Skip to main content

All the way up! We’ll make it cold like winter used to be.

Soylent Green
(1973)

(SPOILERS) The final entry in Chuck Heston’s mid-career sci-fi trilogy (I’m not counting his Beneath the Planet of the Apes extended cameo). He hadn’t so much as sniffed at the genre prior to 1967, but over the space of the next half decade or so, he blazed a trail for dystopian futures. Perhaps the bleakest of these came in Soylent Green. And it’s only a couple of years away. 2022 is just around the corner.

The secret of Soylent Green is, of course, everything about the movie. Like The Sixth Sense, it would probably be quite difficult to come to the picture now without having had its reveal spoiled. Which is interesting in itself, because it absolutely doesn’t have the twist impact of Shyamalan’s film (we’ve been prepped that there’s a mystery to solve relating to Soylent Corporation). Or the resonance of, say, the visual cue of the Statue of Liberty in Planet of the Apes. The knowledge that Soylent Green, the tastiest of the future’s subsistence food sources, is human bodies is more of a grim underlining of the pit of despair life has descended into. There’s no rotten core to an outwardly shining and enviable future; everything stinks.

In Harry Harrison’s novel, set in 1999, the global population is seven billion, which isn’t far from the current figure, at least officially… He pegs New York City at thirty-five million (forty in the movie), which is a lot further out; nineteen is near enough the current figure. Harrison didn’t have the central twist, nor the high-class prostitution (expensive apartments tend to come with a chattel). His was more an outright meditation on the professed overpopulation problem; it had been gaining cachet, but Harrison had the idea planted as far back as 1946. Stanley R Greenberg adapted the novel (having penning Heston’s hit Skyjacked the previous year). He emphasised the eco-commentary and “We’re destroying our world” angle earlier highlighted by Silent Running (and No Blade of Grass before that).

There are numerous parallels to Blade Runner here, which arrived almost a decade later. But where Ridley Scott’s design aesthetic produced a choking beauty in its polluted, sodden LA and post-modern retro-futurism, Richard Fleischer, whose previous genre entries included 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Fantastic Voyage and, er, Doctor Dolittle, produces something inspired by a 1970s you simply can’t get nostalgic for. There’s no hint of technological progress in the subsequent fifty years: just filth and breakdown. To a degree, this no-nonsense approach is to Soylent Green’s detriment, as it’s a picture with enough ideas about its world that it might have benefited from lingering more and being less ready to cut to the chase. It might have benefited from wallowing in art direction, basically.

But it shares with Blade Runner a vision of inescapable, suffocating urban compression, with a populace of little people at the mercy of all-powerful corporations. Where the masonically-textured Tyrell Corporation offers us gleaming artistry and impeccable taste, though, Joseph Cotten’s rich retiree Simonson, assassinated early on for his unreliability towards the Soylent Corporation – he isn’t comfortable with their big secret – only enjoys a relatively better lot. He has fresh food, and “furniture” (Leigh Taylor-Young’s Shirl) at his disposal, but he’s nevertheless a prisoner of the city just like everyone else. And of the corporation, which controls the food supply for half the world; I did wonder who controls the other half’s. Perhaps the Ail Corporation, given Soylent is derived from combining soya and lentil.

Indeed, Soylent Green falls short generally in connecting the dots of this bigger picture. Blade Runner furnishes the tech of synthetics and the carrot of off-world colonies (and, in the original trashed release, unspoiled vistas of escape). Soylent Green draws a compellingly portrait of squalor and deprivation, but has little sense of the top-down view. Blade Runner gives us Tyrell, but Soylent offers up only lackeys.

So we learn that there’s no point going away to another city (“They’re all like this”) and that the countryside is out (“That’s not allowed. Those farms are like fortresses”). Which rather conjures images of Agenda 21 and its plan to corral the population into city environments. But that, presumably, will leave the unoccupied areas free for the luxuriating one-per-cent. There appears to be no real planning in Soylent Green’s case, either economic or in terms of population. Certainly nothing on the scale of Bill’s grand circus of culling/ sterilisation/ technocratic plug-in, or even just extending the scale of Soylent Green operations from voluntary euthanising of the elderly to a more expansive, enforced level (as Thorn suggests in parting: “The next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle, for food”).

While the plastic-looking chips of Soylent products – “Tasteless, odourless crud” – resemble your popularly envisaged space food, they don’t seem so out of keeping conceptually with our heavily-processed vegan/vegetarian products that, yes, are often produced from soya and lentils. It’s simply that this brave new world is a bit behind the times with regard to the adoption of lab-grown meat. 

