No Blade of Grass

I was a mere child, albeit a precocious fifteen-year-old one, the first time I saw this film on a first date with a young man who, despite the film, continued to see me for a few more years. Perhaps remembering the excitement of the date, or maybe recalling the timeliness of the film's subject, I recommended this film to a more mature young man several years later when it was playing in my college town. His sister was in town, and we dragged her along,too. I'll never forget how embarrassed I was to realize how truly wretched the production values were--surpassed only by remarkably overdrawn performances replete with grotesque vignettes that made me grimace. Naturally, the young man lost all respect for me, and who could blame him. Chris Drouhard, if you're out there anywhere, I'm sorry about this film.

On the other hand, those people who embrace profoundly bad cinema that may take itself a tad too seriously, should definitely consider "No Blade of Grass".

A bleak and uncompromising straight-laced minor b-grade apocalyptic sci-fi survival tale that's crudely made, but is grippingly constructed (despite a heavy-handed script and typically projected characters) and with committed acting led by the likes of a hardened Nigel Davenport, exuberant Jean Wallace and an unforgettably concentrated Anthony May.

John Custance, his family and friend decide to leave London to stay at his brother's farm in the Lake District, as just like the rest of the world Britain is plagued by a destructive virus caused by pollution that's destroying earth's crops and causing unstoppable panic. On their journey they pick up another couple Pirrie and Clara, but also come across a lot of obstacles and anarchy that would change the way they see things.

I wouldn't call it great, as it's an interestingly uneven production and somewhat cautionary tale that has its moments, but there are some problems evident that stop it being better than what it could have been. The two things that do stand out is the use of quick, fragmented flash forward sequences that take away any real sense of building upon surprises and suspense, to only confuse. Secondly it could have been a little more powerful in it theories of civilised society falling apart, as no one is better than anyone else in their primitive state to keep alive. What it feels like is over-the-top melodramatics and struggles, which aren't boring or emotionally forced but could have used a bit more weight. However what director Cornel Wilde develops is an effective apocalyptic vision of a dying world of dreary images (dead corpses --- humans and animals, decaying plant life and destruction of civilisation) covering brooding forlorn landscapes. Even what should be a peacefully desolated countryside, still provides looming threats outside the chaotic cities. Strangely moments had me thinking of M. Night Shyamalan's 2008 eco-thriller "The Happening". The violence has that exploitative, gritty touch with moments of relentless surges and unsettling intensity. It's not graphic, but it doesn't hold out. Wilde does use some odd, if static filming techniques that show its low budget but add to the moodiness, so does the haunting title song. The score can be harrowing when complementing the visuals, but could find it clunky and overdone. The performances are reasonably brought across, even with the black and white shadings.

I saw this movie only once years ago and have never forgotten it. I remember nothing about the direction. I only remember how horrified I was by the movie. With today's headlines of global warming, war (is it a war yet?)in the Middle East, horrible crimes against humanity worldwide, famine, ecological disasters, you name it... this movie pops into my head all too frequently. I wish it would come out on DVD. Certainly there are equally badly directed movies on the market today. I think this movie would strike a note today (even if it is snickering or guffawing at it's overall horridness). It may not be as good as Shawn of the Dead, but it has certainly stuck in my mind over all these years as one of the best consuming ecological disaster movies I've ever seen.

At least to me it does. True, this film is a little dated. True as well, most randomly inserted footage of polluted rivers/dead animals & flashback are annoying at best, not really providing any insight or contributing to the overall atmosphere of the movie ; but then, it cut the monotony of the roaming band, allowing a smoother transition for the following "action" scenes.

So indeed, this movie is not without its flaws, but I hardly understand some of the harsh comments regarding the acting or the scenario ; the casting is excellent and the storyline somewhat believable. Without giving too much clues, if you consider what they go through before getting to the countryside, I wasn't really shocked by the general "shot first and ask questions later" attitude of the "hero", nor did I find the relatively short span of time before the collapse of organized society surprising. (Just look at what a panicked mob can do today and just imagine that there was actually such a dramatic event as portrayed in the story...)

So overall, I'd highly recommend this movie for any amateurs of "end-of-the-world" movies, providing you can get past the pseudo-ecological message and the general feeling of age. (which shouldn't be a problem if like me, you love B movies from the 70's - 80's.) A great late-night movie to which I would really like to see a remake made.

In case there ever had existed a special type of award entitled: "best movie to make its audience feel guilty about their stupidity and reckless behavior", the price undoubtedly should go to Cornel Wilde's "No Blade of Grass"! Particularly during the opening sequences, but in fact also non-stop throughout the rest of the film, we are confronted with endless shots of pollution and starved animals. A stern voice- over also repeatedly states that only humanity is to be blamed for the destruction of our planet. I've never seen "An Inconvenient Truth" but I'm pretty sure it can't be as preachy as this one. Heck, I even started to feel very guilty and responsible for all the pollution, and I wasn't even born yet when "No Blade of Grass" was released! The first 10-15 minutes of the film solely exist of montages of factory chimneys producing thick clouds of orange smoke, airplanes spraying pesticides, overpopulation, oil spills, deforestation, enormous traffic jams, close-up of cars' gasses, nuclear testing and industries dumping waste into the sewers. Then the eerie voice-over suddenly states: "Then, one day, the polluted earth could take no more…" So, in case it wasn't clear yet, due to continuous pollution, a still unidentified virus destroyed all the earth's crops and the world's cities are rapidly becoming extinct. John Custance wants to lead his wife and daughter to safety, and together with his befriended scientist Roger Burnham, they sneak out of London and head towards Scotland where his brother David has a farming estate. The journey is long and – as they quickly discover – full of danger. They must confront villainous biker gangs that want to rape and murder them, but also regular and once- civilized people like themselves that are prepared to do whatever it takes to survive. "No Blade of Grass" constantly balances between vicious post-apocalypse exploitation and genuine human melodrama. Director Cornel Wilde clearly wants for his film to be a more intelligent and thought-provoking end-of- civilization drama, but it's actually one of the meanest and most violent ones of its kind. The title song is simultaneously powerful and depressing, but unfortunately there are also quite a few dull and unnecessarily slow-paced moments as well as shallow dialogues and stereotypical characters. "No Blade of Grass" is certainly a must-see for fans of bleak apocalyptic cinema, but in all honesty I still expected more from it.