Another overlooked gem from this era is "Dark Star".
The dreary psychological effects of prolonged confinement in closed quarters seem particularly poignant today; and the dispute and argument with Bomb is a delightful foreshadowing of the frustrations of dealing with advanced, yet imperfect and inhuman, artificial intellegences.
And yes, the beach ball alien was intendedt be humorous; and yes, the closed-quarter panic in narrow vent shafts was inspirational on later science fiction movies.
I love how the the origin of the terrifying duct scene in Alien was the guy chasing the beachball through the ducts in Dark Star. All those guys were waiting for was a proper FX budget.
I feel like the beach ball sub-plot in that movie is a practice-run for Alien. Not to mention the parallels between the conversations with bomb and Ash.
Ty Franck (co-write of The Expanse) and Wes Chatham (Amos in The Expanse) talk about this in their new postcast, well worth a listen if you like sci-fi :)
I had no idea this podcast existed, but love The Expanse. Listening to the first two episodes last night was great, it’s immediately apparent just how much they love the genre.
> The two main characters, Vashti and her son Kuno, live on opposite sides of the world. Vashti is content with her life, which, like most inhabitants of the world, she spends producing and endlessly discussing secondhand 'ideas'.
Woah. I'm literally doing that right now...
> Those who do not accept the deity of the Machine are viewed as 'unmechanical' and threatened with Homelessness.
Love the film, but am bothered by how nonsensical the decision to nuke the domes was. The linked piece explains it as "cost cutting", which I don't remember from the film but anyway, how is nuking something more economic than leaving it unnuked?
Our present situation is also pretty nonsensical, though. (There’s no wealth on an uninhabitable planet.) Yet, here we are, stampeding towards the crisis. So, if you squint, Silent Running predicted that, too.
When my city opened a new airport, they had plans to redevelop the old one for other uses. I remember hearing that, in order to stop people from fighting to keep the old airport around, the city quickly destroyed a section of the runways with dynamite. Supposedly this would make it cost-prohibitive to try to use it as an airport again.
A similar thing happened in Berlin. Once BER/EDDB opened, they closed down TXL and said it's still on "standby" when in reality they already decommissioned and sold off lots of the interior.
> Daley first shut the field down in 1996 with the intention of turning the airport into parkland, in order to boost slumping Chicago real estate values and shore up political support by closing a symbol of elite privilege. > https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/day-shut-down-meigs...
It reminds me of greenwashing and other lip service that modern society often pays to social justice issues. Companies will put serious resources into constructing an image that they are "doing good", in a way that has no benefit to the actual issue in question, sometimes even detrimental to it.
The fact that the domes had all the fittings necessary to let them be blown up makes it seem like that was the plan all along, that the whole project was just some kind of busywork to make it seem like they were working on a solution. Feels not unlike the impotent "ethics teams" and DEI teams that big corps set up. Pay some people to do research and write reports and then, when someone is asking what you are doing about X issue, you show them that you are "working on it". Rather than simply executing any of the many legitimate solutions people have already come up with for fixing societal woes.
Well yeah, but it goes even deeper than that, IMO, since the domes could have just stayed on Earth. Why launch them into space and return them later? They're terrariums with all of the life support and lighting that they need.
If you're making a backup ecosystem, you want it off planet in case the primary meets a nuke, asteroid, virus, etc. You could also park it in a stable solar orbit so it gets the right sun for its biostuff.
It seems there's no point sending it to deep space unless you're going to transplant it all on a new planet.
It is a metaphor for disposable product culture and that corps would focus on profits and only profits, if it doesn't make money throw it out / destroy it. (A fear that has arguably come to pass). Triggering the self-destruct is stand in for tossing in waste dump.
It makes perfect sense as a politically-motivated decision. Some excuse was devised to destroy the pods, thus ending the debate forever of whether the Earth might one day return to a green space.
It also forced Dern's character into action, since he would have to return to Earth since his job of caring for the pods was about to end.
The film reminds me somewhat of 'Interstellar' — a once verdant world going dark and expelling the hero.
If you need an analogy, think of unsold books. They get their covers torn off so they can be reported as “destroyed”, and then be issued a refund. (You’ll sometimes see a message warning you about purchasing paperbacks without front covers in books.)