As to the Green itself, one of the themes that comes up in exposés of the Elite (Aug Tellez, for example) is the occult practice of making us complicit cannibals by incorporating human meat into the food chain. Obviously, though, this would represent a more calculated purpose philosophically than simply providing nourishment to the hungry (and lest you scoff, human DNA has been found in burgers, and of course, aborted foetus tissue is put in vaccines). Like tasty burgers, Soylent Green has achieved “immense popularity”. As a result, however, it is in short supply, its unavailability frequently causing food riots (“Remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green day”). The publicity meanwhile boasts that it is produced from “high energy plankton gathered from the oceans of the world”,

Fleischer sets the scene with a “march of progress” opening sequence, a succession of still photos charting industrialisation, seas of plastic, face masks (yes) and smog; this was, of course, back when the “greenhouse effect” was a buzz word. Necessity has since downgraded that to the ambivalent and malleable “climate change” (although, manufacture the right diminutive figurehead for the movement, and it can still make for a highly emotive phrase, producing a dramatic effect on proponents and naysayers alike). 2022 swelters under a yearlong heatwave (“Everything’s burning up”) and Chuck’s cop Thorn, upon being called to Simonson’s address, wastes no time in making use of the aircon and splashing his face in clean water. As well as making off with trophies of the job – fresh veg, soap, bourbon and bona-fide real dead beef.

Thorn: I know, I know. When you were young, people were better.
Sol: Aw, nuts. People were always rotten. But the world was beautiful.

The dystopian cynicism is probably the picture’s strongest card (crying is only something old people do now, so hardened have we become). Thorn and his intelligence analyst or “Book” Sol (Edward G Robinson in his last role) live in a crummy apartment, but it beats the building’s stairs, crowded with sleeping bodies Thorn has to navigate every night. Jobs are scarce, so perhaps they are condemned to a subsistence of universal credit (Thorn notes at one point that spending two days off work would lose him his job). They get their power from a bicycle (you’d have though solar would be a big thing…)

The police are blithely corrupt. Aside from stealing from crime scenes, Thorn orders the furniture into bed (this may be less sexist than simply reductively commodifying everyone and everything to first principles). It seems there’s no such thing as a search warrant anymore either. The extent of overcrowding means just anyone can’t be on the streets at any one time (“First stage removal: Streets prohibited to non-permits in one hour”).

Still, though, Fleischer’s lack of finesse means it isn’t difficult for the actors to make this their own. The scenes that linger are the ones with the human element front and centre. The relationship between Thorn and Sol is touching, Heston and Robinson making good on their chemistry (they previously shared the screen in The Ten Commandments, and Robinson dropped out of Apes after screen testing for Dr Zaius). There’s the great scene of Thorn and Sol’s meal of real food. However, the highlight is one where Fleischer does deliver, with the widescreen sensory lustre that accompanies Sol’s death: a montage feast of nature lost set to Beethoven’s Sixth Pastoral Symphony (presumably such imagery isn’t available on their clapped-out TV, as Thorn too observes the vistas, awestruck). There’s a not dissimilar quality to the sensory assault of The Parallax View’s induction film the following year.

Cheekily, Beethoven’s Sixth also plays out over the end credits, so while Chuck survives the movie, there’s little doubt that word won’t reach the Council of Nations, who are doubtless complicit with Soylent anyway (if it even gets that far, since Thorn’s lieutenant Brock Peters has already been seen doing the mayor and thus Soylent’s bidding, and admitting it to Thorn). Really, though, should anyone hearing have been surprised that “The ocean’s dying. The plankton’s dying…” if the land is in the mess it is? Still, if the picture leaves itself open to criticisms of a shortcomings in internal logic – per Penelope Gilliatt in The New Yorker: “Where is democracy? Where is the popular vote? Where is women’s lib? Where are the uprising poor., who would have suspected what was happening in a moment...?” – as the recent plandemic has proved, it doesn’t take very much to suppress a population.

In contrast, Time Out’s Geoff Andrew came out expressly in Soylent Green’s favour (“Good, solid stuff, assembled efficiently enough to be pretty persuasive”), even if he overstates its superiority to the “silly juvenilia” of Lucas and Spielberg that followed. What is evident is that, until Ridders and George Miller offered an antidote about half a decade later, this was the last in the line for unchecked big studio dystopias (although, I guess Zardoz sort-of counts). Logan’s Run, a couple of years on, would provide the set up but also the satisfactory resolution, very much a signpost of the manner in which the science-fiction baton would be exchanged for something sunnier and more optimistic. 


Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi