Soylent Green (DVD)

This is one of my favorite movies and one that has a deceptively complex morality question deep inside the sometimes kitschy ideas of the future as seen through an early 1970s lens. A whole generation of people have been born and grown to maturity who haven't seen it and I sure hope the large number of reviews and continued sales on Amazon will introduce them to this great movie.First off, this is one of the "Holy Triad" of Charlton Heston's sci-fi films. The other two are Planet of the Apes and Omega Man, of course. Both very worth a see as well. Also shining in this movie are Edward G. Robinson in his final film appearance (and it is a poignant and beautiful role for him) and Joseph Cotton in a brief but pivotal role.The story centers on a murder that Thorn (a cop played by Heston) investigates in a near future New York City where over-population and increasing environmental damage have nearly destroyed the modern way of life. Thorn's "Book" named Sol (a type of research assistant) played by Robinson uses some loot that Thorn found at the scene of the murder to open up clues to a conspiracy that is so dark and far reaching that it will shake the world if it comes out. What follows is the exciting, tragic and heartbreaking search for the truth.Some of the most important parts of the movie are those that are least talked about. If you think about these almost subliminally disturbing aspects of the film, one can be left with a new and very strange take on morality in difficult situations.One: The question of furniture. In this future, the very wealthy live in apartments that we might see as middle class today and have access to things like real meat (though not great quality) and actual fruits and vegetables (also not great but real). They also have humans included with the furniture and actually call them such. In this case, it is Shirl, a pretty girl whose function is obvious and like a good couch, meant to be comfortable and unobtrusive for the owner of the apartment. For most of us the thought is totally appalling, but is it really? In a world where most won't live to adulthood and death is likely to be drawn out and horrible, furniture live lives of relative security for at least as long as they are young and pretty. Interesting question.Two: Death and Suicide. In this future, the living are too numerous and it can't be sustained. The plankton that fed such a populous as the world dustbowled have now also died out in the super heated future. In response to this, the government sponsors beautiful places where anyone can go to "go home". It is nothing short of an assisted suicide/euthenasia clinic. It is also one of the only places of peace and beauty left for anyone. When Sol finds out what he does during his research and goes to one he has one of the most beautifully filmed and realized death scenes in movie history. It is perhaps even moreso since Mr. Robinson never had another film appearance before his own death. Thorn finds him and tries to stop him, but it is too late and in seeing how this plays out for those who go there to die, one can almost see the positive morality of such a place in such dire world circumstances. It is, after all, the choice of the person who goes there...no one elses.Three: Ultimate Recycling. SPOILERS HERE. Most people know the line..."It's made of People!!". Not all of them know that it is from this movie, which is amusing. In the final scene of the movie we see Thorn trying to get the word out that Soylent Green...once made of plankton for protein...is actually made of the people who go to die at the euthenasia centers. We also see that no one is listening. While our initial reactions as this is discovered during the course of the film is one of disgust, it does beg the question...why? The world is too full of humans and there is no longer the resources to bury them all as they leave this world. What do you do with them? In this future, they break them down into slurry...just the basic proteins...and make a type of cracker out of them. When we consider that the FDA has an allowable amount of contamination for food that is human in nature, it changes the metric some. Is it, in reality, any different than the wonderful crops that come in the years after a battle happens on a field? It's equally appalling and thought provoking.Four: Environment and humanity. One of the most interesting responses I've seen to this movie happens in the first couple of minutes. A montage of scenes depicts real life progress and the pollution that it brought. Most often I hear a comment about how realistic that looks for a 1970s movie. What most are surprised to hear is that almost all of them are real images of real life. How shocking that is to people born after the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. Younger generations have no idea that LA used to be so smog choked that people died or that swimming in a natural body of water could easily kill you or give you cancer quickly. While I'm generally against too much intervention by government I'm often surprised that anyone could ever assert with a straight face that people in business to make money will police themselves and won't intentionally harm the environment. I remember the time before the government forced companies to stop spewing filth into the air and water. Those images of what our country looked like are worth seeing the movie for all by themselves. They are eye-opening.Overall, there is a great deal of 1970s fashion and style that many today will find laughable and there is always that wrongness that happens when trying to imagine a near future (like the video games), but the movie itself is sound and entertaining. It is also dark and mature in nature. It's an excellent film that will appeal to those who like sci-fi, dystopian movies or classics of the age.

Predictive programming?Idk.But it’s an eye opener.A classic everyone should watch

Classic Charleston Heston! A must watch for all sci-fi cinephiles.

Good movie, very dated, great clean up and restored on bluray, good story but, it lacks the punch it needs at the end.

This is worth getting,

What is Soylent Green? Watch the movie and find out. But chances are you already know, given how long this film has been around. It portraits a dark and gritty dystopian overpopulated future America, in 2022! Resources are scarce and food is the biggest commodity. It is fun to see how they thought the future would look and the technology obviously didn't keep up with the way things are now. Performances are engaging as is the story, though it isn't very PC by today's standards (which is one of its charms). This film is worth a first watch, or a re-watch.~ Kort

A modern review of Soylent Green presents a paradox: the central theme is more relevant than ever, but some stylistic and narrative touches make the film hard to take seriously in the 21st century.The film places us in a portentous vision of the future where mankind struggles to survive in Earth's rapidly deteriorating natural environment. Lettuce is a rare treat, meat is reserved for the super-rich, and most people live in broken down cars in makeshift 'shanty towns' or sleep in stairwells or on the street. This fragile existence is maintained by an extensive authoritarian government which strictly rations the limited resources at hand. One such resource is Soylent Green, a wafer-like miracle food credited for rescuing mankind from imminent starvation.The New York City of this miserable future is home to 40 million people, including one perpetually sweaty Charton Heston. As a city police detective, Heston is fortunate enough to have a small apartment (more like a room) he shares with his older roommate (played by E.G. Robinson in his last role). When the head of the Soylent Company is murdered, Heston is sent to investigate. The case leads to a startling discovery, one which launched this film into the annals of movie legend.For those that don't know the secret ending, the film holds the promise of a WTF! moment that alone makes it worth watching. For the rest of us, the film offers a impressively accurate assessment of a future in which the state of the environment becomes a major concern. Though it is unlikely that by 2022 (the year the events of film take place) things will really get as bad as they are in the film, the fact remains that Soylent Green sounded a warning bell almost 30 years before Al Gore produced "An Inconvenient Truth".The films other high point is E.G. Robinson, who plays Heston's friend and roommate. Robinson had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and knew this would be his last screen role, which makes his final scene in the film all the more powerful. What would have been just another scene transcends script and characters and becomes one of the most touching moments ever captured in a major motion picture.Where Soylent Green falters is in the details. What may have seemed believable to audiences of the 70's looks absolutely absurd to viewers 30 years later. I found myself laughing at the concept of women as 'furniture', particularly when Heston nonchalantly crawls into bed with one while mulling the details of his case out loud. The scene serves no other purpose than to inform the viewer that the beautiful women of the future are content to be submissive sex-slaves. This is a wonderful male fantasy, but as a potential reality it is hard to take seriously.Other absurdities are the result of 70's sensibilities in a cold-war era. The impoverished, oppressed masses are all dressed like Russian peasants, the long lines for Soylent rations mirror the USSR 'bread lines', and the government is depicted as heavy-handed, overly-beauraucratic, and deceptive. In one unintentionally funny scene, rioters are scooped up by bulldozers and dumped, like trash, into receptacles carried on the 'dozers. The fact that the rioters seem to offer no resistance to such a fate is what makes it so funny. I mean, why don't they just crawl out?The sets are also hard on modern eyes. It's like looking into a 'retro-future' akin to "Star Trek". Electronics and plastics are rare, and everything looks cheap and (obviously) outdated. I don't expect a film this old to provide an accurate vision of modern technology, I'm just pointing out that the scenery makes the film's vision harder to accept.One wonders how more contemporary films about the near future (Minority Report, i-Robot, etc.) will look to audiences 30 years from now. I assume they'll have trouble fully investing in a setting that they know is inaccurate and which is tainted by cultural elements that are no longer relevant. Taking this into consideration, Soylent Green's central theme has stood the test of time, and will probably continue to do so. This alone is an impressive achievement. However, beyond the well-known 'surprise ending' there isn't really anything that spectacular about the production or the story. It makes for an entertaining first viewing, and it's certainly worthy of its status as a 'classic', but as an essential collectors piece it falls short.