Showing posts with label Charlton Heston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlton Heston. Show all posts

Friday, September 20, 2013

Film Friday: Soylent Green (1973)

Tuesday is Soylent Green day... and I’m not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, Soylent Green is a fantastic dystopian film about a world destroyed by overpopulation and pollution. Unlike its contemporaries, it is a shocking, visceral film that can bring real emotion. On the other hand, it’s an unpleasant film to watch with unlikable characters, lousy ideology, and the surprise has long been spoiled.
Plot
Soylent Green takes place in 2022. The world is massively overpopulated. Forty million people crowd into New York City alone, and the film suggests that the East Coast cities at least have grown together into one huge mega city. Overpopulation has caused the world to collapse as people now live in overcrowded dilapidated apartments. The homeless crowd into churches. The government has no control and can’t even begin to stop crime. Making this all the worse, pollution has destroyed the land and food is scarce. Humanity now depends on processed plankton for food. That plankton is processed by the world’s food company, called the Soylent Corporation, which provides Soylent Yellow, Red and now Green to the people through the government. The story takes place against this backdrop.
Charlton Heston is NYPD detective Robert Thorn, a “good” cop. He’s called in to investigate the murder of a rich man named William R. Simonson. Simonson was a director of the Soylent Corporation, but political pressure is soon applied to make Thorn drop the investigation. Thorn refuses to stop and soon learns that before his death, Simonson told something to a priest, which the priest says is “destroying him” – he seems almost delusional by the time Thorn speaks to him. Thorn then gives his friend Sol (Edward G. Robinson) a book he discovered in Thorn’s apartment titled: “Soylent Oceanographic Survey Report, 2015 to 2019.” He wants Sol to examine it. When Sol grasps the conclusion in the book, he decides to end his life, so he goes to a euthanasia center. Thorn races there when he finds out what Sol is doing. He is too late to stop the death, but Sol tells him what he learned and he tells Thorn to get proof and expose this. It is a horrifying moment. Thorn then follows Sol’s body to discover the horrible secret.
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
In some ways, this is easily the best of the 1970s dystopian films. Indeed, where this film succeeds and so many of the others fail is in making the overpopulated, overpolluted world feel real. The writer very smartly draws constant references to the details that give you a visceral feeling for what this world is like: a horrible uncomfortable world of absence and want. Society has exhausted its resources, so things like cars (and even buses and trains) are a thing of the past. Food vendors hawk crumbs and broken bits of house wares on the street. The apartments look like slums and seem to have been furnished from garbage dumps. We are constantly reminded of the heat wave, the poisoned air, and the fact that most people have never even seen the foods we take for granted. For example, Heston compares a pair of breasts to a grapefruit, only to be reminded he’s never seen a grapefruit. He needs Sol to taste a spoon to tell him what the little bit of food he’s found on it is – strawberries. He hasn’t had a hot shower in living memory. And when he sees the short film showing the images of the world long gone, e.g. trees, animals, fields, he breaks down and weeps because he wasn’t even able to image what the world had been like.
This is where the film excels, and where you feel the oppressiveness. The government is brutal, murderous and oppressive (though it still wants to pretend to follow procedures) and it has absolute power over all aspects of society. The cops are like Gestapo agents in a way, that they can simply walk into your home and take what they want. Yet, society is also beyond the control of the government. There are too many people to police. There are too many people to control... to protect... to feed. This is a world without freedom or safety or order. It is oppressive in other ways too. There are so many people that life is intolerable. In what is truly a great scene, you see Heston struggle to chase a man who has shot at him, but both are barely moving as they force their way through the crowd. As you watch this scene you feel physically sick knowing this feeling of being caught in a crowd and how confining that can be, and then you realize... that is life in this world every day for these people.
This is a polluted word too where the air is dirty and green, and where a constant heat wave burns your body up. And there is no escape. You can’t go home to escape this because you live in abject poverty, without electricity or water and with almost no food... yet, you need to lock your doors and be careful not to venture out alone because someone will attack you to take the almost-nothing you do own.

Three things make this world completely believable and make you cringe watching it. First, there are constant references to these conditions. This isn’t a film that mentions this and then forgets about it to tell its story. Every single character in every scene makes some reference to the conditions under which they live, and that keeps it constantly on your mind. Secondly, everyone accepts this reality. The government admits that it’s incapable of changing things, the people take the world as normal, and even the rich live in somewhat similar conditions. Yes, they have running water and air conditioning and modern apartments, but those things are minor. They have no cars, no estates, and not much more food than everyone else. That’s actually the key point to selling this. No possibility of escape is shown because there is no other world to escape to: this is not a tale of two worlds, nor is this a world caused by a villain who can be defeated and the world freed... this is the world.

