Soylent Green

WHAT DOES BIG BROTHER WANT?  Big Brother wants only to feed the world.  Who doesn’t want to feed the world?  Go Big Brother!

WHAT DOES THE REBEL WANT?  The rebel wants only to solve the murder of Joseph Cotten.  Who wouldn’t want to solve the murder of Joseph Cotten?  Go rebel!

WHAT DOES THE REBEL GET?  The rebel does, indeed solve the murder of Joseph Cotten.  And a whole lot more.

IS THERE AN UPPER CLASS, AND DO THEY HAVE ANY FUN?  There is and they do.  They have clean apartments, soap, hot water, towels, alcohol, you name it.  Fun ahoy!

DOES SOCIETY CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THE REBEL’S ACTIONS?  Well, he sticks a defiant, bloody hand in the air and says “Somehow we’ve got to stop them!” before he’s carted off to Waste Disposal, so I guess that counts for something.

NOTES: By far the best-constructed, most entertaining of the Charlton Heston sci-fi world-gone-wrong trilogy.  Like Blade Runner and Minority Report, it tells us its skewed worldview through the guise of a detective story.  It’s not a very complicated detective story, but the sheer level of detail brought to the worldview is convincing and pervasive.  It’s not so much the physical details — the design world, in 2022, has ground to a dead halt in 1973 — but the characters’ attitudes, the sheer level of acceptance everyone has of “well, this is how the world is.”  This is introduced most vividly in the opening assassination scene — the assassin isn’t a bad guy and neither is the victim; one’s been hired to kill the other and they both just kind of sigh and get on with it.  That stunning scene sets the tone for the whole movie: people just kind of accept living in cars, or having to pedal a bicycle for their own electricity, or having dozens of homeless people living in their stairwell.  Women just kind of accept being treated as chattel and having police detectives ransack their house, stealing everything that isn’t nailed down.  The poor just kind of accept that there will be shortages, and when they riot, they just kind of accept that the police will respond with bulldozers.  It’s not pleasant, but what are you gonna do?  Everyone, rich and poor alike, just kind of accepts that everything is rotten and there isn’t anything you can do about it.  It’s the apathy in the movie that gets to you, not the production design, and it shows how a single idea and a mastery of tone can go a long way toward carrying a movie.  Because, let’s face it, the detective story in this movie is practically nonexistent.  The protagonist barely does any detective work at all; he punches people and asks them what’s going on while his elderly pal reads books and then goes asks somebody what’s going on and then they tell him.  There is no puzzle or layers of intrigue, rather it’s riddled with cliches (the detective gets involved with the doomed dame, pursues the hot case too far and catches heat from his superiors, blah de blah de blah).  The triumph is all tone and the looks on people’s faces.  When Chuck Connors shoots a priest in the head in a confessional, neither party seems surprised or even particularly uspet by the encounter.

It’s a shock to hear phrases like “Greenhouse effect” tossed around in a movie made in 1973, especially when the result of that effect is the world described here.  The whole thing seems creepily plausible, a world where an assassin has to go to a special contact to acquire a meathook but has no trouble getting a handgun.

Edward G. Robinson’s performance is as good as everyone remembers it and in a way, Soylent Green is a love story between Heston and Robinson, just as Double Indemnity is a love story between Fred MacMurray and Robinson.  I guess he was just that lovable.

Special bonus points for this movie for having Dick Van Patten realize his potential as an actor by appearing as a suicide assistant.

Gattaca

WHAT DOES BIG BROTHER WANT?  Well, there is no “Big Brother” per se, but society wants perfection, and it knows how to get it.

WHAT DOES THE REBEL WANT?  Same as anybody, to go into space.  I think “space” here represents “heaven.”  The protagonist has been damned by unfortunate birth to hell; he’s going to fool the gatekeepers of heaven into letting him slip by.

WHAT DOES THE REBEL GET?  With the aid of an unfortunate perfect-guy (who condemns himself to flames of perdition just as the protagonist is lifted into heaven), plus the love of a beautiful woman (nothing, NOTHING is accomplished in a Futuristic Dystopia without the love of a beautiful woman), plus the last-minute good will of a company doctor, he gets his wish.

