Carry On... #Don't Trust Anyone over 25

Please note that this week's film has been rated  12  in the UK.

Last week's film (Logan's Run) is a prime example of a science fiction film that was emphatically a product of the era in which it was made. If anything, its very relevance proved to be its vulnerability. By the time it reached the theatres in 1976, many of the social trends it was responding to were already starting to fade.


That may also be why attempts to produce a remake have consistently failed to make any headway. Hollywood studios have repeatedly attempted to reboot Logan's Run over the decades, and at least six different directors have embarked on such a project over the last 30 years. Multiple writers have been approached, and in some cases have written complete screenplays - but to no avail. Logan's Run has remained stubbornly and imperviously un-remade.

If you think about it (and I have, trust me) remaking Logan's Run is easier said than done. After a decade of hippie culture, youth rebellion, "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30" and flag burning, Logan's Run was an obvious reaction to a specific moment in history. 



But that moment came and went. How do you remake such a film for an audience that never experienced these things?

Answer: Do it at night, when no one is looking.



Science fiction author Harlan Ellison (who appears to have enjoyed suing people recreationally, when he wasn't busy assaulting other science fiction writers) briefly filed a lawsuit against writer/director Andrew Niccol over the 2011 film In Time; accusing him of plagiarising Ellison's 1965 short story "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman.

The lawsuit was quickly dropped (Ellison had apparently filed the suit before he bothered to watch the film) once it became obvious that In Time had nothing to do with anything that had ever emerged from the head of Harlan Ellison. 

If In Time owes a debt to anything, it is to Logan's Run. Both films are set in a future where life spans are artificially limited (30 years in Logan's Run, 25 in In Time). 



Citizens in both films are implanted (from birth) with devices that indicate the remaining time they have.



Both films feature a protagonist who rebels against the system and, well, runs. 



Both protagonists are pursued by their respective society's "enforcement" class (the Sandmen in the former; the Timekeepers in the latter).


Both films feature a young couple who are drawn to each other as they make their escape from the restrictions of their society;



And both films are absolutely intended as metaphors for the era in which they were produced.

This final point is of course the point that separates the two films, since they were released thirty-five years apart, and are reacting to very different trends in society.

At the very beginning of this current film series I discussed writers and film-makers who extrapolate developing trends in society to their logical (or illogical) conclusions. (If this particular trend carries on, where might it lead?)

Writer/director Andrew Niccol borrows many elements from Logan's Run, but the story he tells has nothing to do with hippies, Yippies or the youth rebellion. In Time was released in 2011, when US society was facing an entirely new set of challenges.



In Andrew Niccol's story, humans of the future have been genetically engineered to stop aging when they turn 25. From that point onward, they will live as long as there is more time on their internal clocks, and that time must be acquired. Time itself has become currency, to be earned, spent... or stolen.



A Sign of the Time

According to Forbes, the 400 richest Americans in 2010 had a combined net worth of $1.37 trillion, which is more than the total worth of 50% of the entire population. In other words, four hundred individuals held more money than the combined wealth of 155 million Americans. 

This financial trend has been steadily increasing over the last several generations, and the effects are becoming more pronounced. 



There are now communities in the US that do not have access to safe drinking water. College graduates can spend their entire lives attempting to repay their student loans, and may never be able to afford property of their own. Teachers are forced to take second (or sometimes third) jobs to make ends meet; often working nights as Uber drivers or Amazon couriers, while at the same time a handful of individuals are recreationally launching themselves into space, because what else can you do with 200 billion dollars?

In In Time, a few wealthy individuals are worth millions of years, and can effectively live forever. Everyone else meanwhile tries to keep their clocks from running out before the end of the day.



According to the National Institute of Health, the average life expectancy of the wealthiest 1% of society is currently almost 15 years longer than that of the poorest 1%.

Logan's Run was a product of the "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30" generation. Of course it's impossible to remake today. In modern society, you can live as long as want; but you have to pay for it.


In Time takes many of the constituent parts of Logan's Run and "remixes" them to construct a very powerful metaphor for the modern world. The 1960s had its own problems. These are the problems that are important in 2011.


We will screen In Time at 7.30 on Thursday, the 7th of December at the Victoria Park Baptist Church.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The calla lilies are in bloom again...

Image
At the beginning of last week's film, Ellen Wagstaff Arden has been lost at sea (missing; presumed dead) while engaged as the photographer for an anthropological expedition to Indo-China. While that back-story was obviously developed to establish the premise of the entire film (that she returns after a long absence to find her husband re-married) it is, I think, very notable that her character is shown to have a successful  career . Irrespective of the fact that she is supposed to be married with two young children, the (husband-and-wife) writers of My Favorite Wife saw no conflict in depicting a female character who had a life and a vocation that extended beyond her identity as merely wife and mother. Women in the 1930s were generally seen as people . They were allowed to have ambitions and aspirations that extended beyond "finding a man" and "becoming a mother". It was in the post-war years that mainstream society explicitly attempted to re-define womanhood a
Read more

A Wife in Every Room

Image
In Bringing Up Baby , Cary Grant became the first person to use the word Gay (in its modern sense) in a Hollywood movie. One might hypothesize that by 1938, the film censors were starting to become more permissive about the subtext that was regularly being slipped into films of the era. One would be completely wrong to thusly hypothesize ( to hypothesize thusly ; excuse me). Film censorship in the late 1930s was just as draconian as ever: a year earlier they had insisted that a shot of a  gravestone  be cut from a film because the character in question had committed suicide, and it was "inappropriate" to show her receiving a proper burial. The word gay had only slipped through in Bringing Up Baby because no one at the Hays Office knew what it meant in that context. (I won't tell them if you don't.) Cary Grant certainly knew what it meant, and it's very interesting that he was the one who got to introduce the word to American film audiences. Because Cary Grant, th
Read more
Image
  Movie Nights at the  Victoria Park Baptist Church And so life goes on. Some of you may remember that our film series in early 2020 was rudely interrupted by a Global Pandemic. The subsequent year and a half has been, well... You know things are pretty bad when you find yourself wondering if there is a plural for "Apocalypse". But at any rate, here we are ( Apocalypses? Apocali? That's going to bother you now, isn't it?) facing the prospect of attempting to pick up the pieces of Civilisation - assuming of course we don't go into another Lockdown first. ( Apocalyae?   Apocalim? ) Movie-going, like so many communal activities, has taken a severe hit during the Pandemic, and I'm willing to hazard a guess that most of the films you have watched over the last eighteen months have been from the comfort of home, with, at most, a family member or two. But watching a film like this: ....isn't really the same as watching a film like this : Sadly we don't quite
Read more

We re-visit stage comedy (in more ways than one) on Thursday the 7th of October

Image
 We are continuing with the "stage comedy" theme next Thursday, after last week's screening of The Importance of Being Earnest. Noises Off began life as a stage comedy which premiered in London's West End in 1982. It is a farce about a farce, which presumably makes it a meta-farce.  This meta-farcical comedy(!) centres around a company of actors rehearsing (and then performing) a play (entitled Nothing On ) which becomes increasingly incoherent as the story progresses.  The original stage version is a merciless (and painfully funny) analysis of just how a farce works - or doesn't work, as the case may be. The film adaptation cranks things up a notch by attempting to film the staging of... the staging of a farce (a meta-meta-farce?) and in the process shows just how difficult it can be to translate a stage play to the screen.  While the film may not be 100% successful, it does manage to be one of the funniest things you will ever see (the first time I saw it, I la
Read more

Down With... Architecture!??

Image
  Okay, folks, this one is just plain bonkers. We've had a month or so of fairly heavy films that tackle some difficult topics (Evolution; Witch-burning; Segregation; Rape.. nice, uncontentious subjects) so it's about time we pause for some refreshment. The rest of March is going to be fun, fun, fun. Say hello to Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was born in Russia to a well-educated, upper-middle class Jewish family. The October Revolution of 1917 brought her comfortable childhood to a very sudden and violent end (she was twelve at the time) and her family lost absolutely everything. By the time she was able to travel to the United States in 1926, she had cultivated what was to become a life-long visceral hatred for Communism, or indeed for any remotely collectivist philosophy. She wasn't merely opposed to the Soviet Union (which you can sort of understand, given what happened to her family); she was violently opposed to any obligations that might be imposed upon the individual for the b
Read more