LOGAN’S RUN by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson spun off a movie, a TV series, a comic book and several sequels, which is surprising now that I’ve read it. It’s very much a product of the late 1960s, one of the “youthquake” stories like Prez, Wild in the Streets and Gas that assume the Kids Take Over for better (Prez) or worse (the rest). In this case, as we learn late in the books, Youth rebels against the government’s zero population growth efforts, overthrows the oldsters and adopts a new approach: a computer-run society where kids start training at 7, assume adult roles at 14 and get put to sleep at 21. For those who snap and run from the latter fate, the Sandmen step in, hunt them down, and finish them off.
When the Sandman Logan discovers his time is running out he decides to make a final heroic gesture, turning Runner to discover the location of Sanctuary, a possibly mythical refuge where Runners can live beyond 21. Along with the beautiful Jessica he begins to work his way through the globe-spanning underground network leading to Sanctuary but it’s a long and dangerous road ahead …
I’m not sure this makes sense. Nobody really comes off as a kid and even with the computer running things society seems to work too well. However it’s so well done, so action packed, it’s a great read anyway.
The 1976 LOGAN’S RUN movie was a favorite of mine when it came out. Two likable actors (Jenny Agutter and Michael York) in the leads, a bizarre future environment and good visuals (though as Camestros Felapton says, it looks less impressive post-Star Wars). However reading the book makes me appreciate it has a lot less logic behind it. In the film’s setting you live until you’re 30. Then comes the chance of restored life or death in the ritual of carousel. No explanation how it all came about. And where the book’s dangerous settings — the animalistic teenage Cubs, the cyborg Box — all made sense, here they have no more substance than a D&D random-roll monster. I still enjoyed it but the book is way better. “Each cat has three different names.”
Our friend Hope Alexander (a retired actor whose mother Mara was an actor in The Rains Came), recently appeared in a stage production of Agatha Christie’s MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS so that became one of TYG’s and my date nights. Hope was great and the rest of the cast were good (though the various accents — Scots, English, Belgian, French, Swedish) but the story reminded me why I’ve never cottoned to Christie. First we meet Hercule Poirot, then we meet the various players, one after another. Then comes the murder (by stopping the train in a snowstorm we get a glamorous setting — the Orient Express was very cool back in the day — but also the isolated locale with a limited band of casts) and then interviews with the cast one after the other, then the awkward scene where Poirot slowly explains what happens. At times the script felt like it was on the brink of tragedy. Below, a rocking horse symbolizing a child’s murder that’s a key part of the backstory. “As they say in the Bible, if Moses can’t give you the answer, find a concierge.”
As I remembered loving 1974’s MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS I rewatched it to figure out why it worked better. While it has a stunning cast — Albert Finney as Poirot supported by Lauren Bacall, Wendy Hiller, Martin Balsam, Antony Perkins, Richard Widmark, Jacqueline Bissett, Michael York, Sean Connery, Vanessa Redgrave and John Gielgud — I think the difference is that director Sidney Lumet makes full use of the camera’s power. When the cast enters they’re framed against a seemingly real train and mixed in with other people boarding or crossing the station; Lumet breaks up the rote action enough to keep it engaging. Not as much as first viewing — if you know the twist it doesn’t rewatch as well — but enough to make rewatching it worthwhile. “An Englishwoman who had never lived in America would have said ‘I can put in a trunk call to my solicitors.’”
#SFWApro. All rights to images remain with current holders.
I’ve somewhat recently rewatched both the 1974 and the 20whatever versions of MotOE, and enjoyed both. Lumet’s cast is better, but both have great scenery, just the right amount of scenery-chewing, and look good. Same with the 2 versions of Death on the Nile — the new one has the advantage of CGI to extend the Egyptian monuments into their original size and grandeur, which makes it more of a treat for the eyes.
But even taking place in a closed space, MotOE works best as either a book or a movie; the stage simply can’t re-enact a train of many cars.
(found you in my spam folder). I agree, it doesn’t adapt well to the stage: it’s much easier to create the confined feel when they can show you everyone’s confined.
I may catch the later version eventually.