Skip to main content

When they want to give the Earth an enema, that’s where they stick the tube in.


Saturn 3
(1980)

(WARNING: SPOILERS) Generally dismissed as a post-Star Wars cash-in, Saturn 3 is best known for its unanimously negative reviews and a psychopathic robot with a fancy for Farrah Fawcett’s fanny (with due credit to Time-Out’s review for that alliterative turn of phrase). To males of a certain age, this predilection was entirely understandable… It’s undoubtedly a mess off a film, visibly wearing the evidence of its troubled production. But it remains a curiosity rather than the complete write-off its reputation suggests (there is even a dedicated website, illustrating that, for some, it captured the imagination of what might have been, rather than merely what is).


The basics of the plot provide for a fairly economic, claustrophobic thriller, with only four characters (and three actors) facing off within a confined setting.  Captain Benson (Harvey Keitel) kills the colleague who is due to replace him on a mission to the titular moon. The only inhabitants are Adam (Kirk Douglas) and Alex (Fawcett), who are running a hydroponics research station. Benson proceeds with the official plan to replace one of the crew with a new prototype robot (Hector, first of the “Demigod” series). The robot acquires its learning through a direct link to the brain of its “programmer”, but in this case it takes on less-than savoury qualities including murderous impulses and lusting after Alex (Benson was taken off the mission after he failed psychological tests assessing his suitability for this role).


There are suggestions of a harsher, at very least philosophically totalitarian, society that Douglas and Fawcett’s scientists are sheltering from. Much of the more strained dialogue relates to “future speak”, in which there is clearly an emphasis on logical and order rather than emotional responses (such that the monogamous relationship between Adam and Alex is considered criminal on Earth); Benson’s, “You have a great body. May I use it?” is one of the film’s most mocked lines. Assignations of role and function appear to be centralised, and all people are bar coded on their faces. It’s made quite clear that this emphasis on order and control has not benefited humanity, as Benson is shown to be murderously psychotic. Additionally, in a touch that is no doubt all Amis, dependence on artificial chemical stimulation is accepted behaviour (the “Blue Dreamers”, pills that Adam and Alex take at one point).


The problem is that there isn’t enough feel of an integrated future here, so it translates to screen as a stereotypically pulpy one, ripping-off tropes right left and centre but unable to construct something distinctive with them. There are strong echoes of Douglas Trumbull’s Silent Running in the premise of ecologically minded individuals who separate themselves from an uncaring, unyielding dystopian Earth (and who are mocked for being out of touch). This is true even down to the monastic gowns the lead characters are seen wearing at points. But Saturn 3 lacks the thematic unity of Trumbull’s film, and Donen has little sense of the story he wishes to tell other than as a futuristic iteration of Frankenstein’s monster. There’s a clumsiness on display that might have been avoided if there was greater familiarity with the genre. Calling a character Adam, when he lives in a “paradise” with his bountiful Eve and have a serpent come into their midst, is a little on-the-nose; Benson even brings an “apple” which the Adam and Alex consume. One could imagine the bare bones of plot nourished considerably by a director with a more pervasive sensibility; Nic Roeg or Donald Cammell, perhaps (the latter’s Demon Seed explored a similar theme of a sex-mad machine gone rogue, and was most definitely an example of a potentially risible premise being considerably enhanced by the flair of its director.


In this case, director Stanley Donen, best known for musicals, does a competent job but doesn’t have much feel for the material. Apparently the script, ostensibly by Martin Amis, went through numerous unofficial rewrites to the point where he can hardly be blamed for some of the more credibility-stretching dialogue and scenarios.



It might have turned out differently had original director John Barry remained attached. No, not the film composer, but the production designer and some-time second unit director (in the former capacity he had worked on films including A Clockwork Orange, Star Wars and Superman (on which he also directed second unit). He worked with Donen on Lucky Lady in 1975, and brought his idea for Saturn 3 to him at that time (so, in conception at least, this predates the sci-fi boom). It was Donen who suggested both Amis and, ironically, that Barry direct.


Things didn’t go well for Barry, for whatever reason. Donen claimed it was down to inexperience working on the set, although others have disputed this. Douglas throwing his weight about appears to have been a factor, but most likely what was seized upon was that the schedule fell behind due to the time-consuming robot effects. An area that did not run any smoother when Donen assumed the reins. Sadly, Barry died not long after exiting the film. He moved on to The Empire Strikes Back as Second Unit Director and succumbed to meningitis a couple of weeks later, at only 43.


