Andy Serkis explains why he changed Orwell's iconic 'Animal Farm' ending for new movie

NEW YORK – Andy Serkis has been trying to animate George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” for 15 years. In 2026, he says, it “couldn’t, actually, be more relevant.”

Serkis and his producing partner, Jonathan Cavendish, started tinkering around with an adaptation after he filmed 2011's “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” The rebellion in that movie reminded him of “Animal Farm,” which he read for the first time on the bus to school when he was 10 or 11. Fifty-some years later, it sticks with him. He wore a red hat to the premiere that read, "Make Animal Farm Fiction Again."

“It was just the most amazing experience of reading something that hits you viscerally,” Serkis tells USA TODAY. “It feels like it's something else, but you're not quite understanding the ground swell of darkness that's underneath it.”

Orwell is often lauded as prophetic because his 1940s dystopian novels ring true with readers today. The theme of last year's Banned Books Week was "Censorship Is So 1984." When he wrote “Animal Farm,” he intended it as an allegory for the Russian Revolution and rise of Stalinism. Barnyard animals overthrow their farmer to build a utopia, but by the end of the novel it has devolved into a corrupt power structure in which "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Serkis approached the adaptation by asking himself what Orwell would write about if he wrote “Animal Farm” today. He didn’t want it to be a story about Stalinist Russia. Instead, he gravitated toward themes of capitalism, wealth and overconsumption. The billionaire antagonist, Pilkington (Glenn Close), drives what closely resembles a Cybertruck.

The lead-up to this adaptation, in theaters May 1, has been largely controversial. When the trailer dropped in December, oversaturated with middle-school knee-slappers and set to the upbeat “Feel It Still” by Portugal. The Man, the criticism was swift. After all, “Animal Farm” is a serious and violent story with a bleak ending. This advertised butt jokes, campy fight montages and sinister Seth Rogen laughs. Even a star-studded ensemble of Rogen, Close, Gaten Matarazzo, Jim Parsons, Woody Harrelson, Steve Buscemi and Laverne Cox couldn’t sell the new “Animal Farm” to some.

Andy Serkis welcomes criticism of new animated ‘Animal Farm’ 

Backlash to the trailer included one particular sting: “Orwell is rolling in his grave.” But Serkis maintains the author's estate signed off on the adaptation when he secured the rights. He insists “Orwell would have wanted” controversy.

“He's sort of adored and abhorred by both left and right, and that's the other thing about our film. We're not having a go at any one administration or regime. It's about authoritarianism and our response to that and power corrupting,” Serkis says. “I welcomed it. I loved that debate because that's what it's all about, creating a debate. That's what I do in my job as an actor, storyteller, filmmaker. Any act of creating art for me is about saying to the audience or the viewer, ‘Think about this differently.’ And if you don't agree with me, that's not a problem, but think about it differently."

When he bought the rights, Serkis said, the Orwell estate didn’t exert much creative control, requesting only that he not stray too far from what the book is about.

Representatives for the Orwell estate did not respond to USA TODAY’s request for comment.

Anti-dictatorship, but for kids

Serkis scrubs the story of its violence, at least in any graphic manner. Snowball (Cox), for example, is escorted off the farm rather than chased by hounds and torn to pieces like in the book. Boxer’s (Harrelson) horrific glue factory death is largely implied. It didn’t stop Serkis’ team from giving me a promotional bottle of craft glue with the horse’s face on it, though. I'm not sure how this bit of dark humor will go over with the kiddos.

Deciding who the audience was, Serkis says, was part of why it took a decade and a half to get the project off the ground. He points out “Animal Farm” was once subtitled “A Fairy Story”: “It was meant for a younger audience. He was writing with children in mind. … I think we’ve remained loyal to that,” Serkis says. He added a new protagonist, Lucky (Matarazzo), a “young innocent piglet” with a moral arc and a slightly offbeat side-plot romance.

Did he worry that replacing the violence with potty humor would dilute the message? Serkis doesn’t miss a beat in his reply. 

“We didn’t. We wanted to translate it in such a way that the threat is there, the impending threat is always there,” Serkis says. 

Many of the secondary school English classes that teach “Animal Farm” study violence as a central theme and abuse of power. The atrocities make the seemingly silly feel sobering. But Serkis prefers his Trojan horse without the slaughter.

“We’re almost desensitized by the amount of violence that we are subjected to through news. But in a way, we’re so desensitized, we can’t cope with it,” Serkis says. “For a young person, if you can allow them to emotionally feel something like I did when I read the book, emotionally feel something, but not fully understand it, that's a good place to be, I think.”

Why Andy Serkis made major changes to ‘Animal Farm’ ending

“Animal Farm,” classically, is a story without a happy ending. But Serkis’ interpretation gives viewers closure. The film adds an entirely new third act: Lucky has a change of heart and apologizes, the animals take down Napoleon and the evil capitalistic Pilkington. Lucky tells the cautionary tale for a new generation.

While the book haunts, the film aims for hopeful: Dictators are bad, we should help one another, and freedom is working hard “not because we have to, but because we choose to,” as Lucky says.

Serkis chose this new ending because he was hesitant to dog-pile on an already “bleak world,” he says.

“We live in a world where there seemingly is no hope at the moment. We keep making the same mistakes. There are oppressive regimes globally. There are bosses in companies that maltreat their workers globally. We're living in such a difficult time. All times are difficult for humanity, but we're living in, it seems, certainly a world without truth or the inability to really know what is true and what isn't true.

“So we wanted the next generation, the kids who we hopefully are going to be watching this film, to at least have the ability to question what they should do next time around. History will inevitably repeat itself.”

Clare Mulroy is USA TODAY’s Books Reporter, where she covers buzzy releases, chats with authors and dives into the culture of reading. Find her on Instagram, subscribe to our weekly Books newsletter or tell her what you’re reading at [email protected].