I was just watching this movie again because as a countryboy australian living in korea, it really speaks to me. If, in some far off future, where lots of bad decisions were made on the way, australia could end up as polluted, noisy and crowded as korea. That sounds pretty over the top, but more subtle, yet real examples are not being able to see the stars at night, the milk just not tasting as good, you can’t drink the water straight out of the tap, and living in one-room apartments with low ceilings.
A quick check of wickerpedia says that the film was based on a 1966 novel titled “>“>_Make Room! Make Room!_ and that it was set in 1999, with a global population of 7 bil—funny eh? Which goes a way toward reminding us that things never turn out as bad as people and get alarmed about. (or do they?) I’m not very good at maths and such but I was wondering what the global population would be if everywhere was as densely populated as south korea. Not that it’d be sustainable for a week, even if we started eating eachother in neat little dried squares.
Anyway there’s a great story under all that ‘70s clunkiness of Soylent Green and it’s definitely ripe to be remade. It got me thinking about why Soylent green is more or less buried and another dystopian future flick from about ten years after (Blade Runner) is considered a classic—what’s the difference? A vangelis score and some long shots of futuristic cityscapes? More than that – but it’s more than I’ve got the brain-power for right now.