MOVIE REVIEW: “Day of the Dolphin” (1973)

It was not only sci-fi that had bleak, violent themes, non genre films like The Wild Bunch, Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry, Twilight's Last Gleaming and many others showed the same depressing world view. Dark worlds where the normal institutions of civilization have become evil despotic entities or have broken down all together.

I account for this in a delayed reaction to the Vietnam War in Hollywood and the loss of trust in the government. People had lost faith so films with little faith in anything started to be made. The abandonment of the Hays Code also gave directors more freedom to show sex and violence and nudity. T

>>Man you need to re-watch this movie, at the very beginning the crew that *is* on Mars dies. The rest of the movie is about them faking the Mars walk and return of the mission<<

Nope. The crew is loaded into the rocket, then surrepticiously unloaded and told in no uncertain terms that there was a problem with the life support, and they would not have survived the trip to Mars. For political reasons they can't abort the launch, so they send the ship, but keep the crew on earth and fake the human portions of the mission in a studio out west somewhere. (The astronauts are not thrilled with this, but go along with it). Once Capricorn 1 splashes down, they'll load the crew on to it secretly, unload them publicly, and no one will be the wiser.

Unfortunately, upon re-entry the (Empty) capsule's heat shield fails, and Capricorn 1 burns up. As there's no way the crew could have survived, the astronauts quickly realize NASA or the CIA or whomever is going to kill them, so they make a break for it, and the bulk of the film is a chase, culminating with the last surviving astronaut bursting into his own funeral at Arlington on live TV and interrupting the evil president who knows damn well what's been going on all along.

Roll credits.

Kellogg prefers films without a lot of violence and gore, and thinks that this sort of film is misanthropic because it inflicts agony on human beings, or makes humans out to be inherently bad.

Kevin argues that a story needs conflict, and that a story about a man overcoming adversity and long odds is ultimately life-affriming, even if the character ends up getting killed.

I have to add that a LOT of the films from the mid-sixties to the mid-eighties were pretty violent and grim. Annnnnd a lot of contemporary films are pretty violent and grim. It's almost like the writers don't know how to come up with a compelling story, so they throw in a lot of explosions, spurting blood, body humor jokes, and fight scenes, and call that Action/Adventure. If it's done in space or in the future, or with robots, it's Science Fiction. If it has zombies or vampires, it's Horror/Suspense. If it's about a cop, it's Crime Drama. If it includes a smart-alec sidekick, it's Crime Comedy.

Kellogg's mentioned that he prefers films where the characters have to cooperate to overcome a threat from outside, such as in "The Thing From Another World." I'm guessing that his preference for teamwork is why he doesn't enjoy watching movies with anti-heroes, or stories where the military or the government is out to get their own people.

Kevin, on the other hand, seems to have a lot in his real life that he's fighting against and hoping to overcome, so it's logical that he identifies with characters who are beset by adversity and struggle to beat the odds. They may not always succeed, but there's an ennobling characteristic in fighting the rising tide anyway.

I do have to side with Kellogg, though, that post-apocalyptic films are inherently misanthropic, because most operate on the premise that mankind either caused the collapse of civilization, or deserved whatever catastrophy destroyed civilization. With the current fad for climate change and all the other "man made" doomsday scenaria, it's getting pretty difficult to be optimistic about a brighter, nicer future. And when you are, there's an undercurrent that "brighter and nicer" is somehow like becoming a Stepford Wife--you have to surrender your thoughts and individuality and learn to love CFLs and food made out of renewable cellulose fibers.

For my part, when I go to see a film, I want to be amused and entertained, not grossed-out and depressed.

There's some serious miscommunication here, if you think I was attacking you or your opinions.

Scott (Backing off at high speed) Kellogg

Okay, I'm listening to what you're saying.
Now, it seems that I've left you completely in the dark.
You don't see what I'm talking about at all.

Is that it?

>>Yeah, P.A.D. is one of the disagreements that circle around Kev's and my friendship... He likes art (I use the term very generically) that destroys that which has gone before, I believe in art that builds up that which has gone before.<<

Nooooooooooooooooo, I like *ART.* I don't limit myself, is all. There's three things you can do: build, destroy, or tread water. I'm not arbitrarily ruling out 33% of everything "Just because."

>>To say that Planet of the Apes is not of the same period as 1973 is, to me disingenuous.
I'm talking about SF between Star Trek and Star Wars, and it definitely fits in there.<<

You said "1970s". PotA is late '60s.

>>Uplifting sequels for Planet of the Apes? No.
Civilization falls because of a slave revolt of apes destroying the evil human masters, things degerate to a war between mutant humans and apes and then world blows up.<<

Clearly you're forgetting the final movie, which ends, as I said, with a human/ape civilization. The Lawgiver - referred to in the other movies but only seen here - has learned he needs to show mercy to his enemies. The timeline is altered, the future once again rocks, and it's a pretty kickass speech from Roddy McDowall, too.

