Population zéro

I love dark sci-fi films--particularly those that portray a dystopic future (where society is horrid and NOT the nice Star Trek sort of world). "1984", "Soylent Green" and "Brave New World" are just a few dystopias that I adored--so I really, really was hoping I'd love "ZPG". However, sadly, the great story idea was completely undone by horrid directing...and I mean horrid.

The film is set sometime in the future--and apparently in the near future. Disease has been virtually eliminated and the resulting population boom has made the planet unsustainable. Most animal life has been destroyed and the air is semi-toxic. And so, to try to stop the rapid decline of the planet and feed everyone, the governments of the Earth implement a new program--making having children illegal for the next 40 years. And, a young couple (Geraldine Chaplin and Oliver Reed) are determined to somehow have a baby and not face immediate execution. I loved this story idea--and it really was strongly reminiscent of "Soylent Green" (a great film).

So why if I loved the plot idea did I give the film only a paltry 5? Well, the director did a particularly lousy job. The film completely lacked life and emotion--and it felt as if almost everyone was half asleep during the film. You'd think there's be LOTS of emotions concerning this birth edict...but Chaplin and the rest muddle through the film in a somnambulistic state. It could have easily been renamed "ZPG--Zero Plot Growth"! And this completely sterile and muted look of the film can only be blamed on the director--especially since the film had some very talented actors (in addition to the leads, Don Gordon was quite capable). I would really love to see this film remade--as the film should have been a clear winner.

Dystopian population control film with no finesse, just limping across a film's run-time on only 40 minutes of gas. One of the more disappointing things I found in this film is that it really asks no questions. The world government has declared a goal of zero population growth because all the animals and most of the plants are extinct. They claim they can no longer support the human population with the remaining resources. Is that true? No one questions this, that maybe leadership is hoarding those resources for themselves and living large, everyone just agrees that the population is too large and more births would lead to starvation. If so - why do we care about the protagonists and their decision to have a child? In fact, why bring a child into a joyless smog-filled concrete nightmare after you've effectively killed the planet and all other life on it? They don't have an answer, and they had plenty of time to focus on it, making it seem like the decision to "have" a baby was just an act of selfish amusement (and everyone wants in on that amusement).

If you are a fan of Logan's Run this film is an interesting must see since it plays as a decent prequel (story wise) to that better known sci-fi film. Since LR was made after ZPG I suppose one should say LR plays like a sequel to ZPG. ZPG takes place in an over-populated future so polluted that people wear gas masks outside (we eventually find out it is war related), animals are found only in a museum (stuffed), and food is found only in paste form. The edict: no more babies (or face death), so those born to already pregnant women have an invisible BE (Before Edict) scanned onto their foreheads. In Logan's Run, much later in the future, babies have small crystals placed in their palms that light when the human turns 30. In ZPG we are introduced to a couple (Oliver Reed and Geraldine Chaplin) who work and live as a 1971 typical swinging couple exhibit in the museum along with another couple (best friends/neighbors). When the couple decides to have a baby anyway they are forced to share it with their neighbors or face certain death. There is a scene where Oliver Reed is checking out premature births in a futuristic library very reminiscent of the scene in Logan's Run where Logan researches Sanctuary. Both films deal with escaping the restrictions of a society so messed up it restricts life itself. Eventually the film becomes an escape picture much like Logan's Run. I can't help but think the baby grows up to be the Peter Ustinov character in Logan's Run. Just a thought.

ZERO POPULATION GROWTH is a very cool little, subtle/in-your-face, sci-fi movie from 1972. It's literally LOGAN'S RUN meets CHILDREN OF MEN but staring Oliver Reed (and released in theaters before either film). I had 8 beers before I watched this and I suggest you do too (and I'm sure Oliver Reed had at least that before the cameras rolled so when in Rome...). Anywho ZPG is one of those "utopian future but utopia is actually totally f'd up" movies where most of the inhabitants are like "hey, I'd complain, but nobody would listen" but one guy manages to step up and fight the power. I love that theme so if you're into that kind of thing too then you should absolutely check this movie out. Sure, the beer helped, but I sort of loved this movie.

Okay, it is kind of depressing. However, it is an interesting viewpoint of the future. I rather liked the ending and wish that there had been more of the movie. I want to know what happens next. If it comes on sci-fi, give it a chance. I actually purchased the vhs version.