Running with Logan

We watched a DVD of the 1976 movie Logan's Run a few nights ago. I doubt that I'd ever watched the film from beginning to end before, only the earliest scenes rang a memory bell for me; husband felt much the same. Half an hour in I was all for ditching the DVD and watching some, probably equally bad, programme on TV. After pouring drinks we decided to soldier on, most things feel better with a drink in hand!

38 years ago science fiction wasn't what it is today, in film anyway; in novel format it has always been good. H.G.Wells knew how to do it well as long ago as the 19th century. Technical restraints, a certain naivety of vision in the '70s led to campiness personified, coming across in 21st century as simply comical. I was never a Star Trek fan for that very reason. I hopped on the sci-fi movie bandwagon at Stargate (the original film); a little campiness did persist there, but I decided the theme was capable of overcoming it.

Since watching Logan's Run I've wondered why the movie, based on a novel by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson, hasn't fallen prey to the re-makers consortium. They love to do-over movies that really don't need doing over, whereas this one could really use some 21st century technology and insight.

Nutshell synopsis of Logan's Run, the film. Set in a USA of the far future (we discover), is a domed city where a version of utopia reins, apparently lorded over by a female-voiced computer. Inhabitants live what was once known as "the life of Riley" : no work, no worries, all pleasure - and pleasures of all kinds. The only snag: inhabitants' lives are strictly timed and come to an enforced end after 30 years, an end heavily disguised as "renewal", naively accepted by most inmates. A few, more enlightened, inhabitants, when nearing their 30th year, would try to escape their fate by becoming "runners". They attempted escape hoping to find a legendary place outside known as "Sanctuary", only to be pursued and killed by specially trained and armed police known as "sandmen".

Logan is a sandman who eventually becomes a runner, running with a female companion who has cottoned on to the "renewal" facade. Lots of "exciting" problems and revelations occur as they run, including a discovery of what actually happens to their colleagues after "renewal" (TV dinner anyone?) Eventually the pair emerge into a world they didn't know had existed outside the dome. They meet an eccentric old man (old being an unknown concept to them). He lives with numerous triple-named cats in the ruins of none other than the Senate floor, Washington DC. This is a revelation akin to that superb scene in Planet of the Apes when Charlton Heston finds remains of the Statue of Liberty half buried on a beach. In Logan's Run, though, nobody declares "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!" Nobody in this scenario understands, including the old man.

From what I've read online the film used only part of the novel's exact theme, which probably accounts for the fact that so much was left unexplained in the 1976 movie. I understand that there was a later TV series which expanded on the film somewhat, but the series wasn't well-received. Coincidentally, too, we watched a DVD of The Island this week and one or two scenes in that could have been lifted straight from Logan's Run, especially the last scene of all.

A good film version of the novel's complete theme might go down well now, especially with some subtle and not so subtle messages highlighted. Over-population leading to desecration of environment ought to be front and centre. Rather than culling the population at age 21 (book) or age 30 (film), a reduction of population growth at source, as is the case in China now, seems to me to be a more humane and sensible approach. Who'd want to live in a world where nobody gets to live out the lessons they'd learned in youth?

Back to a possible re-make. I discovered that ideas for such a do-over have been in the air for at least a decade, but have stumbled at various points for a variety of reasons. It appears now that the re-make is once again in the works, this time with screenplay to be written by video game developer Ken Levine. That, to my mind, doesn't bode well - but I'd better not pre-judge.

What would be a better plan than a straight re-make, I think, would be to encapsulate a distilled and vastly improved version of the 1976 film within a brief outline of how the domed city came about (if the idea of a domed city is to be retained - it's not in the novel), explaining who is, or was originally, in charge of it all. Then later in the film exploring more of the world outside the dome, or outside the immediate environment of the old film; in other words including a prequel and wide-ranging sequel to the content of original movie.

Michael York and Jenny Agutter played the leads in the 1976 film, with the lovely Peter Ustinov as the old man. Performances were more than a tad wooden from the leads, quite unconvincing - and how come the British accents in what turned out to be the environs of Washington DC?

Peter Ustinov could do no wrong, he brought a blast of fresh air into the stale proceedings!

The only name I've seen attached to any re-make, in the leading role, is Ryan Gosling, that from a couple of years ago, but he backed out. Who'd be appropriate as male lead from the current crop of young male actors? Joseph Gordon-Levitt? He could be a bit too old by the time they get around to it though. Shia LaBeouf perhaps? There are lots of young females appropriate to co-star, names escape me. For the Ustinov part? Lots of choice: Sam Elliott, David Strathairn, Jack Nicholson, Tommy Lee Jones, Jeff Bridges....and more.