Finally, the most important piece is Sol’s death scene. Up to this point in the film, everything has been grim and dystopian except the luxury apartment where Thorn spends a couple days with the concubine (something which suggests a very different set of morals in this world, by the way). What this has done is adjust your expectations so that you see the luxury apartment as the ideal world compared to the horrible world outside. Then Sol is shown the video of our Earth and nature in all its glory, and it strikes you how horrible this world really is that the tiny, sparse luxury apartment is viewed as paradise. This is enhanced by the death of Sol, who is the one character who gives Thorn hope. (As an aside, this is a powerful scene made all the more powerful in that Edward G. Robinson was dying of cancer when he filmed it – it was his last scene – and only Heston and Robinson knew about this. Heston claimed the scene haunted him for years and it really is easy to feel the emotion within the scene.)
Then the other shoe drops. Having had your eyes opened by the short film, you are suddenly shown the secret. Not only is this secret horrible, but even worse, you realize right away that knowing it changes nothing because there is no other food supply... this is their fate. At that moment, you truly realize what genuine dystopia is. No other 1970's dystopian film comes close to this. To the contrary, all the others, like Logan’s Run are about worlds where people seem happy until they learn they aren’t truly free. That’s kind of a piddly complaint compared to the hell on Earth that is Soylent Green. Even something like Planet of the Apes lacks the punch of this film because it seems so implausible and like it can’t happen to us. Soylent Green feels like it can. And that makes this a special film.

Ok, but that brings up a couple problems. First, this film feels like it rambles. Had this film been made with modern storytelling techniques, it would have been a much stronger film... think the style of Minority Report. Secondly, this is a hard film to enjoy. Heston is not a likable character; he’s an abusive cop. It is an ugly film to look at. And it posits a horror, but without a solution so it is frustrating to watch.

Further, the film is ideological crap. This film was made in the 1970's when Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” was the big seller among liberals. They were convinced that humans were going to breed themselves into a polluted, overpopulated, starving world. But their ideology was deeply flawed. They ignored the fact that population growth, like other growth, is not straight-line growth... it peaks and then falls again. They wrongly assumed that “overpopulation” leads to poverty – to the contrary, some of the richest places on earth are the most densely populated (Tokyo is as large as the nightmare city in Soylent and is one of the most prosperous on the planet). And they utterly failed to grasp how vast the Earth really is. That makes the message here of culling the population before the peons breed rather obnoxious.

If you can set those things aside, however, this is a super smart and well-made film. It is one that everyone should see, even if you know the ending. Just try to forget the ending and imagine the shock of realizing the twist for the first time... and that there isn’t a thing those people can do about it.

In any event, remember that Tuesday is Soylent Green Day. Yummy.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Guest Review: The Buccaneer (1958)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

How many times have you heard critics use the phrase “for fans only”? The Buccaneer was meant to be Cecil B. DeMilleʼs re-make of his own 1938 film, and seemingly had everything going for it. Starting with the obvious credibility of DeMille himself, it boasts a great cast including Yul Brynner and Charlton Heston at the prime, Inger Stevens, Claire Bloom, Charles Boyer, E. G. Marshall, and Lorne Greene.

A highly romanticized story based on real historical figure Jean Lafitte (Brynner), the film follows events leading up to the Battle of New Orleans at the conclusion of the War of 1812. Although he doesn’t prey on American ships, Lafitte remains an outlaw since he sells merchandise tax free which, combined with his considerable personal charm, makes him popular with the local citizenry. When the British threaten the city, Lafitte must choose between fighting on the probable winning side (where he is not an outlaw) or joining forces with General Andrew Jackson (Heston). His ultimate choice is influenced by a combination of patriotism, a romance with the governor’s daughter Annette Clairborne (Stevens), and probably most importantly, a promise of full pardon for past crimes authorized by Gov. William Clairborne (E.G. Marshall).

Released December 1, 1958 when historical costume productions were much in vogue, this one never quite lived up to expectations. Critics have been mostly lukewarm, and I cannot entirely disagree despite my own lofty expectations for the recent DVD and Blu-Ray release. That expectation was based, at least in part, upon originally viewing it at age ten in one of the old movie palaces in downtown Philadelphia. Should you invest your time and money in The Buccaneer? Perhaps, if you are “a fan.” Let’s explore not only some reasons you might choose to skip this one, but also some reasons you might find it worth re-visiting.