One might murmur that the film was doomed from the start, being a Lew Grade ITC production. This was the time of his disastrous production of Raise the Titanic (which reportedly crippled Saturn 3’s effects budget as fall-out from its spiraling-out of control costs) and the soon-to-follow Legend of the Lone Ranger. Grade reportedly offered Fawcett the role on a whim, meeting her on a flight. With the success of Charlie’s Angels, she was arguably ideally cast as the older man’s lust object. It’s notable that much of the publicity centred on Fawcett wearing a Barbarella-esque fantasy outfit (that featured in one of the film’s deleted scenes, and bore little relation to the content and tone of the production). As such, Fawcett’s fine if insubstantial; it goes without saying that most male viewers will remember the film for the brief appearance of her breasts rather than her performance. And, of course, every opportunity to show her in her skimpies has been duly taken.


The scattershot approach to casting went on. Unable to bag Connery (or Caine), Kirk Douglas appears to be more age-appropriate to the role. More than twice Fawcett’s years (and looking it, although there’s no denying that he seems capably limber in all the action scenes – his knees appear quite able to bear crouching about under floors), Douglas sells the side of the character that is threatened by the (as Alex puts it) cuckoo in the nest. It never feels that this is other than an old man worried that his luck with a young woman is soon going to run out (including some choice dialogue on the subject). But his performance is untempered. For much of the time he seems to think he is in a broader film, making Adam “large” when more reserve would have been appropriate. Douglas was reportedly a right pain, and Amis referred to his obsession with being naked as specifically relating to his advancing years. It would certainly explain the scene where, in the buff, he grapples with Keitel; anyone searching for a fix of sexagenarian flesh need look no further. And I find it difficult to believe that the moment where Kirk slaps Fawcett’s arse was planned, certainly by her.


As characters go, Adam is old and worried that he is losing it. That’s about it. Douglas fails to sell his rejection of Benson (“Let the robot have him!”) or his recovery of his convictions (“I can’t do it!”), but to be fair Adam hasn’t seen nearly enough reason to justify leaving him to die at this point (unless it’s in a deleted scene). He also gets saddled with deductive leaps (“He doesn’t want to kill us!”) that are hard to fathom.



Then there’s Keitel. Looking relatively fresh-faced and sounding… different. That’s because Roy Dotrice dubbed him, for reasons unverified (these vary from refusal to show up to post-synch his dialogue to Lew Grade’s dislike of his New York vowels). This is one of the aspects of the film that is mercilessly mocked, as if is conclusive evidence of how shit it is. Except, I think Dotrice’s level tonelessness works for the character. Benson sounds detached, strange and disturbed; which is surely exactly as he should be.


Where even the harshest critics have to show respect is in the quality of the design work. The sets, which consumed much of Shepperton Studios, are magnificent and labyrinthine. Production designer Stuart Craig went on to work on all the Harry Potter films. It should be remembered that Saturn 3 was in production before Alien came out, so it’s dark moody sets could not be seen as mimicry. Indeed, there’s a bridge here between the more traditional “clean” look of pre-Star Wars SF and the overt used-future post-Alien (for the latter, see the following year’s Outland). There is even reason to suggest that it was influential; one cannot watch Adam and Alex evading Hector under the flooring and not think of Aliens.


The costume designs vary in quality; Keitel’s green-tubed suit is great, whereas Adam and Alex’s spacesuits are very classically sci-fi. And Douglas’ leisurewear and turtlenecks are just taking the piss. Apparently this is a future where overpopulation is rife, starvation is an issue and people eat dogs. Yet the population still seems to be able to afford fetching leather trousers.


Nevertheless, kudos to the anti-Star Wars approach in creating Hector. Elsewhere movies were amping up the anthropomorphism of mechanical men (The Black Hole). Saturn 3 goes in the opposite direction. Hector doesn’t even have a head, just an ever-inquiring eyestalk. The imposing design is ungainly yet arresting, even if it’s difficult to believe that stealth pursuit would be possible with such a great clanking hulk (“He just vanished!”); it was reportedly a very expensive prop and consumed a significant portion of the budget (more than a tenth, apparently). Where Saturn 3 resoundingly falls short is in the cheap model work; most egregious are the bargain basement travelling through Saturn’s rings effects (this is where the claims that Grade cut funding come into play). The opening shot is a poor-man’s rip-off of the corresponding shot in Star Wars too.