>>Andromeda Strain:
Hello? Did you miss the government conspiracy the unleashed the whole mess from their space based bioweapons program and the government conspiracy to cover it all up?<<

Basic storytelling dictates that you have to have a conflict, which then has to be resolved. There was no conspiracy to RELEASE the virus, that happened by accident. They attempted to clean it up in secret because it's a secret program. Which is what governments do. The world was saved. How is this evil?

>>Food of the Gods: Humanity gets wiped out. Uplifting? No.<<

Did *man* do the wiping out? If not, then it's not our fault. It's miserable stinking nature. If it's NATURE that wipes us out, I'd argue it's NATURE taht's the enemy, yes?

>>The Omega Man: Humanity gets wiped out by a biological warfare plage. Uplifting? No.<<

I reiterate: Humanity does NOT get wiped out. Our species is saved through the heroic efforts of Charlton Heston.

>>Genesis II (Who says TV movies don't count?)<<

I do.

>>Civilization falls and lapses into barbarism. Regardless of plans to build things over, the whole, Civilization falls part puts it solidly in the post-apocalypse genre that I hate and you don't.<<

You hate without reason, my friend. I think we both can agree it's pretty crappy, regardless of whether it's postapocalyptic or not.

>>Silent Running might have taken a few pokes at environmentalists, but on the whole, it's a post apocalyptic mess in a space ship.<<

How in the holy hell do you figure that? There's been no Nuclear War, there's no widespread death and destruction. There are BILLIONS of people living on earth in at least as much comfort as we now enjoy (So says the film) and it's implied there's a lot of people living on other planets as well. There. Is. No. Apocalypse.

And the ship isn't at all apocalyptic, it's just a freighter. It's not even *MESSY.* It's got a park, fer gosh sakes! With bunny rabbits n'stuff!

>>Starlost? Not misanthropic? You my friend have a very differnent view of misanthropy than I do. Either that, or you don't know much about the show. It ain't about Noah's Ark, that's for sure. Three outcasts trying (and failing) to avert the disaster that will destroy the human race.<<

The premise of the show is that earth has ALREADY been destroyed. That is, by definition, postapocalyptic. The Starlost itself is Noah's Ark in space, carrying people to a new world. Alas, the crew died long ago in an accident, and the ship is off course and heading to destruction. Our Heroes are attempting to reach the auxilliary control room and regain control of the ship. On the whole, it's fairly "Phew, we dodged the bullet, there!" as opposed to "People are evil and deserve to be destroyed."

>>Capricorn 1 not science fiction? If so, then neither is Soylent Green.<<

Capricorn 1 is about the US government faking a manned mission to Mars. At no point does anyone in the film leave earth, go to Mars, or anything else. It's as much SF as wrestling.

>>Hmm. I think you and I are just going to have to establish a short means of referring to this disagreement: You like post apocalyptic films and I hate them with a passion.<<

You assume too much. I love *ONE* Postapocalyptic film. One. Exactly one. I can't think of any others that I even *like* all that much, and brother I've seen a lot of 'em. I'm not ruling out an entire genre, though. There's lots of kinds of films I don't like. Musicals, for instance. Does that mean that musicals are bad, evil, wicked, nasty, and altogether bad for my skin? No. I just dont' like 'em. I don't begrudge people who do (Though I do kinda' tease 'em about it). I dont' claim any moral or idealogical stance to support my position: I just don't like 'em. If you do, swell, I know what to get you for your birthday. If not, who gives a crap?

>>It lies in an emotional judgement of the material. We could argue on facts, but we can't argue on emotions.<<

Honestly, I'm being pretty objective here.

Star Trek, by the way, is Post Apocalyptic. World War III, and the 21st century sucked, and stuff like that. It got better, though, right?

We don't want our readers to think we're on Maxi PADs.

As I recall, he gets duped into being sacrificed as a target by the "Good" refugees to draw off the evil bikers so they can escape and they leave him to his fate.

Yeah, yeah. I know: P.A.D.

>>humans were Bad and the world would be better off if they all died...except for me and my buddies. And that hot chick from down the street. And the crazy old coot with the army surplus stuff, he can come in handy.<<

That's really more of an '80s thing. Road Warrior, and its myriads of imitators. Which, as I've discussed elsewhere, isn't about society being bad (In fact, "Mad Max (1979)" makes it VERY clear that the collapse of civilizaiton is a bad thing), but rather about people's yearning for a less complex, simpler life. Westerns were no longer relevant, so we had to invent a modern analog, hence the postapocalyptic biker flick.

I'll also point out that The Road Warrior (FAR and away the best example of the genre) is a triumph of humanism over brutality. Max is a broken man, lost his wife, his kid, his civilization, everything. He ends up getting embroiled in a struggle between some evil bikers and some basically good refugees. It's none of his business, he wants nothing to do with it, but he gets involved anyway, defeats the bad guys, saves most of the good guys, in the process gives birth to a *new* civilization, becomes a legend, *AND IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS* "It was there, in that blighted place, that he learned how to live again."

