Skip to main content

On Earth, everywhere you go, the temperature is 75 degrees. Everything is the same; all the people are exactly the same. Now what kind of life is that?


Silent Running
(1972)

Douglas Trumbull’s directorial debut (the ill-fated Brainstorm remains his only other feature) is sometimes cited as showing the humanity that the epic he established himself with (in the capacity of photographic effects supervisor), 2001: A Space Odyssey, lacks. In some respects, Silent Running goes to the opposite extreme of 2001’s sterile environment of emotionally remote astronauts, cloaking itself with overt ecological themes and topical-at-the-time back-to-nature thinking. It is also possessed of a profound melancholy, emphasized by Peter Schickele’s score. The film ends with a small victory, or at least a glimmer of hope, but it’s protagonist is denied any sense of triumph due to the lengths he is willing to go to in order to protect his ideals.


Even the film’s production is a result of an end-of-an-era sensibility. Easy Rider had been a massive, unexpected, success for Columbia and Universal had the bright idea of trying to catch that kind of lightning in a bottle for themselves. They let five young filmmakers go to work on (relatively) low budget films; Silent Running, The Hired Hand, The Last Movie, Taking Off and American Graffiti. The entries from Easy Rider alumni crashed and burned, but Graffiti’s enormous box office makes the one-for-five result seem shrewd.

The earnestness of its message – and some of the narrative devices used to relay it – set against the realism of its characterisation, performances and cinematography represents a strange dichotomy within Silent Running, perhaps a consequence of Trumbull’s relative youth (he was only 30 when it came out). 


The titles play over a view of the space greenhouses, which Bruce Dern’s Freeman (yes, Free-man… ) Lowell tends, to the sound of Joan Baez (could you get more ‘60s?). It’s all-but screaming “hippy movie”. The scenario is one of capitalism run riot over any concerns of preservation of the natural world, familiar now but unfamiliar then.  Freeman is Adam in his Eden. He is introduced naked, like the first man, and descends from there. We see him go bare-footed in a monastic habit and preache to his colleagues with messianic fervour (later, he will more resemble Cain). But, despite the identification with archetypes, the characters themselves (although we are mostly in the company of Dern) are presented with an eye towards realism of motivation and behaviour that was becoming the norm in this period. Well in advance of Alien, or even Dark Star, the crew are weary and cynical. They want to go home, even one without any greenery left, and look for distractions from the mundanity of their work. Such that they accept instructions to detonate the greenhouses (the motivation for the order being, surprise, profit) without batting an eyelid and become excited about the operation (it is something different, and it means they will return to Earth).


Freeman is the exception, because he has found his salvation in returning to, and attuning with, nature. His impassioned speeches regarding the fate of the Earth and the blindness that has allowed the loss of this world, might come across as overly preachy and trite if not for the impassioned performance of Bruce Dern. He carries much of the film solo, and if he was commonly a bit part villain prior to Silent Running, he was frequently – as here – expected to be on-the-edge in subsequent roles.

In an interview, Dern commented that fans of the film who came up to him were always unable to say when they saw it, except to say they saw it when they were young. I certainly wasn’t that old when I first encountered Silent Running. Relevant to this is that, like 2001, it has a decidedly adult tone despite being considered acceptable for general viewing (both films are U certificate). There’s some bright red ‘70s blood when Dern’s leg gets messed up, but it’s more surprising to see a film that is emotionally so raw, where attitudes and behaviour and mental breakdown are not softened or made palatable, get off so lightly (I’d argue it’s a PG film – but it’s got cute robots!)


Dern kills the first of his crewmates in an altercation as he attempts to prevent the detonation of his geodesic dome. If that wasn’t premeditated, the fashion in which he dispatches the other two definitely is. As he later says, “I don’t think I’ll ever be able to excuse what I did, but I had to do it”. He’s not a character who provides easy audience identification. Freeman is unstable throughout, first because of the threat to his beloved forest, then due to the guilt his actions have caused (there’s even a touch of satire, as his he is told by Earth, “God bless you, Freeman. You’re a hell of an American”).


