A classic of science fiction of atrocious pessimism, “Soylent Green” is an absolute summit of the genre, whose cry of alarm retains all its power, 50 years later. But the author of the original novel did not like his scenario at all…
On June 26, 1974, Richard Fleischer’s Soylent Green was released in France. Adapted from the novel Make Room ! Make Room ! by Harry Harrison and published in 1966, the film has become a classic of SF of atrocious pessimism, whose ecological and human catastrophist discourse has unfortunately lost none of its force.
“Soylent Green, a science fiction film, almost borders on documentary. Everything I showed in it as fiction is now topical. This film is a farewell to the second Earthly Paradise destroyed this time by humans.” Fleischer would say, lucidly, years after the release of his absolute masterpiece.
With its roots in a collective – and progressive – awareness of the issues related to ecology at the beginning of the 1970s, Soleil Vert is also part of the current of these disenchanted works, and in particular the works of science fiction, produced at that time in the United States.
Disillusioned tomorrows are thus frequent in science fiction; a genre that by definition reflects our fears in the face of social or technological changes. In Soylent Green, the cataclysm arrives by erosion: the end of the world by the disappearance of an element essential to our existence, in this case water and food.
But the agony of the human species is slow and progressive – as the extraordinary opening credits underline – the time needed to exhaust the planet’s resources.
MGM
The apocalyptic genre appears as a way to pass judgment – often harshly – on our society. At the time of the film’s release, some critics criticized Richard Fleischer for including too many contemporary elements. In short, for not delivering a timeless enough science fiction film, in the vein of what Kubrick brilliantly did with 2001: A Space Odyssey.
But that was to misunderstand Fleischer’s approach, who wanted on the contrary to establish a frank proximity with the spectator, to make him react and revolt him in front of the society he depicts, in which men are reduced to being mere statistics and treated like cattle, only good to be sent to the slaughterhouse. In the most literal sense of the term, moreover, with the atrocious final revelation of the film.
“The author of the book on which this film is based was mistreated”
In a post published on his blog (and archived), entitled A cannibalised novel becomes Soylent Green (a cannibalized novel that became Soylent Green), the author of the novel torpedoed the adaptation of his work. At least, his script.
“As is the custom in Hollywood, the author of the book on which this film is based was mistreated. All the usual tricks were used: a dummy company was set up to conceal the fact that it was really MGM that was buying the film rights; a contract was drawn up to prevent the author from having any control over the screenplay – and, of course, creative accounting was used to ensure that none of the film’s profits went to the author.” he wrote at the beginning of his post. The joys of the famous Hollywood Accounting…
According to him, MGM showed little enthusiasm for a theme – the consequences of overpopulation – considered banal. Hence the idea of the scriptwriters to introduce the theme of cannibalism, at the heart of the final revelation.
MGM
“That’s when I came on the scene, immediately impressed by two inescapable facts: the truly professional competence of all those involved in making the film and the truly appalling quality of the script, which transformed, denigrated and emptied the novel from which it had been taken.
That a film was made despite what might be considered a major obstacle can be attributed to the talent of the art and set designers, to director Richard Fleischer, and to the excellent actors (as well as, I submit with appropriate humility, the strength of the novel).”
Harry Harrison was contractually forbidden from changing the script in any way. However, he did not hold back from making a number of comments. For example, he pointed out the initial weakness of a poorly written, yet crucial, scene in the script: the one where Robert Thorn (Charlton Heston) and Sol Roth (Edward G. Robinson) have a meal with foods that have become inaccessible to ordinary mortals. While Thorn is a child of the “Sun” and has known nothing else, Sol, who has known the old world, remembers forgotten flavors…
Thanks to the talent of two immense actors, as the author himself recognizes, this one has become memorable. To be reviewed below…
The character of Sol was significantly reworked compared to the novel. In the latter, he dies of pneumonia shortly after participating in a demonstration against the corruption of mega corporations.
Very far, therefore, from the choice of assisted suicide, preferred in the film. “The only thing he would never do is commit suicide. Completely ignoring this fact, the incompetent screenwriter introduces this old sci-fi cliché.” writes the novelist in his post. While also recognizing the visual impact of this sequence in the film, carrying an emotional charge that would split stones in two.
“I promise to never let anyone screw up one of my books again.”
From a start to the post that sounded like a charge against the film, Harry Harrison finally moderates at the end with this comment recognizing the merits of Fleischer’s masterpiece:
“Am I satisfied with this film? I would say yes, 50%. […] The message of the book was delivered. It was a thrilling experience to see a major motion picture produced by a major studio. Ultimately, Soylent Green works as a movie. It moves, it keeps you interested, it’s visually exciting. The message it delivers elevates it above mere entertainment.
But it was a tough battle. With my hand raised, I promise to never again let anyone screw me over or screw up one of my books. I look forward to the day when […] I could translate one of my other novels into an interesting and successful film.”