DOES SOCIETY CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THE REBEL’S ACTIONS?  Revolution isn’t really the protagonist’s goal here, and not even escape really.  He wants to belong; he wants to know he’s good enough to go to heaven.  The screenwriter chose the term “Valid” for a reason.

NOTES: The theme of the movie, it seems to me, is Will.  Does the protagonist have sufficient will to achieve his goal?  Does he have what it takes to overcome his genetic predisposition, switch identities with another guy, keep up the ruse for years, endure loneliness, constant, obsessive vigilance in cleanliness, break his own legs, live with Jude Law?

The fimmakers face a problem, of course: genetic science and astrophysics are dull, cerebral subjects.  How to juice up the narrative and compel audience interest?  MURDER!  MURDER MOST FOUL, that’s how.  And so, on his way to the stars, our protagonist gets caught up in a murder investigation that seems important only to the police.  Indeed, no one seems interested in or excited by anything in this sterile, unpopulated future; to be excited, I suppose, would be to be less than perfect, which everyone is, or pretends to be.

Our protagonist is totally obsessed, to a ridiculous degree, with getting to the stars, and yet, with days to go before launch and a murder investigation breathing down his neck, he decides to take a chance in romancing Uma Thurman.  This in spite of the risk of exposure, the unhygenic quality of sexual contact, the possibility of getting “girl germs” and the fact that Uma doesn’t seem to have much of a pulse.  Perhaps he feels that if he can’t reach the stars in heaven he can at least have one in his bed on Earth.

Then, cleared from his murder investigation, given a clean bill of health from his corporation, and ready for launch, the protagonist must still face down his brother/detective for one last suicidal swim.  Boys, as the saying goes, will be boys.

One of my posters pointed out in the previous entry that the society of Gattaca is filled with genetic flaws despite science’s best efforts, but I’m not sure that’s what the movie is trying to say.  There is the usual assortment of Valids and In-Valids in society it seems, and they all seem to get along okay, although the Valids seem to lord it over the mutts a little bit.  There is the six-fingered pianist, but it’s unclear from the script whether the pianist is a genetic freak or a planned accident — that is, is he another kind of outsider, like the protagonist, an In-Valid who has overcome his genetic deformity to find a place in Valid society, or did his parents actually give him six fingers on purpose so that he could become a great pianist?  “That piece can only be played with six fingers,” says Uma, indicating that the piece in question was composed specifically for someone genetically modified.

Futuristic Dystopias, Part II

It is time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Here is a list of movies:

Metropolis
Fahrenheit 451
Zardoz
A Clockwork Orange
Soylent Green
THX 1138
Sleeper
Logan’s Run
Rollerball
Blade Runner
1984
Brazil
Gattaca
The Matrix
Minority Report
Code 46
The Island
V For Vendetta
A Scanner Darkly

If you, like me, are a Hollywood screenwriter, you will see not one but two lists here.  There is a short list of movies that were very successful and a longer list of movies that were not successful.  We’re not talking about artistic success here, just boxoffice.  A few of them were smash hits, some were middling disappointments, some were high-profile disasters and others escaped the notice of almost everyone.

My job is to figure out why.  Why did audiences connect with some of these movies and not others?

They all share the Futuristic Dystopia element, which puts them in the realm of sci-fi, but some of them mix in other genre elements as well.  Blade Runner and Minority Report are detective stories, The Island and The Matrix feature action-film elements.

Each has a single protagonist in opposition to his or her society.  That society is either (a) forthrightly awful or (b) awful with a sweet candy-coating that must be peeled away before the awfulness can be tasted.

The key, it seems to me, is in the journey of the protagonist.  Specifically, the protagonist must be active, and must represent something unique and important.

Let’s compare The Matrix and V For Vendetta.  Same filmmakers, similar storyline.  In Act I of The Matrix, Neo is chosen, as The One, to undergo a test.  He is pulled from his world and shown “reality.”  In Act II he undergoes rigorous training, all the while doubting that he is, in fact, The One.  In Act III, a crisis emerges and he must face his destiny, face his oppressors, prove his worth and emerge, triumphant, as The One.  In V For Vendetta, Evey is not The One, she is Some Woman who gets into trouble one night.  She does not undergo rigorous training, she gets brainwashed by a mysterious stranger who won’t take off his mask.  And in Act III, a popular movement forms, but how much does that have to do with Evey’s actions?

