A review of Soylent Green at Good News Film Reviews started me thinking about films set in a dystopian reality. There have been quite a few, and the ones I've seen have ranged from brilliant to absolute crap.

Merriam-Webster defines a dystopia as "an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives." Dystopian stories are often set in an imagined future of our own world. The story-teller often wants to send a message about the type of future we might be headed for if we don't change our ways.

Is there a firm set of rules for how to make a great dystopian movie? Probably not. But I'll offer a few suggestions, anyway. For what it's worth...

• Make sure your story makes at least some sense...
  

  Terry Gilliam got so caught up in his futuristic vision while making his early film, Brazil, that he forgot to write a story. Brazil is a mess, full of bold visuals that don't have much impact because they're practically devoid of context. The film does hint at the talent Gilliam would display later (and futher down this list), but it was ultimately a meaningless, frustrating mess.




• ... but, then again, pure eye-candy can work, too.
  

  The Matrix doesn't have much to offer philosophically. It's nominal at best in terms of story. The plot has something to do with a world where machines use humans as batteries. The reality we experience every day is an illusion created by those machines. Whatever. The reason The Matrix works is because the special effects are amazing. The Wachowski's sent a clear signal about the film the minute they cast Keanu Reeves. This isn't a movie about story, character or acting. It's just a big cinematic theme-park with enough on the screen to hold any viewer's attention. In later sequels the Wachowski's made the mistake of trying to convey actual ideas. Turned out that they didn't have any.




• Don't stray too far from your acclaimed source material.
  

  In 1992, P.D. James published a wonderful science fiction novel entitled Children Of Men. The novel is both immensely entertaining and deeply thoughtful; full of interesting riffs on science, theology and the human condition. Unfortunately, Alfonso Cuarón's 2006 film adaptation scrapped the novel almost completely, disregarding all the major themes and even 75% of the story. Not surprisingly, the movie was a flop.
  
  By contrast, Zack Snyder's upcoming movie version of the popular Watchmen comic books is generating a tremendous buzz because it is said to stick to the source material in both style and substance.
  
  Both Watchmen and Children Of Men are distopian stories that hinge on an alternate version of our own recent past. And both books were successful because they were very well crafted. So why would a studio "option" one of these books and then almost entirely disregard it? How does it make sense to abandon nearly every element of the very material that drew the attention of the film-makers to begin with? It doesn't make sense. The movie makers behind Watchmen apparently knew that. Too bad about Children Of Men




• Cast Charlton Heston as the lead.
  

  OK, so maybe that's not practical. But movies set in a dystopian future were a specialty of Heston's. Some of the dystopian tales that featured Heston were very good. Well, at least one of them was; the first Planet of the Apes is as smart and fun now as it ever was. Soylent Green (mentioned above) retains a certain worthwhile quality in spite of the fact that, in retrospect, a lot of it is just cheesy. And then there's Omega Man, which really wasn't any good but did inspire a successful big-budget remake. So working with Heston, at the very least, did lead to reinterpretation.




• Character first.
  

  What's the point in telling a story about society gone bad if the story isn't relative to it's audience? Terry Gilliam recovered from Brazil with 12 Monkeys, a dystopian story that kept it's focus on it's characters. If you really sit down and examine this story about time travel, deadly viruses and underground revolutionaries, it falls apart. The reason 12 Monkeys doesn't fall apart ... the reason it is, in fact, very good ... is because the story is primarily concerned about the relationship between Bruce Willis as a man who says he's from the future and Madeleine Stowe as his psychiatrist (and eventual lover). Willis manages to give one of his best performances here, in fact. The movie's conclusion is highly improbable, but also highly emotional. Only well after the closing credits do you have time to reflect that the story didn't really make sense. But it doesn't matter then: You've already enjoyed the movie.




• When in doubt, animate.
  

  For years there's been speculation about a possible live-action remake of Katsuhiro Otomo's animated masterpiece, Akira. Sony, in fact, is said to have scrapped a planned live action version of the film only after the budget topped $300 million.
  
  Personally, I don't see any reason to make a live action version of Akira. In fact, I think it's a bad idea. Part of the reason that Akira is such a good film is because of it's brilliantly surreal imagery. A good film-maker can put all kinds of strange images in an animated film and convey exactly what he has in mind. Over the course of Akira's two-hour running time there are giant, menacing teddy bears, mysterious, floating telepathic children, and a character who's mutating arm seems to be on the verge of actually absorbing the whole universe. It's compelling stuff in Otomo's animated world. But those same images in a "real world" setting would probably seem perverse ... or random ... or, worst of all, silly.




• Bring the funny.
  
  

  Dystopian tales don't have to be all gloom and doom. The idea of a reality that darkly parallels our own can make for great satire. Mike Judge knows that, and his 2006 film Idiocracy is a smart, brazen laugh riot. Idiocracy imagines a future of diminishing returns, where the stupid people have simply outbred the smart ones, and everyone on earth is an absolute moron. It seems implausible, but Judge's points are sharp and resonant. After all, it isn't that big a leap to go from "Thank you for shopping, have a nice day" to "Welcome to Costco, I love you." And is it that hard to believe that a society that could put a living action figure in California's Governor's mansion might eventually put an American Gladiator in the White House? Not at all. Idiocracy laughs in the face our our unavoidable, stupid doom.




• The Lucas Factor.
  
  

  A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, George Lucas made a series of films about wars, rebellions and republics. The films are set in a world that is comparable to our own in many ways. There are six movies in the series. Only one of them is worth watching at all. That one was directed by someone other than Lucas.
  
  You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Labels: Movies, Watchmen