It’s possible that the original version of the film flowed better, and was more thematically coherent than what ended up on screen; fifteen minutes were excised (this version was shown on TV in the ‘80s, and part of the Blue Dreamers scene can be seen – in German – on youtube). Certainly, some of the more “adult” ideas might have added much-needed texture. The extended Blue Dreamers sequence is nothing short of a loved-up Ecstasy romp for Adam and Alex, although the even longer version apparently includes a fantasy of Adam murdering Benson which is suggestive of more nightmarish, Manson-seque Acid possibilities (it makes more sense that a psycho like Benson wouldn’t be happy with relentlessly upbeat Ecstasy experiences). 


The best scenes of the available version relate to the interaction between Benson and the increasingly insolent Hector. The idea of a robot brain grown from foetal tissue is arresting and a believable one, and Hector’s usurping of his master (“I am not malfunctioning you are”) works extremely well. The uploading link into the base of the brain is a neat touch too. What we don’t get is any insight into either character, Frankenstein or his monster. You have to really pay attention in the first couple of minutes to pick up on Benson’s involvement in the mission (the erratic editing doesn’t help). It seems all we really need to know is that Benson is bad because he is mad. Of Benson’s behaviour, while the 22-day “shadowlock” communications isolation of the station is a solid conceit, it’s less believable that no one aboard the ship seen at the beginning would have registered the disintegration of one of its crew (and clearly they haven’t, three weeks later); murder is easy in the future.


Meanwhile, Hector’s attentions toward Alex provoke only fear not sympathy. The potential for developing him at a late stage is squandered; he inserts an upload link into Adam, but the characters do not take the opportunity to trade philosophies. This is a rudimentary megalomaniacal machine. There are enough production stills about to show significant scenes with Hector that might have added a bit of roundedness to him (the one I always remember at the time is Douglas in a spacesuit, grappling with the robot), but I’m unconvinced that they’d have sustained the film better.


Part of the reason is that the pacing is off; there are longueurs of characters doing very little that would only work if there was deliberate method behind them. Donen fails on a number of important levels; he never cements a strong geography to the base, and is unable to establish a pervasive atmosphere of unease. Once the theme of voyeurism has been established it should intrude on every scene, but he eases off repeatedly. At times, his staging is impressive and you can see his musical background (the rocket-port set at the opening, all long shots with extras in silhouette). He knows where to put the camera, but he doesn’t care for the material. The presence of gore is uneasy too; there was more in the original version, allegedly cut at Grade’s insistence (including the dissection of Benson by Hector). With one exception (the reveal of Hector with Benson’s face attached) it seems gratuitous, and much like the nudity lends the film the air of a B-movie cash-in that stoops to whatever level it needs to for impact.


The atmosphere that is present is mostly down to Elmer Bernstein’s score (again, apparently much of it was omitted when the film was recut). It includes a few silly motifs of the era (and there is a snatch of some really ropey disco during the Blue Dreamers scene) but in general it is ominous and unsettling in all the right ways. There is even a track where “Murder” is wailed over shots of Hector up to no good.


There is something about the varied array of early-‘80s science fiction, riding on the coat tails of Star Wars, that makes it fun to rediscover. Some of it is really terrible, some of it is great. Some of it, like Saturn 3, has the kernel of a strong idea (rather than being a shameless rip-off) but is botched in execution. As a result, it will always be best known for its stunt casting and Farrah-frenzied robot than for its less obvious merits.

***



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

By whom will this be rectified? Your ridiculously ineffectual assassins?

The X-Files 3.2: Paperclip Paperclip recovers ground after The Blessing Way stumbled slightly in its detour, and does so with some of the series’ most compelling dramatics so far. As well as more of Albert performing prayer rituals for the sick (perhaps we could spend some time with the poor guy over breakfast, or going to the movies? No, all he’s allowed is stock Native American mysticism).

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

That’s what it’s all about. Interrupting someone’s life.

Following (1998) (SPOILERS) The Nolanverse begins here. And for someone now delivering the highest-powered movie juggernauts globally – that are not superhero or James Cameron movies – and ones intrinsically linked with the “art” of predictive programming, it’s interesting to note familiar themes of identity and limited perception of reality in this low-key, low-budget and low-running time (we won’t see much of the latter again) debut. And, naturally, non-linear storytelling. Oh, and that cool, impersonal – some might say clinical – approach to character, subject and story is also present and correct.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008) (SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanley was well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley , our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“ too syrupy ”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog.  Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has c