He helps others, he becomes un-broken. He goes sane.

How is that misanthropic by any definition of the word?

>>You're forgetting what it was like in the 1970s. It wasn't a pinch, it was a heavy diet of misanthropy and potatoes.<<

Bup-bup-bup-bup: I didn't say 'a pinch' was what we GOT, I said a pinch is good. More than a pinch is bad, we both agree.

But really some of this is in the eye of the beholder:

Planet of the Apes - 1968. Doesn't count.
(Endless Sequels) - The first sequel is extremly misanthropic, what with Moses destroying the world and all, but from that point on, the movies get brighter, showing people confronting bad stuff, rising above it, and the final movie in the series ends in triumph, with humans and apes living alongside each other as equals, none of that slavery and blowing up the earth stuff ever having happened.

Soylent Green - Admittedly depressing, but intended as a cautionary tale. It's not a case of "Humans screw up everything," it's more a case of "Yo, heads up: If this goes on...."

Andromeda Strain - Hello? THEY SAVE THE WORLD FROM EXTINCTION? What's bad about that?

Westworld - A theme park goes goofy and starts killing people. What's misanthropic about that? It's an accident.

Futureworld - See above.

Food of the Gods - Nature kills people. The people dont' really have it coming. This is anti nature, if antything, not anti-humanity.

Omega Man - Last man on earth sacrifices himself to save the human species and the woman he loves. Ends letting us know that the human race will not only survive, but likely be better than it was before. How is that misanthropic?

Zardoz - I can't really argue this one.

A Boy and his Dog - I can't really argue this one either.

Genesis II - TV movie, doesn't count. Also: if this is misanthropic, then so is Star Trek, because this was conceived of as Star Trek in a Camper Van, with the Pax/Federation spreading civilization to the barbarians.

Willard - Not SF. Doesn't count.

Silent Running - Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe. I used to think that, but on my close viewing recently, I concluded that it was a sly dig at the incompetence of the environmental movement. Of course it could be both at the same time.

Starlost - How is Noah's Ark at *all* Misanthropic?

Ark II - See "Genesis II" above.

Ark II for grownups: Damnation Alley - The bad guys blow themselves up in the opening credits. The rest of the movie is an attempt to get to the last enclave of civilization, which is evidently quite nice and civilized, while saving several people along the way. Where you see misanthropy, I see a bunch of heroes knucking down and working together to get through a crisis. Also: spanking it to dirty magazines can result in people burning to death. That happens like 10 minutes into the film.

Logan's Run - Can't argue this one, though the book is CLEARLY supposed to be a cautionary tale, and I think the movie is undoubtedly intended as one, too.

Capricorn 1 - Not a science fiction movie.

I think you're kind of jumping at a lot of shadows here. Firstly, I think "Cautionary Tales" deserve their own category, since their grim, depressing tone is generally in service of a higher, pro-humanistic point. Secondly, a lot of the things you're pointing out are simply obstacles for our heroes to overcome. Thirdly, there's some genuine optimisim in a lot of these films that you're overlooking or simply forgetting.

Day of the Dolphin is *not* a great movie by any stretch, and I'll even go so far as to say it takes a pretty damn dim view of humnanity. I think it is misanthropic, and it went out of its way to have a depressing-as-hell ending, but there's a spark there: the very SLIGHT chance that we could pass our wisdom on to another species, the very SLIGHT chance that Fa and Bea might help uplift their whole species. There's also the concept of parents sacrificing themselves for the survival of their kids, which is noble. So it's not "Humanity sucks" it's more "Buck Henry should stick to comedy" thing.

I have not seen this movie in years even though I have the VHS. I remember it as a slow and sad film that one might watch on a rainy day. I also remember that Scott was good in it but not as great as Patton or his role in Dr. Strangelove.

Day of the Dolphin has the same sort of attitude as the other early 70's genre films like Soylent Green and Zardoz. The Vietnam War was winding down and pollution was starting to show mass affects so optimism was hard to come by. As a early teen I could feel this in the way the adults acted.

I remember liking this film when I was a kid--as you said, talking dolphins, what's not to love? I even had two inflatable dolphin pool toys that I named "Fa" and "Bea."

The rest of the film I completely forgot. I have a dim memory of the dolphins being part of some sort of training program, and then the Navy comandeers them to put bombs on a boat, but I forgot that it was the President's boat. I also remember it as George C. Scott driving the dolphins out to sea to prevent the Navy from getting their hands on them.

This was made during the heyday of Jacques Cousteau and the Calypso, when the notion of dolphins being as smart as humans--or even smarter (the lack of technology could have been a lifestyle choice, or just a result of not having, you know, fingers...) was all the rage.

Also I think the Navy actually has (or had) dolphins trained to stick magnetic bombs to boats.