Fahrenheit 451: Happiness in Red

Fahrenheit 451 (1960)
Being modern: Happiness in red

The film Fahrenheit 451 (1966) is Francois Truffaut adaptation of Ray Bradbury’s science fiction novel of the same name. Published in 1953 as a reaction to the censorship and the thread of book burning in the United States during the McCarthy era[1], Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451: a dystopian society ruled by a totalitarian state in which citizens are controlled and desensitized through media (television and graphic comics with no words), prescription drugs, and modernity. Using visual semiotics, Francois Truffaut illustrates the tactics employed by the totalitarian state to exercise absolute control over the people in order to suppress dissent and achieve “equality”: TV screens become brainwashing machines that dominate everyday life, with shows that encourage compliance and news that forecast the consequences of disobedience. A vacuous modern life is cultivated in the cold, impersonal interiors, shown in the main character’s house, Guy Montag. The architecture is constructed as tessellations of clean lines, neutral colors and soberness that lock everybody into a system of conformity.



Firemen are both enforcers of the law and, simultaneously, controlled by the system by being objectified through branding: the firemen use of black uniforms labeled with the number 451 (the temperature in which books catch fire), and their own labeling with a number in their personal files (the number of their street address). Also, a loss of identity is evident in the ways in which series of head portraits, taken from the back, become the icon that stands for the essence of a person—as if their faces, like their souls, were erased.

The totalitarian regime is represented by the color red, which symbolizes the Soviet Union Red Army—formally dissolved in 1946—and it is embodied by the firemen as the supreme authority, as an ubiquitous force that permeates every aspect of both private and public life; the red fire truck is like a dagger going through skin, red frames adorning a school hallway, and Montag wearing red pajamas in the privacy of his home. The red firetruck against the green landscape becomes an artificial object that forcefully penetrates nature as it penetrates people’s lives.
Montag, who is in charge of burning all the found books, goes through a transformation—a change of heart—when he meets a school professor who sparks his curiosity by asking him if he ever reads any of the books before burning them. In one of the inquiries he keeps a book, and then another one, and another one, until his house is full of them, hidden everywhere. Very quickly he is enchanted by the books and becomes an avid, or better said, a compulsive reader. His rebellion against the system is manifested in his inability to use the firehouse pole to go in and out of the building as if his body was in complete collusion with his mind.


Once Montag starts breaking the law by reading books, he wears a white robe on top of his red pajamas and reads extensively; he is no longer controlled by the systems, he is in control of his life.  As the movie progresses, and Montag reads more books, the bathrobe also transforms, taking the shape of a monk’s robe. When Montag starts defying the law his sense of compliance, of following the rules, becomes damaged, as Truffaut illustrates in Montag’s inability to use the firehouse pole to go in and out.


Fahrenheit 451 is evidently a critique of modern society and the danger of censorship. The transition from oppression (city life) to freedom (natural scenario) gives the viewer a complete new palette of free-floating oral narratives filing up the realm of nature.

Fashioning Dystopia

 François Truffaut’s 1966 Fahrenheit 451 utilizes the clothing of its main characters to evaluate the uniformity of binding totalitarianism. The film, set in a controlled dystopia, begins by following the daily routine of a firefighter, Guy Montag (Oskar Werner).  Firefighters do not aid the society by putting out fires but instead are public enforcers who light the matches. The firemen burn books, objects feared by those in a society where text is prohibited. After a day of book searching, procuring and burning the communally despised publications, Montag returns home to his wife Linda (Julie Christie) whose focuse centers on federal prescribed drugs and televisions shows.  

The film begins by watching Montag move through a series of modern design, from furniture to architecture, highlighting the community’s uniformity.  Yet, it is the clothing that represents the greatest uniformity and suggest the greatest critique. When dressed for work, Montag dons a black sweater with black fitted trousers, completed with gloves, a helmet and boots. The uniform bears striking resemblance to that of a military variety and due to the fit and structure of the garments, reminds the viewer of a German Nazi solider. The firemen stand in unison, moving as one unit. The individual is lost amongst the group, unified by their clothing. The association of uniform and power is compounded by the modernized Germanic aesthetic. The clothing does not allow for self-expression or individuality, notions not valued in this society.