In the movie American Airlines made an insurance claim, or made some other claim of loss on the trees, and so they now
have to destroy them.
I could see some corporate bureaucrat back on earth saying, "well we don't want the liability if the domes crash into a spacecraft or fall to earth, better nuke em".
I loved silent running. (Except I always thought Bruce Dern wasn't the best casting choice. He always seemed to have too bold of a personality for a lower-key scifi movie)
They're right about 2001 stealing the spotlight for that time period though.
I watched this mesmerizing sci-fi in my childhood in the early 80s, nearly a decade after its original release. It left an indelible mark on my psyche and it might be the reason why I hate the "system" so much.
Aren’t you consuming this site, which is funded by one of their biggest venture capital companies in the world, on a machine created by “the system“, and probably working for a company that is part of “the system“?
I actually appreciate your point and those of all similar commenters. I think what bothered me is that a criticism as diffuse as “the system“ is without value because it means everything and nothing.
It also seems not to acknowledge that “the system“ has produced enormous medical and economic advances right along with the many destructive forces it has unleashed. For example, poverty is massively reduced since I was a kid. That is almost completely due to free market forces applied by “the system“.
Please understand I am not trying to defend “the system“ as a whole. I am simply trying to say that a blanket derogation of it does no one any good.
So, let me get this right: the only way you are allowed to critique the system is to make yourself irrelevant by becoming a techno-luddite, turning your back to society, disconnecting and disappear into the woods to live of the grid and self sustaining? All the critics must shut up because they don't have an alternative (although if they give an imperfect alternative you probably wouldn't deem it feasible). This is bullshit and self serving.
It's like saying you aren't allowed to hate petrol cars because you use a petrol car. The concept of technology being solely the domain of capitalist is ludicrous. The invention of technology is not bound to our economic system.
This is a presumption that is not based on history nor empirical evidence.
So critique of the system is something that can be done even if you like technology.
I would think someone who identifies with hackers would understand this.
1. The theme song; Joan Baez's "Rejoice in the sun"
2. Huey, Dewey and Louie, the little Robots that assist Bruce Dern's character Lowell in maintaining the space ship.
I always take the trouble to show my kids Joan Baez songs on YouTube so they don't feel that good music only started with their generation :). Oh what a beautiful voice!
Man, if were to select anything that would put me off that movie, it's Baez's screeching. By far not her best work. Thankfully, that part can be safely fast-forwarded.
My father took me and my brother to see it at the movies, and I remember me and my brother crying and my Dad consoling us. We were 8 and 7 at the time. I haven't seen it since!
Yep. One of a few times we pinned my Dad to the wall with Big questions, and he had to get very philosophical about the meaning of life, loss, and the collective realization of our mortality.
The main environmental issue at the first Earth Day was pollution. Climate change was then theoretical and not at the forefront. Air and water pollution were terrible in most major cities of US and Europe. They made good progress by the end of the century.
From my faint memory as a ~12 year old in 1980, Acid Rain killing off woodlands and lakes, caused by European and UK heavy industries, was a massive concern back in the early 80's at its peak, fortunately mostly rectified in Europe now. Shortly afterwards the media latched onto the hole in the ozone layer which lead onto the climate crisis. Hard to believe these things were 30+ years ago (when I became aware), but we seem to be no further forward.
This movie does not hold up. This is the second time I’ve seen this touted as an unheralded classic. Watch it if you need a nap! Phenomenally boring and ham handed.
I think it can be simultaneously a classic, especially in historical context, and very heavy-handed. It's a good film but it's also one I'm not in a big hurry to rewatch.
Between the almost annoying seriousness of 2001 and the irresistible madness of Dark Star, Silent Running is in an very difficult spot where it's almost impossible to win anything beyond honorable mention for trying.
But once you've sat through Tarkovsky's Tokio driving sequence in a cinema those three all seem kind of superficial (my opinion, and probably mine alone. And I'm not sure that it would survive a re-watch of Solaris, it's been a while)
The dreary psychological effects of prolonged confinement in closed quarters seem particularly poignant today; and the dispute and argument with Bomb is a delightful foreshadowing of the frustrations of dealing with advanced, yet imperfect and inhuman, artificial intellegences.
And yes, the beach ball alien was intendedt be humorous; and yes, the closed-quarter panic in narrow vent shafts was inspirational on later science fiction movies.