Compare and contrast the book and movie versions of Animal Farm.

This answer will compare and contrast the book with the 1999 live-action film since the other response already covered the animated version.

The 1999 Animal Farm movie was controversial during its original broadcast due to the changes it made from Orwell's text, particularly the ending. The movie's screenplay makes a number of alterations, including but not limited to setting the story over a course of days rather than years, making Jessie the sheep-dog the protagonist, eliminating the religious satire of Moses the raven, and having several of the animals escape into the woods during Napoleon's regime. Most of these changes served to lighten and streamline the book, possibly with a child viewership in mind. While much of the antitotalitarian message is the same, it is considerably simpler than Orwell intended for this reason.

The ending provides the greatest contrast with the book. The end of the novel is ironic. Napoleon creates alliances with the human farmers he once claimed to despise and while playing cards with them, appears indistinguishable from the men in the room, suggesting that his regime is just as bad as the one he claimed to be rescuing the other animals from at the start of the book. The movie softens its finale: Napoleon's regime comes to an end and a new human family moves into the farm. These humans are kinder, implying the animals will have a better future working under them. Obviously, this is a more child-friendly conclusion than the novel, and this more optimistic turn of events changes the tone of the story entirely.

Compare and contrast the book and movie versions of Animal Farm.

I'm going to assume you mean the cartoon-like version rather than the real-animal version which is not particularly well known.

I always think the book is better than the movie, and Animal Farmi s no exception.  One reason is that I form pictures in my mind as I read, and I imagine what each of the characters must look like and where they live as they live out their stories.  That's especially true in a novel in which the primary characters are animals. Seeing it come to life in a cartoonish movie was rather difficult, though I did enjoy several characterizations.

That being said, the movie follows the novel fairly closely.  Rather than the animals talking, as in the book, a narrator generally tells the story in the movie.  Old Major dies while giving a speech in the movie, while much time passes between his speech and his death in the novel.  The windmill doesn't blow up and get built again as often in the movie, and any scenes with humans do not quite match with the text. But generally, the movie is accurate.

Two major things set the movie apart from the novel, though.  The first is the obviousness of Squealer's duplicity as he persuades the animals that any changes are for their own good.  His facial expressions and body language, if you will, are clearly deceitful and conniving.  Those things are much more subtle in the text.

Second, the ending of the movie is a major departure from the novel.  In both, the animals look through the window and see a "blending" of animals and humans--as if they had become one in the same.  The movie depicts this quite well,  and then it steps too far.  Once the animals see this distortion of animals and humans, they stampede the farmhouse and we are to presume they retake their rightful place as owners of the land.  That is a significant departure from the novel--and from history, frankly.  We want them to assume power, but they don't.

The movie is fun to watch for 30 minutes; however, it is not a completely accurate depiction of Orwell's novel.

How does the Animal Farm movie differ from the book?

The plots of the movie and the book follow a very similar trend, as communism spreads throughout the farm and Napoleon takes over and enslaves the others. This is allegorical of the communism gripping the Soviet Union and other nations under its grasp. However, there is one glaring difference—the ending. Orwell's original work shows the ending as a continuation of the servitude trend, leaving things ambiguous and also more frightening than before, as the animals not only have animal rulers, but they have begun making deals with the humans, making things just as bad as before.

In the film version, however, Napoleon is trampled by the other animals, and this is supposed to be an uplifting ending showing the triumph of democracy. However, this is contrary to Orwell's original cautionary tale about the evils of communism.

How does the Animal Farm movie differ from the book?

The 1954 Anglo-American cartoon version of Animal Farm was famous—or rather, infamous—for its happy ending, with the dictator Napoleon being trampled to death by the other animals. The CIA, who funded the project, wanted Orwell's book to be turned into an allegory for the ultimate triumph of Western democracy over Communism.

In the original book, however, the ending is much more ambiguous and crucially, much less flattering to the United States and her allies. Because instead of defeating Animalism (read Communism), the local humans have made their peace with it, happily trading with Napoleon and his gang and maintaining cordial relations with them. Not only have the pigs, in their dealings with humans, become more recognizably human, but the humans have also lowered themselves to the status of animals in developing warm political and economic ties with the Animalist regime.

As this message would flatly contradict the Cold War narrative that the 1954 cartoon was meant to convey, a different ending had to be found, one that maintained a much clearer distinction between the forces of good and evil.

How does the Animal Farm movie differ from the book?

There are two movie adaptations of Animal Farm, one made in 1955 and one made in 1999.

The 1955 film was animated, and it was covertly sponsored by the CIA. This film is arguably the closer to the original book of the two. However, it does have a much more optimistic ending, with Napoleon's regime being overthrown by the non-pig farm animals once they have enough of the oppression.

The 1999 film was made for television and shot in live-action. This version is considered a more "child-friendly" variation on the text. The ending is outright happier, with the animals claiming they have "new owners" who will not make the same mistakes as the original farmer or Napoleon, though how they will do so is never specified. This element of the 1999 movie is commonly criticized by viewers, who feel it takes away from the gritty satire of Orwell's original.

So, both versions end with Napoleon overthrown, while the original book has no such optimistic ending, being a cautionary tale.

How does the Animal Farm movie differ from the book?

There was a movie version made in 1955, but I have not seen that one recently so I will discuss the more recent made-for-tv adaptation from TNT in 1999. One of the most significant differences between the two versions is in the narration.  The book has a third person narrator that is not quite omniscient.  The movie is narrated by Jessie, a Border Collie.

The plot of the movie basically follows the book, although there is some creative license taken.  For example, the movie shows propaganda films made by the pigs after they discover that the television keeps the animals entertained.