The school which Montag and his new acquaintance Clarisse (also played by Julie Christie) visit also presents a commentary on the totalitarianism found within the film. While many of the students are not seen, they are heard chanting throughout the hallways as the camera glides across images of identical coats. As Clarisse moves through the hall, attempting to discover why she was fired, she comes across old students clad in uniforms of overalls and shirts. When the first student runs away in tears, Montag comforts her by suggest it was her lack of uniform which frightened the child. While this isn’t the case, Clarisse is momentarily reassured by this, suggesting that the children wouldn’t recognize her without her uniform. This scenario further speaks to the desire for this community to exist within orderly uniforms, suggesting that individuality presents dissonance and complications.  

Similarly, the other women and men seen throughout the film are bland, impossible to distinguish from one another. When Linda is in the house, even amongst friends, she wears a robe, void of personal embellishment or character. Her robe represents her lack of individuality and her desire to exist without it.

The costuming for this film contrasts with the current clothing of the period. The 1960s is known in fashion history for its innovation and youth-focused creations. The mini skirt and space age inspired fashion offer examples of how the fashion of the moment was youthful, revealing and lighthearted. While the clothing in Fahrenheit 451 has a similar aesthetic to 1960s clothing, the uniformity and suppression found within the film harshly conflicts with the fashion of the moment. The film uses the modernism aesthetic to critique the lack of individuality found in the dystopia and therefore the lack of possibility, hope and happiness.

Fleeing the Structure of Structure: Totalitarianism In Fahrenheit 451

The dystopian society of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 was brought to life in François Truffaut’s film through repetitive visual cues that strengthen his objection to a totalitarian regime. Throughout the movie there is a juxtaposition of the modern architecture infiltrating traditional architecture and natural landscapes. In the city, the viewer is confronted with concrete buildings. These structures are concerned more with the functional value rather than an aesthetic form. They promote the ideas of sameness as many structures tend to look alike with their dominant neutrality. In many of the concrete structures there is the presence of columns that are reminiscent of Roman architecture and the their domination over their empire.

Each building becomes an extension of the other, stamping out any individualistic flair that would have painted the city as anything other than uniform.  As we move outward into the country, we can see the concrete arm of the totalitarian government, reaching out into the countryside through the railway sprawling out from the city center. Here, in the presence of nature sits the brutally present monorail cutting through the countryside, rising above the trees; marking its control with such a force that it cannot go unnoticed.

Architecture is not they only medium that enforces the regime’s control. The firemen, who are now men who start fires rather than put them out, are dressed in black uniforms accompanied with a helmet. Their helmets are similar to the helmets worn during Imperial German era. As their focus was control over society, it is easy to see why Truffaut opted to cast the firemen in the symbolic ornamental helmet.

Truffaut also uses color to imbed certain ideals within the society. When a fireman is charged with burning books, he must first put on a white flame retardant uniform that covers his black uniforms. White is a color most often associated with purification. In burning the books, and wearing the color white, it shows how the society is purging itself of the “evils” of the book.

The firemen wear all black outfits. These outfits are imbued with the same characteristics of the burnt remains of books. In destroying the books, they create a luminous fire that then turns into black ashes. This process represents the exact process that the regime is performing on the human spirit. By robbing humans of their intellect, they are only leaving the charred remains of what makes us human. The charred ash is what remains when the light finally goes out. The firemen are so embedded to the practice that in actuality they are the burned books; they no longer contain humanity, and in their uniformity resemble a collective pile of black ashen remain.

Throughout the film Truffaut constantly uses symbolism to materialize the affects of the totalitarian regime, but he does not leave the viewer without hope. At the end of the movie we see the protagonist breaking away from the concrete confines of the regime and fleeing into nature. He follows an old railway line, which leads him into a new society who has chosen to reject the rules of the regime. It is here at the end of the manmade railroad that he starts his journey into humanity, a journey that operates out of the ability to share knowledge rather than control it.

Fahrenheit 451: The Black Uniform

In a future where books have been regarded as evil things to influence thoughts and emotions of people, Fahrenheit 451, filmed in 1966 by François Truffaut, presents an utopian society where books are outlawed by the government and will be burned when found by firemen.  People take pills to be compliant and have restricted sources of information, such as comic newspaper and certain TV programs.  In order to prevent people from generating their independent thinking by reading books, in that world, the duty of a fireman is not to put out fires but to burn books and houses that stored many books.

