Wed 7 Sep 2016
A Science Fiction Movie Review: SILENT RUNNING (1972).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , SF & Fantasy films[8] Comments
SILENT RUNNING. Universal Pictures, 1972. Bruce Dern, Cliff Potts, Ron Rifkin, Jesse Vint. Drones: Mark Persons, Steven Brown, Cheryl Sparks, Larry Whisenhunt. Screenplay: Deric Washburn, Mike Cimino and Steve Bochco. Director: Douglas Trumbull.
Silent Running is both a simplistic and spectacular view of a semi-utopian future in which the Earth is a “paradise†with a uniform temperature and only manufactured food to eat; there are no trees or animals left on the planet, only the ones temporary stored on gigantic spaceships left in orbit around Jupiter Saturn, manned only by a minimal number of bored and uncaring crew members.
Except for Freeman Lowell, played by Bruce Dern, for a large part of the film the only character on the screen at any one time. Often wearing a robe and in semi-Messianic fashion, Lowell may be the only person alive who really cares about nature. When the order comes down from above to not only jettison but blow up the entire project, he rebels and takes it upon himself to save his own personal forest biosphere .
Other than two surviving droids for companionship, Lowell is the only person on the screen for most of the movie. When systems begin to fail, he manages to jury rig partial fixes, but no more. It is here that the movie seems to drift a bit, with no destination for the film in sight. But wait! The ending is one well worth waiting for.
This is definitely a movie with a message and striking visual effects, but basically a simple one that may have been premature in 1972. I suspect that the greatest success this movie may have had has been on SF films taking place in space that have followed.
September 7th, 2016 at 10:51 pm
It would have been a much better hour long episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE or OUTER LIMITS than a feature film. Douglas Turnbull’s fx aside it began to wear thin as it became clear it wasn’t really going anywhere.
September 7th, 2016 at 11:46 pm
The movie is also known for having some top talent for screenwriters, all three of who would go on to much bigger projects
September 8th, 2016 at 9:34 am
Steve – I’ve never understood why the forest ships are in orbit around Saturn (not Jupiter, BTW), nearly 900 million miles from the Sun, where solar radiation is just a fraction of what it is on Earth. Better to put them closer to the Sun, say inside Mercury’s orbit. But this was a government project, wasn’t it?
Thanks to Trumbull et al., it’s a handsome film that, as David says, has nowhere to go.
September 8th, 2016 at 10:10 am
I liked it quite a bit when I first saw it, soon after it came out on tape (!). But when I decided to rewatch it a few years ago, I quit halfway through.
September 8th, 2016 at 10:58 am
The robots carry the movie which showed the real problems with this film. We never felt the love of nature Dern’s character was supposed to feel. The central character needed to be more stable and easier to identify with.
September 8th, 2016 at 11:09 am
Mike, Comment #3. Saturn, yes. Back to sixth grade science class for me!
September 8th, 2016 at 1:03 pm
The central idea always felt a bit contrived. Why were the government so determined to blow up the bio-domes, anyway? It’s made plain that they can function on their own without the need for human help to keep them going. I like Dern a lot, but his character in this does feel a little like a more eco-friendly version of the murderous psychopaths that he always played during the late ’60s/early ’70s (he does, after all, murder all of his crewmates!) I am fond of the movie, but after watching more than once over the years I do find my imagination snagging on the plot-holes.
September 8th, 2016 at 3:53 pm
It just struck me as too 1970s: the ecology thing, the nasty Big Government vs. hippie Bruce Dern. IT all seemed too damned “relevant.”