Freeman’s extreme state of agitation is not what children viewing will remember most (consciously at least), as there are three robot pals who are fun to be with! Who mirror the three crewmen he killed (Freeman shows affection and concern for the drones, something we never see when he addresses his sub-human forest-slaying colleagues).  If we don’t get on board with Bruce getting brutal with his fellows, neither do we ever identify with them. Trumbull pulls a Kubrick trick in creating the strongest audience bond with the non-human characters. Indeed, it’s Dern’s empathy for their wellbeing that allows us to relate to him, even as he takes extreme measures. The loss of Louie (and finding of his foot by his friends later) and then the injury of Huey are the most affecting scenes in the film.


It seems harsh of Freeman not to let Huey hobble around with Duey on the drifting greenhouse, requiring the drone to meet his fate, but it is consistent with his viewpoint. Only purity and innocence are allowed to exist in this Eden; Freeman is corrupted in mind and Huey in body. Duey, who is not self-aware (has not eaten of the Tree of Knowledge) may remain, in harmony with the environment.

Trumbull devised the story and his original concept had Lowell encountering aliens, with a less foregrounded environmental message. Three different writers ultimately took passes at it; Steven Bocho, Michael Cimino and Deric Washburn. None of them were able to disguise the rather baffling lack of deductive skills shown by Freeman when the plants start dying. He’d been tending the forests on the Valley Forge for eight years but he doesn’t realise that it’s a lack of sunlight would affect their health? It’s a blundering plot development of the kind that puts one in mind of (more simplistic) kids’ movies, and consequently sticks out like a sore thumb. Yet it serves to support the overarching message of preservation.


The effects work is tremendous, and largely holds up with the passing years. The model shots are as beautiful as you’d expect from the 2001 man, while the shooting of the film in the actual Valley Forge aircraft carrier lends a no-frills austerity to the interiors. Trumbull doesn’t feel the need make everything science-proof (and he doesn’t have the budget), so there’s no explanation for the artificial gravity as there is with Kubrick’s film. And he’s not about to let it get in the way of telling the story (Freeman can communicate with Earth from Saturn in real time). The pre-R2D2/Black Hole/Wall-E robots were performed by amputees and like so much of the design adds verisimilitude.


Silent Running undoubtedly has flaws in terms of plotting, but it’s a film designed to provoke an emotional response rather than an analytical one (there goes this review, then). As such my reaction is much the same now as when I first saw it; a sad and beautiful piece of work that resonates long after it has ended. Even Joan Baez mournful tones contribute to that end, distracting as they are and off-putting to many, ‘60s backwash providing an unlikely complement to the used-future on display.

*****



Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

I don’t think Wimpys still exist.

Last Night in Soho (2021) (SPOILERS) Last Night in Soho is a cautionary lesson in one’s reach extending one’s grasp. It isn’t that Edgar Wright shouldn’t attempt to stretch himself, it’s simply that he needs the self-awareness to realise which moves are going to throw his back out and leave him in a floundering and enfeebled heap on the studio floor. Wright’s an uber-geek, one with a very specific comfort zone, and there’s no shame in that. He evidently was shamed, though, hence this response to criticisms of a lack of maturity and – obviously – lack of versatility with female characters. Last Night in Soho goes broke for woke, and in so doing exposes his new clothes in the least flattering light. Because Edgar is in no way woke, his attempts to prove his progressive mettle lead to a lurid, muddled mess, one that will satisfy no one. Well, perhaps his most ardent fans, but no one else.

It looks like a digital walkout.

Free Guy (2021) (SPOILERS) Ostensibly a twenty-first century refresh of The Truman Show , in which an oblivious innocent realises his life is a lie, and that he is simply a puppet engineered for the entertainment of his creators/controllers/the masses, Free Guy lends itself to similar readings regarding the metaphysical underpinnings of our reality, of who sets the paradigm and how conscious we are of its limitations. But there’s an additional layer in there too, a more insidious one than using a Hollywood movie to “tell us how it really is”.

It becomes easier each time… until it kills you.

The X-Files 4.9: Terma Oh dear. After an engaging opener, the second part of this story drops through the floor, and even the usually spirited Rob Bowman can’t save the lethargic mess Carter and Spotnitz make of some actually pretty promising plot threads.