To show the controlled society, firemen wear the fit black uniform, including the hat, gloves, belt and shoes.  The jacket they wear a bit like the style of the Nehru jacket but without obvious buttons in the front and decorations such as badges.  The belt is put on outside of the jacket and the sleeves are put into the gloves, make the presentation tidy and straight.  This kind of outfit wearing by the police or any people who work for the authorities seems to be an obvious symbol of representing a strong power of the central government.  Different from other common people who at least have clothes with different colors and hats with different styles, those firemen seems to be the group which have been brainwashed thoroughly and followed the rules without second thoughts.  “The only way to be happy is to make everyone equal,” is said by the Captain, a general notion of totalitarianism and one of the easiest way to demonstrate equal is to wear the uniform or similar clothes with same color and black is always a good choice to demonstrate the strict regulation of a society.

Another dystopian movie, Equilibrium, filmed by Kurt Wimmer in 2002, deals with the similar topic that anything which would evoke emotion and feeling, such as books, dolls and pets, is forbidden to create a strict regulatory society where no crime will happen because of human emotions.  In this movie, not only people working for government wear uniforms, but also regular citizens have the same style of outfits.  Most people might agree that freedom is to have right to express thoughts, have feelings and question the world.  A society where these rights are taken away consciously or unconsciously is not deemed a utopia.  When someone starts to doubt what he/she is used to believing, realized what the majority do is wrong and then fights for what he/she now thinks are the righteous things, a storyline presents typical process of freedom and defines what freedom should be.  And books, which play an important role when dealing with this subject matter, represent the freedom of feeling and beliefs that have influence on people and can be spread for many years.

Fahrenheit 451: it can predict the future

Fahrenheit 451 is a science fiction movie based on a novel. It tells a story which happens in the future: instead of putting off fire, the firemen’s duty has switched to finding all the books and burning them. François Truffaut, the director, uses one of the firemen Montag’s change of attitude regarding to books to reveal the notions and meanings of the movie. He used a surreal way to reflect the reality that people’s life is so empty and powerless without the nourishment of the mind and soul – books. People who refuse to think and imagine is mediocre and pathetic while the regime which stops people from thinking is totalitarian and autocratic. Nevertheless, the “Bookman” in the movie shows, totalitarianism can’t completely kill people’s desire and aspiration for chasing spiritual wealth.

In the future world, when our life will be only surrounded by plasma TV, stupid TV shows, and picture newspapers, people will become numb, and will forget our history easily. The director uses the comparison of interior design style in both Montag’s home and the “Bookman’s” home to expose the essential difference between people who read and people who don’t. Montag’s house is the reflection of his wife Linda, who is colorful, beautiful yet empty. The couple don’t have anything except for their big house and luxurious furnitures, and they resemble products from mass production system – meaninglessness and sameness. A house like this can’t interact with their owner, or encourage them to live differently. It even can’t attract the owners to truly love it. In the end of the movie, after Montag’s attitude has changed, he burned down the house with rage and excitement, the way he has never had before when he was burning up the books.

On the contrary, the “Bookman’s” house is classic and unique, which reveals the owner’s taste and style. People who read will constantly absorb from the history and imagine the future, they know how to appreciate uniqueness and accept differences. Once they have books, they don’t need TV in the house, because they have their own source for information, and they won’t accept being manipulated by the stupid TV show, or the government. Books not only tell you things, but also encourage you to think.  

The director uses this exaggerated story to satirize and critique two things: First is how pathetic and hopeless the totalitarianism can be. In order to prevent people’s doubt of the government, they try to control their mind by not letting them get any new information. More and more mechanized social and political system today is the second thing’s director critique. Words are more complicated and indirect than images, and it requires a more sophisticated thinking method to perceive, which is not fitting into today’ mechanization. Some scenes in the movie are ridiculous and absurd; however, if we observe our life today, we may find the movie somehow predict our future. With the rapid development and popularization of technology, more people today, especially teenagers indulge themselves into a more direct and simple way of entertainment. The only difference between the movie and reality is that people are forced to give up on books in the movie, while we as human beings in the world would give it up on our own.

Fahrenheit 451 – Machines for Living

François Truffaut’s 1966 adaptation of Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451 tackles this dystopian novel of a totalitarian society where reading books is forbidden in an effort to control the public. Some individuals still rebel, hiding books in their domestic interiors or learning the books by heart and reciting them in order to preserve them.

