Skip to main content

I get the feeling we’re either dead, or in a different universe.

The Quiet Earth
(1985)

(SPOILERS) I had in mind that I first happened upon The Quiet Earth in a season of Moviedrome, as it seems exactly that kind of offbeat fare However, according to BBC Genome, while it was first shown on BBC2 in the UK, it was in 1991, much later than I thought, and in a 9pm slot. Geoff Murphy’s movie bears all the strengths and failings you associate with a cult SF picture: low budget, variable performances and writing/plotting, but also inspired ideas and, in its depiction of an all-but deserted world, the kind of verisimilitude a big studio budget ultimately tends to detract from with high gloss (I Am Legend).

In a typically cheerful interview on the Arrow Blu-ray release, Kim Newman identifies several essential tropes of the “last man on Earth” sub-genre, and The Quiet Earth duly checks these off. They are also present and correct in both the most recent adaptations of Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend (which chronologically fall either side of this picture).

We’re introduced to our protagonist Zac Hobson (Bruno Lawrence), apparently alone in the world following an event we learn about only subsequently. He takes full opportunity to avail himself of free gear, food and lodging (and, in an amusingly edited moment, segues from playing with a toy railway to “playing” with a real one). We see similar in both The Omega Man and I Am Legend. And then, inevitably, the isolation strikes. Linked with that, there’s a lurking guilt, as per Heston and Smith, since Hobson nurses a degree of responsibility for what has befallen the planet. And so, a degree of madness sets in, characterised here by donning a dress, giving a speech to a garden full of life-size cut-outs of famous figures, and blowing the limbs off a statue of Christ.

There is, it has to be said, something a little contrived about a few of these moments, a “What can we think of that will amuse/shock?” quality that carries through into later episodes. Nevertheless, Lawrence, a long-time colleague of director Murphy, is terrific throughout. His hangdog melancholy, vaguely reminiscent of Warren Mitchell, entirely cements the picture, and as a presence, he strikes a fiercely unglamorous, dishevelled look.

But as Newman goes on to note, it’s very difficult to sustain this basic setup without additional human interaction; Lawrence doesn’t even make it to the halfway mark – it’s easy to see why Warner Bros baulked at early iterations of the ultimately doomed Ridders/Schwarzenegger I Am Legend – before falling in with first Alison Routledge’s perky Joanne and then Pete Smith’s aggressive Api. Cue: inevitable love triangle. Whoever has opted along this route has inevitably drained the atmosphere built up in the initial stages (see both mentioned Matheson adaptations). In The Quiet Earth’s case, comparisons are drawn to the 1959 film The World, the Flesh and the Devil (based on PM Shiel’s The Purple Cloud and Ferdinand Reyher’s End of the World), which I haven’t seen. I was reminded of the more recent Z for Zachariah, though. Albeit, that is a much soberer, more intense affair.

Elements of the trio’s interaction tend to the clichéd or crude. There are inevitable clashes and comments in respect of race (Api is Maori) and gender (“Of course, an exclusive all-male club playing God with the universe” scoffs Joanne at one point). Hobson quickly realises that any attempts to keep Joanne to himself are doomed (“I used to be a loner, and then you came along” he tells her; “I’m thinking about the three of us now” she rebuffs). It doesn’t help the budding relationship between Joanne and Api that there’s no chemistry between Routledge and first-time actor Smith, making the new-found tension with Hobson seem calculated rather than natural.

In her essay on The Quiet Earth, Amy Simmons suggests the picture “loses something of its free-floating inventiveness as soon as it gains a plot” but I wouldn't entirely agree; the antics of the trio would have quickly become tiresome if allowed to continue any longer. Besides which, the SF element is actually a satisfyingly neat one, with just enough plausibility to allow us to go with it (even if blowing things up at the climax lacks finesse).

There’s discussion of why they came to be there when no one else is, and they realise that each died at the moment of the Effect (Hobson committing suicide, Api being murdered and Joanne electrocuted; there’s even an explanation for why there are live fish in a stream). Hobson’s doomy prognostications add an air of tension (“I can’t quite measure it. But I can feel it. It’s as though we’ve been shifted sideways”; “Does it look to you like the Sun’s pulsating?”; “Unit charge of an electron has changed and is increasing in oscillation”; “I can only conclude that the fabric of the universe has not only altered but is highly unstable”). We are told “It was an American idea. They were experimenting with energy transmissions through a grid surrounding the Earth” (curiously I was reading about Earth grids on the now sadly delated Stolen History forum the day I rewatched the movie; a different sort of grid, admittedly).

Hobson’s “heroic” decision to drive a truck loaded with gelignite into the lab in order to stop the Effect is fitting in terms of his character trajectory. It leads to the picture’s indelible final shot, with Hobson on a beach staring at a matte painting/SF novel cover of strange cloud formation as a Saturn-esque planet looms on the horizon. Inevitably, this striking image formed the basis of the poster, something of an annoying spoiler, as well as an abstract and misleading one for anyone going in cold. Apparently, an ending of Api and Joanne as the new Adam and Eve had been considered, but enigmatic sense prevailed.

Craig Harrison’s 1981 novel of the same name features a time-loop element, and also a suggestion intimated here that Hobson may be in a personal purgatory. At one point, he is mocked for having thought he was President of the World; he later suggests that Api and Joanne are figments of his imagination. While (producer and co-writer) Sam Pillsbury indicated that the film’s ending should be taken as it appears (that Hobson jumped to another world at the moment of death), Murphy likely had in mind a purgatory idea (“having to relive your thing until you work out your karma”). This is something revisited, without the science trappings, in HBO’s The Leftovers. In any event, there’s a Mandela Effect vibe to science messing with the fabric of reality here, albeit not in the only-vaguely-perceptible sense.

The Quite Earth represents something of a high point in Murphy’s career. His Hollywood forays, Young Guns II: Blaze of Glory aside, mostly tended to the steaming piles side of quality. Most memorably, if you can call it that, in the form of Freejack. That movie represented exactly the opposite of The Quiet Earth: bloated, incoherent SF, with stars rather than characters and effects instead of plot. The Quiet Earth is occasionally rough around the edges but its brand of dystopian SF stands up. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.