Three Reasons To Skip It

1) It was not actually directed by the great “Cecil B.” after all. By the time filming commenced, DeMille was nearly 80 years old and critically ill. This was his last credited film as he died shortly after it was released. Unable to direct for himself, his son-in-law, Anthony Quinn pinch hit. Trouble was, although Quinn was one of the great actors of his generation, he had no directorial experience of his own, and it shows. Direction is aimless and stilted. This is the only directing ever done by Quinn and we can apparently be thankful for that.

2) The film lacks realism. It looks an awful lot like a musical without music, although that may not entirely be by accident. It turns out DeMille intended his “re-make” to be a musical. He most likely wanted to cash in on Brynner's success from The King and I. For some reason, Yul balked at the idea of another musical, and there was no question DeMille needed Brynner for the lead, so that concept was scrapped. Still, too many group scenes include people dutifully standing stock still while the leads recite speeches in lieu of singing songs. This is particularly true for Brynner who constantly delivers his lines while standing with feet spread apart, hands on hips, and wearing his ballet tights, calf high boots, open puff sleeved shirt, and leather vest. Of course just seeing him with hair can unsettle the unsuspecting viewer.

3) The story line develops too slowly. The way the film was marketed, one expects a big pirate action adventure with a major historical battle as the climax. Realistically, the film is more dialogue driven with a strong romantic interest. It takes far too long to lay out all the conflicts Lafitte must resolve in order to make the decision that essentially forms the heart of the movie. Apparently, the real Lafitte actually had an affair with the governor’s wife rather than his daughter as portrayed on film. I suspect that had more to do with appealing to both men and women, as well as keeping with the social mores of the time.

. . . And Three Reasons For Fans to Watch It Anyway

1) Heston, Brynner, and Stevens light up the screen. Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner reprise their co-star duties from The Ten Commandments. Now this film should never, ever, be mistaken for that masterpiece, but these two guys were film giants in an era known for its movie stars. Interestingly, although it’s a supporting role, I actually liked the performance of Heston as Jackson better than Brynner’s Lafitte. He’s in the very first scene and creates such a commanding presence that he dominates every scene he’s in, including those with Brynner. It may come down to something as simple as Heston being born to play historical figures. It’s all about the “gravitas”. This is not to say Yul was deficient. He’s an incredibly commanding figure to be sure, yet for me, Heston loomed larger.

Inger Stevens is an actress who died too young and never received much credit for her craftsmanship. I found her to be both beautiful and compelling in this film as the governor’s daughter and Lafitte’s love interest. There is just enough of a clash between lovers from two different cultures to create plausible romantic tension.

2) Hey, come on . . . we ARE talking “The Battle of New Orleans” here, aren’t we?! The costumes alone are magnificent considering when it was made. In fact, the only academy award nomination for The Buccaneer was for costume design. What ultimately won me over, though, is the advance through the fog by British Troops under artillery bombardment while the Black Watch dutifully plays an attack march on their bagpipes. This particular custom was designed to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy, and there can be no doubt it usually had a chilling effect. In fact, I’d love to see a really good depiction of the Battle of Long Island during the American Revolution, when the British got in back of Washington’s militia. His soldiers had no idea what was coming until they heard the skirl of the pipes -- behind them! This battle scene has a definite “in the studio” feel and has neither the realism nor scope of more modern depictions of war. Still, it’s not bad for the 1950ʼs, and represents the main reason I “just had” to see it again.

3) The Buccaneer looks great in 1080p. True, it was not given the high-end restoration techniques bestowed on Ten Commandments or Ben-Hur. In fact, since I have not seen it in DVD format, it is quite possible this particular restoration would work nearly as well in 480i if a good scaler is handy. Either way, it is amazing how good they can make 50 year old productions look anymore. And at two hours, it doesn’t require that extra long time commitment so often associated with costume period pieces.

So, the bottom line is you can enjoy this one as an interesting study of film techniques in the 50ʼs, as a chance to see some great actors of that era play off each other, or just a chance to see an interesting period in American history portrayed. But if you do happen to pass on it, rest assured you should not lose any sleep over your decision. What other periods or topics in American history do you feel need to be visited again in film?


P.S. How did this poster escape Andrewʼs article on that topic?

[+] Read More...