The two contrasting lifestyles are illustrated by the contrasting interiors they inhabit. The docile citizens who reject books and replace them with drugs and television screens live in cold modernist housing projects with stark unadorned facades of reinforced concrete that contain interiors filled with simple furniture of clean straight lines. In these interiors free of decoration, there is little sense of individual expression. This is not entirely consistent in the movie, however, even the supposedly personal elements seems mere props on a stage set, disconnected from the characters. In his version of Bradbury’s novel Truffaut includes certain objects contemporary to the time in which the movie was made blurring the boundaries between the dystopic fictional and real life.

On the other hand the interiors of those who still read are distinctly more whimsical. Their houses are steeped in past and tradition, evidenced by the use of more natural materials, and a prevalence of wood. These interiors are composed of earth tones as opposed to more industrial colors of the other apartments, where splashes of primary colors are common. Through the clutter of these rooms and the different textures a sense of the organic pervades the interior.

The interiors are also differentiated by the way characters act within them. The issue of passivity and agency is brought up often throughout the movie. On the one hand we have Montag’s wife who passively exists within the interior, resembling an object herself. As opposed to her, the people who read books interact with their interior, they have agency in their environment.

Underlying the use of modernist architecture and design in the movie we can see the disillusionment with modernism, characteristic of the sixties. With time the democratic ideals behind modernism became easily appropriated by totalitarian regimes that wanted to create docile citizens by stamping out individual expression. The dehumanization of regimentation and standardization truly wanted to create machines for living and living machines. Truffaut’s adaptation tackles this issue but also corresponded to the rising interest in individual rights and environmental issues. The cities were starting to be seen as alienating, dominated by technology and means of control and a retreat into the past and nature was seen as liberating.Fahrenheit 451 demystifies the ideals behind modernism and brings forth a scepticism characteristic of the second half of the twentieth century.

Screen Shot 2013-05-14 at 12.23.00 AM

Screen Shot 2013-05-14 at 12.22.16 AM

Fahrenheit 451: Captivity through Style

Ray Bradbury’s novel, Fahrenheit 451, describes a universe that has seized daily life through rules and regulations. One mandate in particular that surfaces over and over is the burning of all books. Being the pre-digital era, books are one of the most tantalizing forms of entertainment, and more importantly, hold all records of past and present knowledge. By controlling books, this totalitarian government controls knowledge. Emerging out of the Cold War era, this dystopian novel is in good literary company alongside George Orwell’s 1984. Post-Nazi Germany, nearing the end of a super-power battle between USA and the Soviets, the time seems ripe for fear of a fascist overtaking.


In Francois Truffaut’s adaption of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, there are themes of stylistic unity that are carried out through architecture, fashion and interiors. This stylistic unity through visual treatment is contributes to the overall welfare of the characters living in under totalitarian rule. Empty interiors and cold, cement exteriors, along with the lack of individual style and preference, highlight the character’s unhappiness. Altogether, these combine to create a critique on totalitarian regime.


The film gave examples of architecture that seemed to have a bleak and dismal aesthetic. The homes seemed unusually normal, made of wood and dull brick with porches and triangle beams at the front- perhaps something to be expected in lonely woodlands. Most of theses homes were at least two stories high. Both government employee Guy Montag and rebellious civilian Julie Landau lived in these types of homes. The main government campus was a dull, brown brick that created flat, shapeless walls. Totalitarian regimes often sacrifice individual creativity for equality. This lack of imagination and Brutalist-type of architecture (although Brutalism is not always considered un-imaginative) exhibited the government’s desire to squelch any form of unique structure. In addition, the fire department entrance didn’t boast a courtyard with organic sitting places or trees. It was a mostly flat concrete area of blocks in the place of stairs for functional elevation. The overall message of the space and architecture seemed to encourage movement without thought.


Fashion also plays a part in this totalitarian style. Fashion is a large part of Montag’s identity and status within this paradigm. Montag, along with his comrades wears a black, knee length shirt that covers his arms and collar, everyday to work. The grab looks like a thick, colorless Star Trek uniform. It crosses over from the side with a triangular strap, and fastens to a line of buttons. “451” is marked on the neck in a dull silver, that is only noticeable when hit with the seldom seem light (daylight appears to be cloudy throughout the film). Montag’s fashion routine between this singular uniform and one set of striped pajamas shows the lack of authorship he has over his personal clothing style. This can be seen as a result of living in a totalitarian system.