The protagonist’s journey need not be heroic.  Alex in A Clockwork Orange is an equal-opportunity thug, victimizing rich and poor alike, seeking nothing out of life but the opportunity to beat, maim, kill and rape.  He’s motivated by the basest of human desires, but we like Alex because he’s pure; he’s smart and resourceful and he has a whale of a time.  He enjoys his life.  Society wants to take from Alex not only his opportunity to rape and kill but his desire to do so.  As bad as Alex is, a society that would take away free will is seen as worse.

In Brazil, Sam has a clear goal, but has no idea how to achieve it.  He gets jerked around a lot, cringeingly accepting indignity after indignity for a very long time.  When he does finally rebel he is immediately punished so severely that he must retreat into a very long fantasy sequence.  It’s also worth noting that Sam is not The One, but rather gains his role of protagonist quite by accident, when a fly falls into a telex machine, starting the narrative in motion.

Rollerball, interestingly, is a sports movie.  The plot is the same as every boxing noir: the athlete just wants to play a good game but the powers-that-be want him to take a dive for the short-end money.  It takes a very simple old story and puts it in a dazzling new context.

In Fahrenheit 451, Montag wants something clear and understandable, but thuddingly uncinematic — he wants to read.  The enormity of that still hasn’t quite sunk in for me yet — a movie about a guy who’s only desire is to curl up with a good book.  Rod Serling in The Twilight Zone knew that that’s no protagonist, that’s an antihero.

I’m off to have dinner with Mr. James Urbaniak, so I’ll leave this for now, but there is much more to be discussed here.  Any information regarding the protagonists’ journeys of, say, Zardoz (which I haven’t seen) or Gattaca (which I haven’t seen in a long time) or any other movie not yet discussed is greatly appreciated.

Brazil

WHAT DOES BIG BROTHER WANT?  I’ve seen this movie a number of times and you know?  I’m not sure.  They seem to want to maintain the status quo, through a gigantic, inefficient bueraucracy.  Citizenry is not controlled per se, but they certainly are kept in their places through this massively inefficient system that makes it impossible to get anywhere or do anything.

WHAT DOES THE REBEL WANT?  Like Winston Smith and THX-1138, Sam wants the embrace of a good woman, in this case Jill, literally the woman of Sam’s dreams.  Beyond that, Sam, spectacularly, has no plan; once he gets his mitts on Jill he is completely at a loss and must think fast to improvise a plan.  And Sam’s just not that good an improvisor.

WHAT DOES THE REBEL GET?  Oh, it doesn’t end well for the rebel.

IS THERE AN UPPER CLASS, AND DO THEY HAVE ANY FUN?  There is and they do, although their fun is occasionally interrupted by “terrorist attacks” (which are never explained) and botched plastic surgeries.  But even the upper class gets bossed around by waitstaff and bueraucrats and, this being England, everyone is terribly afraid of what others think of them.

DOES THE SOCIETY CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THE REBEL’S ACTIONS?  In his dreams.

NOTES: Strangely, Jesus Christ is a major character in both this movie and in THX-1138.  I’m not sure why.  It doesn’t make sense for an oppressive dictatorship to choose Christianity as a state religion, as it does in THX, and whatever metaphorical connection there is to the narrative of either film eludes me.  Neither THX nor Sam are particularly Christ-like; they confront no authority and are not sacrificed for the sake of publicity.  They stand for nothing outside of themselves.  I think the Christmas motif running through Brazil is there to emphasize the hypocrisy of the society’s priorities, but again I’m not sure.  Strangely, in Sam’s dreams (however much of the movie those constitute) one of the symbols tossed on the rubbish heap by the robot samurai is a neon cross.  So it seems like the movie is saying that the evil bueraucracy that Sam fights against is trying to destroy, among other things, Christianity.  Is Gilliam pro-Christianity or anti?  After Life of Brian I would have guessed anti (Christianity, not Christ), but here he seems to want to make some distinction between Christ and society’s perversion of the Christ message.

I love the idea that everything in the movie happens because there’s a guy running around out there fixing people’s heating problems without the proper paperwork.

One question that haunts me is, are there terrorists at all, after all?  If not, who’s blowing stuff up?

