whole idea of surveillance culture, and whether it's ever justified for the government to read your emails if it helps to stop certain things like terrorist plots.
"1984 also asks questions about what happens if you have no faith in the current government, how you change that, and what power do you actually have to protest? Can one man change the world without resorting to violence, and what is the point of going on a march if it has no discernible effect?
"It's much bigger than just getting out the blue overalls and having the actors learn to march in step. Our take on 1984 isn't about doing it as gritty realism. It's much more dream-like."
The last time 1984 was seen on a main stage was more than a decade ago, when former Dundee Rep artistic director
Like Lyddiard's production, Icke and Macmillan's version uses video and sound and a large ensemble cast to tell Orwell's tale in spectacular fashion. While this in itself makes for a thrilling theatrical experience, Icke and Macmillan have attempted to push things even further to get to the heart of the story.
"So often in theatre it's more comfortable not to have an effect on the audience," Icke says. "You go along, watch a show and leave, picking up the same conversation you were having before you went.
"With our version of 1984, we felt that we had to try harder to be visceral, and to try and capture that spirit of the book that leaves you feeling steam-rollered, and we have had some pretty visceral reactions.
"We've had people running out and people being sick, and that's how it should be. If you try and sanitise things then you're not doing it properly.
"Our approach to 1984 is fundamentally like a lot of really good horror films. A lot of the novel slips in and out of
1984 is at
There was a time when the phrase Big Brother meant a whole lot more than an increasingly freakish reality TV show. It is such grotesque legitimisation of surveillance culture as public spectacle, however, which in part fuels
While this new version adapts Orwell's novel in full, the starting point for Icke and Macmillan was not the novel itself, which charts