Film Review: Soylent Green (1973)

Science fiction as a genre was often belittled as "escapist" by the cultural establishment. However, judging by the way science fiction appeared in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that genre was anything but escapist. Instead of allowing viewers to indulge in optimistic visions of other worlds and thus forget a depressing reality, Hollywood science fiction films of the pre-Lucas era often did quite the opposite—visions of the future were such that the turbulent and often bleak 1970s reality looked good in comparison. Interestingly enough, many such films not only withstood the test of time but also became indisputable classics of the genre. One such film is Soylent Green , directed in 1973 by Richard Fleischer.

The plot of the film is based on the novel Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison and is set in New York in the year 2022 AD. As a result of decades of industrial pollution, the greenhouse effect has caused a constant heatwave and mass extinction of plants and animals. Humans, on the other hand, continue to grow in numbers, and New York has a population of 40 million—mostly utterly impoverished people forced to sleep in cramped stairways and dependent on synthetic food called "Soylent". A tiny minority of rich and powerful people, however, can afford such luxuries as running water, strawberries, and "furniture" in the form of sex slaves that come with such luxurious apartments. William R. Simonson played by Joseph Cotten , one of the directors of the Soylent Corporation, belongs to this privileged group until he is killed in his apartment, presumably by a burglar. The murder investigat…

Today, in a world of CGI and rapidly changing technology, we are quite accustomed to the fact that science fiction films might start looking dated only a year or two after their initial release. Soylent Green was made almost five decades ago, yet it seems like a film that could be made today. The only reason to treat Soylent Green as "dated" is that the bleak future depicted in it becomes less certain with each passing year. By the year 2022, Earth and its population might indeed be in worse shape than they were in 1973, yet pollution, global warming, overpopulation and other apocalyptic trends have not materialised in dimensions sufficient to justify the bleak visions of the film. So, Harry Harrison who wasn't exactly happy with the film , screenwriter Stanley R. Greenberg and director Fleischer got it wrong. But that doesn't mean they failed to create a convincing and powerful vision…

Like many other dystopian science fiction films of the 1970s and early 1980s, Soylent Green doesn't create a futuristic atmosphere by presenting technology that doesn't exist in the present, but instead relies on the absence of present-day technology to indicate lower standards of living and the decay of civilisation. In Soylent Green , industrial, technological and cultural decay is presented convincingly, through the details of people's everyday life. Increased heat and humidity in the air are conveyed through simple but effective camera techniques in outdoor scenes. A lack of trees means there are no new books, and an energy shortage mandates that only trucks can be used for transport instead of privately owned cars. A lack of living space means a lack of privacy and a lack of respect for individuals—when they die, they are disposed of instead of being buried, and all their belonging…

Because of this, an otherwise great script loses much of its intended impact at the end. When the great secret is revealed at the end, the protagonist's last words the most quoted element of the film are not directed to the people of 2022, but to the audience of 1973. His warning, however, is going to miss the mark in the context of his film. The outrage he is hoping to create simply won't happen in the impoverished world of 2022, which has lowered its moral standards to almost sub-human levels. Yet, the film makes a nice contrast between the savage amorality of the world and the humanism of the protagonist, indicated in memorable scenes of interaction with the people he loves—his "book" and his new girlfriend.

The protagonist was played by Charlton Heston, one of the greatest actors of American cinema. As in Planet of the Apes and The Omega Man —two other science fiction classics of the period—Heston brings a humane dimension to the otherwise alien or reprehensible world through the character of a tragic hero. His performance was, however, overshadowed by another acting giant—Edward G. Robinson. His character, which had to put the dark future world in the context of our present day, gave extra humanism to the film through the strength of Robinson's performance. Said performance, and especially the final scene, becomes even more powerful when we know that the role of Sol was Robinson's final appearance on film. Other actors did a solid job—Chuck Connors was good as the villain, and Leigh Taylor-Young was more than a pretty face. Fleischer directed this film with great skill, showing his abilit…

All in all, Soylent Green truly deserves its reputation as a science fiction classic. As a science fiction film that relies more on viewers' intelligence than special effects, it represents something that is sorely missed in today's Hollywood. And we should only hope that its reputation wouldn't be diminished by an uninspired remake as has happened with many other great films from that era.

RATING: 8/10 +++

Note: The text in its original form was posted in Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.reviews on August 3rd 2001

===

Blog in Croatian Blog in English InLeo blog Substack

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9