Interiors in the film also engage in this totalitarian theme. Linda and Montag’s home is rather minimal and verging on modernist trends. The rectangle flat screen, or ‘parlor wall’ dominates the living full of low, mostly rounded furniture. Rotund thin drawers exist in the living room but are never opened. There are no personal artifacts in the home besides clothing and Linda’s sleeping pill bottle. In some cases, a minimal atmosphere produces a sense of freedom from being released from all other possessions. This seems to be what architects of the time sought­­ after– an environment that strove for simplicity and form and function within space. However, the lack of personal style within a homeowner’s home can represent captivity, and less ownership of one’s own personal space. It is in question whether Linda was encouraged to keep her home minimal, or she keeps her home minimal to keep her life because afraid to explore personal taste. This type of entrapment points to her blind captivity within the Fahrenheit 451 society.


Fahrenheit 451: Interiors Proclaiming “What if?”

In his 1966 film adaption of Fahrenheit 451, director François Truffaut uses the visual imagery of interiors to offer an apt critique of totalitarianism, one that subtly aligns itself with the skepticism of budding postmodern thought, which would grow more pervasive in the following decades. While one can note Truffaut’s more apparent parallel between streamlined, bland modernist design and a top-down imposed culturally void mode of life, there are a few minor details that constantly hint towards the possibility of alternative ways of living, hidden just beneath the surface of a totalitarian façade.

Take, for instance, the absence of paintings and still images in the Montags’ living room. The wall screen dominates the entire room, making obvious the strength of televisual messaging as means to confine individual thought. However, despite the absence of framed images that would usually decorate a modern home of the ideological West, one takes note of the few ceramics surrounding the screen. These ceramics do not lack ornamentation, oriental print is clearly visible on at least one. This could, of course, be a mishap in the film’s set design, but it is an observation worth noting. Then there are the Art Deco-like patterns projected through the television, offering perhaps the most vibrant of colors that we see throughout the entire film. Similar geometric patterning again reappears on furniture upholstery, like the sofa cushions and pillows we see as Linda entertains her friends in the living room. One cannot help but question, if the decorative is intended to signify rebellion against totalitarian regime, why does it make subtle appearances in some of the film’s interiors?

As we learn from the tragic demise of the old woman who housed a library in her home, any space with decorative interiors is condemned and burned down. The Art Nouveau-inspired wallpaper and other furnishings and décor in the old woman’s home gives us a clear example of what is not permitted in this world we see through Fahrenheit 451, yet the very fact this woman managed to maintain her decorative interiors for so long while going unnoticed demonstrates the potential to transcend totalitarian ideology, hence why Montag experiences a heightened existential crisis upon returning home that evening. This is also brilliantly demonstrated through the dual-functioning nature of objects found in rebellious readers’ homes. As we see in the very first home raided by firemen in the film, rectangular and cylindrical furniture and household items/appliances are also used to strategically conceal books. This is a fantastic play on the modernist blend of form and function, only taking it one step further. Beyond the simplicity of intersecting style with apparent utility, Truffaut adds on hidden utility.

Truffaut’s critique of modernism as metaphor for totalitarianism culminates in the introduction of the Book People’s space of inhabitance: the forest, where the decorative takes the form of earthy “interiors,” a mostly unaltered natural environment of trees, lakes, and snow. Through this we learn freedom reigns in the absence of constructed environments, perhaps indicating a return to nature as our only saving grace from totalitarian rule.

Fahrenheit 451: Interactions with Interiors

In François Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451 (1966), he uses the characters’ interactions with their interiors to highlight the controlling hold the totalitarian government has over its citizens.  Truffaut uses modernism to portray an advanced and sophisticated society, but also to imply the superficial façade as harboring corrupt ideals of conformity and lack of freedom.

Throughout the film, the characters are communicating with their surroundings.  When Montag’s wife Linda is selected to be featured in the state run TV program “The Family,” the on-screen characters are supposedly directly asking her for her input, whilst the red light blinks in a hypnotic manner.  Although it may seem to Linda as if she is exchanging dialogue, she is merely interacting in a mindless fashion with the electronic devices of her home.  When Montag’s devotion to his profession and beliefs in the established system wavers, he is no longer able to utilize the pole that previously slid him up and down the structure of his workplace, forcing him to manually use the stairs, which slows him down and marks him as peculiar to his colleagues.  These failed interactions are indicating Montag’s break with the totalitarian influenced surroundings.