Another question is, where does Sam’s dream begin?  Does it begin at the start of his torture session, or much earlier?

Terry Gilliam’s movies are generally filled with Gilliamisms, but they are here this time in full force: the fish-eye lenses, the overstuffed production design, the imaginative, extensive use of miniatures, the sets a little too small to contain the action.

The acting is generally strong in this movie with Katherine Helmond a particular standout, but I gotta say, Michael Palin is freaking amazing.  I’ve always been a fan, but his performance here as a polite, efficient, paternal torturer is just astonishing.  Plus, for my personal delight, there are no fewer than than three strongly Steven-Rattazzi-like actors in this movie: Jonathan Pryce, Ian Holm and Bob Hoskins, all of whom Rattazzi has been compared to in his career (strangely, with usually the word “Pakistani” appended, as in “Steven Rattazzi resembles a Pakistani Ian Holm in his role in Cymbeline,” this about a man named Rattazzi).  Terry Gilliam should just have Rattazzi play all the male roles in his movies and be done with it.

THX-1138

WHAT DOES BIG BROTHER WANT?  Not much — total control of all human behavior, including thought, emotions and sexual response.

WHAT DOES THE REBEL WANT?  The rebellion starts, as rebellions will, with sex.  That was Winston Smith’s problem and it’s THX’s problem too.  He’s willing to risk it all — the steady job at the police-robot factory, the mood-enhancing meds, the beige, block-like food, the holographic porn, the masturbation machine, for the embrace of a good woman.

WHAT DOES THE REBEL GET?  He gets thrown in prison.  At least I think it’s prison.  It doesn’t act much like a prison.  Things are kind of left open-ended in this movie, even prison.  In any case, with the help of a hologram come-to-life (shades of Agent Smith) he escapes.

IS THERE AN UPPER CLASS, AND DO THEY HAVE ANY FUN?  It doesn’t seem like there’s anyone in charge at all, just a series of interlocking bureaucracies that just kind of muddle through each crisis as it comes along.

DOES THE SOCIETY CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THE REBELS ACTIONS?  No.  In fact, as it develops, it is this society’s inability to bend its rules even a little bit that allows THX to finally escape.

NOTES: This is the Futuristic Dystopia boiled down to its barest bones.  The narrative is kept at ground level — well, the sub-basement level, actually.  Observational/behavioral in the extreme.  There is no explanation of why this society is the way it is, or why THX’s mate is unhappy, or how a hologram  comes to life, or how THX escapes from prison.  The rebel doesn’t want to change things or seize control of the state or bring down Big Brother, he just wants to get the hell out of there (and even then it takes him more than half the movie to come to that decision). 

It’s almost as though this is a prison-break movie made for the entertainment of the citizens in the city in the movie.  In fact, it would have been a cool ending to have the last image, then have that flicker off and see that, all along, we were watching a movie being watched by a beige-block-munching pair of folks in their white suits, and the male turns to the female and says “That was nice” and the female says “Yes, a good fantasy” and they turn off the light and go to sleep.

Another cool ending would have THX climbing up to the surface,opening a hatch and finding himself on the surface of the Death Star.  Or in the middle of the street in Modesto in 1962 as Paul LeMat races with Harrison Ford.

Or in the middle of a 19th-century village that turns out to actually be a 21st-century village — where everyone who lives there is actually a ghost. 

The Futuristic Dystopia

Everything is perfect in the future.  Everyone is happy, everything works.  The authorities have everything all figured out.  Nothing can possibly go wrong.

Or can it?

Half-brother to the End Of The World movie, the Futuristic Dystopia movie tends to follow certain perameters.

It’s hard to be a leader in a Futuristic Dystopia.  There are always Rebels who suddenly see the society for what it is.  Once these malcontents have had their realization, they must either fight or flee, or both.

Things aren’t so good for the rebels, of course.  Everyone’s after them, and chases tend to ensue.  Often they must have their heads put in uncomfortable apparatuses.

As one can see from the above examples, the Nixon era was a good time for Futuristic Dystopias (Brazil and the unpictured Blade Runner dating from the close-cousin Reagan era).  Sensors indicate that the genre is due for a revival (Minority Report being a good example of this).

Your favorites?