He's not a nightstalker, and it'll take a lot more than bench presses to defeat him.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988) (SPOILERS) The most successful entry in the franchise, if you don’t count Freddy vs. Jason . And the point at which Freddy went full-on vaudeville, transformed into adored ringmaster rather than feared boogeyman. Not that he was ever very terrifying in the first place (the common misapprehension is that later instalments spoiled the character, but frankly, allowing Robert Englund to milk the laughs in bad-taste fashion is the saving grace of otherwise forgettably formulaic sequel construction). A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master boasts the most inventive, proficient effects work yet, but it’s also by far the least daring in terms of plotting, scraping together a means for Freddy to persist in his nocturnal pestilence while offering nothing in the way of the unexpected, be it characterisations or story points.

Give daddy the glove back, princess.

Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) (SPOILERS) Looking at Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare , by some distance the least lauded (and laudable) of the original Elm Street sextet, you’d think it inconceivable that novice director and series old-hand – first as assistant production manager and finally as producer – Rachel Talalay has since become a respected and in-demand TV helmer. For the most part, Freddy’s Dead is shockingly badly put together. It reminded me of the approach the likes of Chris Carter and Sir Ken take, where someone has clearly been around productions, absorbing the basics of direction, but has zero acumen for turning that into a competent motion picture, be it composition, scene construction, editing or pacing. Talalay’s also responsible for the story idea here, which does offer a few nuggets, at least, but her more primary role actively defeats any positives.

Monster nom nom?

The Suicide Squad (2021) (SPOILERS) This is what you get from James Gunn when he hasn’t been fed through the Disney rainbow filter. Pure, unadulterated charmlessness, as if he’s been raiding his deleted Twitter account for inspiration. The Suicide Squad has none of the “heart” of Guardians of Galaxy , barely a trace of structure, and revels in the kind of gross out previously found in Slither ; granted an R rating, Gunn revels in this freedom with juvenile glee, but such carte blanche only occasionally pays off, and more commonly leads to a kind of playground repetition. He gets to taunt everyone, and then kill them. Critics applauded; general audiences resisted. They were right to.

Give poor, starving Gurgi munchings and crunchings.

The Black Cauldron (1985) (SPOILERS) Dark Disney? I guess… Kind of . I don’t think I ever got round to seeing this previously. The Fox and the Hound , sure. Basil the Great Mouse Detective , most certainly. Even Oliver and Company , so I wasn’t that selective. But I must have missed The Black Cauldron , the one that nearly broke Disney, for the same reason everyone else did. But what reason was that? Perhaps nothing leaping out about it, when the same summer kids could see The Goonies , or Back to the Future , or Pee Wee’s Big Adventure . It seemed like a soup of other, better-executed ideas and past Disney movies, stirred up in a cauldron and slopped out into an environment where audiences now wanted something a touch more sophisticated.

What about the panties?

Sliver (1993) (SPOILERS) It must have seemed like a no-brainer. Sharon Stone, fresh from flashing her way to one of the biggest hits of 1992, starring in a movie nourished with a screenplay from the writer of one of the biggest hits of 1992. That Sliver is one Stone’s better performing movies says more about how no one took her to their bosom rather than her ability to appeal outside of working with Paul Verhoeven. Attempting to replicate the erotic lure of Basic Instinct , but without the Dutch director’s shameless revelry and unrepentant glee (and divested of Michael Douglas’ sweaters), it flounders, a stupid movie with vague pretensions to depth made even more stupid by reshoots that changed the killer’s identity and exposed the cluelessness of the studio behind it. Philip Noyce isn’t a stupid filmmaker, of course. He’s a more-than-competent journeyman when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster fare ( Clear and Present Danger , Salt ) also adept at “smart” smaller pict

Oh hello, loves, what year is it?

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) (SPOILERS) Simu Lui must surely be the least charismatic lead in a major motion picture since… er, Taylor Lautner? He isn’t aggressively bad, like Lautner was/is, but he’s so blank, so nondescript, he makes Marvel’s super-spiffy new superhero Shang-Chi a superplank by osmosis. Just looking at him makes me sleepy, so it’s lucky Akwafina is wired enough for the both of them. At least, until she gets saddled with standard sidekick support heroics and any discernible personality promptly dissolves. And so, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings continues Kevin Feige’s bold journey into wokesense, seemingly at the expense of any interest in dramatically engaging the viewer.