The monochromatic interiors of Montag and Linda’s home, act as a reflection of the willing subjection of society to its authoritative state.  Linda is repeatedly found in hues that resemble her interiors, further suggesting her passive nature, lack of free will, and deterioration of the self that have directly resulted from the overpowering influence of the government.  She is not a resident or inhabitant of her own home, but rather a fixture that blends in with her surroundings.



In contrast, the characters that defy the state reclaim their agency by the familiarity they have with their individual homes and capabilities of hiding prohibited books.  Book-reading characters, which eventually includes Montag, use their spaces and interact with their interiors on a different level compared to their subservient counterparts.  Their homes become intimate sources of happiness and concealment.  For example, the older woman that is friends with Clarisse has a secret library, the nameless male character in the beginning hides books in several locations, and the home of Clarisse and her uncle exhibit escape routes and hideaways.

The fashion is also a strong visual implication of the willing obedience of the people.  The black structured uniforms with precise lines of the firemen, prohibit the individual bodies to be seen, hiding the unique physiques of its wearers.  Different from other uniformed police forces, the garb of troop Fahrenheit 451 seems to offer little flexibility and movement that is usually granted to law enforcement professionals that must participate in more physically active roles.


Cousin Claudette, an announcer for the state run news program, is always displaying perfectly coiffed and bouffant hair, adorned in extravagant jewels, and wearing luxurious gowns, indicating the polished and strict lifestyles encouraged and enforced by its authoritative government.  There is a loss of personal depth and individuality; everyone must look clean, kept, and alike.  The “Mop-Up Squad” monitors the streets for unruly citizens, forcing on-the-spot hair cuts.


ImageIn the land of the book people, the appearance of the polished is not evident.  Clothes are torn, shabby, mismatched, and ill-fitting.  The freed live in the wilderness where geometric and architectural lines do not exist and clothing is only used for practicality, namely to provide cover and warmth.


Farenheit 451: “The only way to be happy is for everyone to remain equal”

Fahrenheit 451 is a 1966 film written and directed by François Truffaut. The film is an adaption of the novel of the same name by Ray Bradbury which depicts an American society of the future where reading and books are banned. Firemen, instead of putting out fires, are called upon to burn all books and sometimes homes that belong to those who are going against the law.

The film begins with a narrated title sequence, emphasizing the prohibition of the written word. We are introduced to the main character Montag, a fireman, in the first scene of the film where he and his team raid a home suspected of containing books. The burning of books is a spectacle for the citizens in this controlled society. The government sees totalitarianism as a mode of enabling all citizens to be equal and therefore happy but some still live a life of rebel.

In this apparent utopian society citizens are ruled by the homes they live in and the interiors of those homes. Homes that are built by the government are fireproof but those that aren’t are a sign of rebellion. The same goes for the way in which individuals entertain themselves for all those who adhere to the government’s laws have televisions in their homes to prove that they do not need literature to occupy themselves. Instead they watch shows that are in themselves controlling in the morals and values they relay.

Individuals who adhere to this form of living decorate their homes in a modern fashion. They are equipped with the latest of home furnishings from flat screen televisions in their living room to mini television sets and headphones in the bedroom. Though designers of modernist furniture and products did not create these forms as a tribute to controlling forces, in the film a modern interior was used to illustrate totalitarian ideologies. To emphasize power over individuals Montag’s wife Linda would often ask him for the latest in technology or home furnishings saying that “everybody has one” indicating the desire to be equal to others in society because those who are equal are happy.

A clear distinction can be made between those who believe that control equals happiness. Individuals who intentionally go against the law are depicted as living in more traditional homes. These homes are not built by the government of the time. They embrace decoration outside of and within the home. The interiors of these homes embrace ornament and the natural form with the most obvious aspect being that of the lack of televisions in these homes. The owners of these homes are cut off from the controlling media used by the government to brainwash its citizens.

Whilst the interiors illustrated by Fahrenheit 451 represented particular ideologies in support of and against the government, their original meanings and reasons for creation are far from their role in the film. The interiors provide context for the way in which some citizens of this totalitarian government are forced to live whilst others openly rebel for the sake of the written word.