Memoirs of a Survivor
Tags: psychedelic, murder, violence

Plot synopsis:
The story takes place in a near-future Britain where society has broken down due to an unspecified disaster, referred to as "The Crisis." The new society that emerges after the collapse retains many features of the old world, but is fundamentally different. What serves as a government in the post-crisis nation is unable to consolidate its authority and exercises little control over the populace. Newscasts can be heard and law and order is upheld by vigilantes and a handful of policemen. Education exists for those who pass as the wealthier survivors, while schools for the poor act as an apparatus of the army and are designed to control the population. Limited commercial activity continues, but scavenging is required to obtain rare goods.
By the start of the novel, the situation in the society is starting to deteriorate as the edifice of the past society crumbles. The narrator discusses people moving out of the city, and empty shelves indicate a food shortage. Rationing is in effect, and gangs migrate through the city block by block and attack residents. Many of the narrator's neighbors want to move out of the city as the situation becomes worse.
The narrator, a middle aged woman who lives a quiet life in a flat, unexpectedly ends up with 'custody' of a teenage girl named Emily Cartwright and her dog Hugo. The narrator seeks to please the new arrival, and works hard to ensure that Emily has a high opinion of her. She often comments on Emily's competence and neatness, and ponders the purpose of the girl's existence. Emily herself is intelligent and insightful, but also quite distant. The narrator and Emily somewhat enjoy each other's company, and seem to form a tacit arrangement of tolerance between them.
This idyllic time (in the words of the narrator) ends when a gang of young people take up residence in the community. Emily goes out to meet them, but retreats when they tease her and threaten Hugo. Later that evening she meets with the gang again, and this time enjoys herself. Upon returning home, she remarks to the narrator that the gang members are at least able to enjoy themselves. Many different gangs pass through the community in the next few months, and Emily always interacts with them. This, coupled with Emily's abrasive wit, creates friction between her and the narrator, though the latter weathers Emily's remarks and remains stoic.
As Emily grows older, she exhibits more and more signs of adolescence. She designs her own clothes, gains then loses weight, and works ardently to become more attractive. As the story progresses, a group of similar minded young people from the community begin to form a gang of their own, modeled after the previous gangs that visited the community. Emily happily joins them in their nightly revelry. Soon it becomes apparent that the gang is going to depart from the community, and the narrator believes that Emily will leave with them. However, Emily is conflicted about leaving Hugo behind. She tries to introduce him to the gang, but no progress is made. The next day three of the gang members go to the flat where Emily and the narrator live with the intent to eat Hugo, but are dissuaded by the presence of the Narrator. Emily learns of this occurrence and decides that, for the moment, she cannot leave her long time companion behind. The gang soon splits into two groups, and Emily stays with the group that chooses not to depart.
The story continues to progress as Emily grows older. Outside of the narrator's flat, society begins to revert to a pre-industrial state, and agriculture is becoming more and more common in the city. A few blocks away, a young man named Gerald organizes dispossessed children into a new group and begins to establish a new gang. Emily becomes infatuated with Gerald, and it is implied that they form a physical relationship. Emily's influence in the community continues to grow, and she is soon seen as one of the leaders of the young people. One day the narrator returns home and finds items missing from her flat. Emily finds out about this thievery, and orders the thieves (who are some of the children that she leads) to return the stolen goods, displaying her authority over the children and her ability to protect the narrator, who up until this point had protected her. She then leads the narrator upstairs, where a thriving market has formed in the upper floors of the apartment building.
Emboldened by his successes, Gerald continues to solidify his control over his group of followers. Emily often helps him, though friction is created between the two when Gerald seeks out other partners. Eventually Gerald (who, according to the narrator, has too kind a heart) adopts feral children who had inhabited the sewers into his gang. However, the children are filthy and vicious, with their behavior leading to the collapse of Gerald's formerly well managed gang. The people of the community gather to discuss what should be done about the children when the police arrive and break up the meeting. Fearing that the eyes of the authorities (described as "them") have fallen upon the community, many of the narrator's neighbors flee in the following months.
Months go by and society continues to collapse. The feral children are ostensibly under Gerald's control, but often run wild in what remains of the neighborhood. Water is in short supply, caravans and traders are often attacked, and it is implied that even the government is starting to abandon parts of the city. Emily and the narrator spend most of their time in the flat, and are able to interact with the children due to Emily's relationship with Gerald, but both fear an attack in the future, as the children are actively raiding and killing other humans at night. Most of the residents of the neighborhood have departed for the lands to the north and west of the city, lands from which there is forebodingly no news. Eventually the children turn on Gerald and attack him, while he remains incredulous that such young children could betray him. Emily is able to save Gerald and hurry him into the flat. Faced with a bleak existence, the small group of Emily, Gerald, Hugo, and the narrator fall asleep, expecting an attack from the children. The narrator awakes to find that the wall has opened before her and a new world lays on the other side. Emily leads the group through, where upon they step into a new, better world as the walls dissolve away.
Periodically, the narrator is able, through meditating on a certain wall (see above) in her flat, to traverse space and time. Many of these visions are about Emily's sad childhood under the care of her harsh mother and distant father. At the end of the novel, the main character's strange new family breaks through dimensional barriers via the wall, and walks into a much better world.

Review: Perhaps it is a little too obscure for some.
I found the film immensely interesting.
You see the decay of urbanity from the eyes of a woman ('D') hiding in her bastion of civilisation, a council flat.
Her impregnable retreat is suddenly breached by the intrusion of two factors, the imposition on her by an unnamed authority of an orphan called Emily, and her sudden realisation that beyond the wall lies the past?
the future?
or perhaps an alternative world told through the various incarnations of a house she visits as an unseen entity.While the brutalised orphans of the streets outside seem to be beginning to supplant the authorities and are accelerating the end of the world.
D realises through her wall, that the condition of her society is not new.
Society grows from strict disciplinarian routes, and when achieved embarks on a decaying relaxation of morals which inevitably ends in the collapse of society.
Those that are necessary to rebuild society are not necessarily nice people, merely essential, thus we arrive at the Gerald character.
Eventually Emily and Gerald rescue the savage (troglodyte) children of the subways, and with the help of D and the wall, take them to a new Eden, where the children will be able to begin a new society starting from caveman.It is obvious because of the cannibalistic nature of the children that Gerald, Emily and D will not survive this process, but their action is essential to build anew, and the children will begin without the memory of their former civilisation's decay.
Thus we are brought from the end of the world, to the beginning of a new world for the orphans of the old.
Most people believed that the collapse of D's world was a prediction of the collapse of our own, but perhaps our world is actually the one behind the wall.
That is up to you.This is an intensely moving novel produced by a woman of feeling who had witnessed the brutalisation and savagery of war at close hand and understood the nature of the fall of society.
Not an action film, but a masterpiece that many will not understand because of its intensely philosophical nature..
Slow haunting dream film.
Though I was more impressed with this movie when it had it's theatrical debut in the early 1980s, I still recommend this mysterious mood piece.
The story concerns a quiet middle aged woman (Julie Christie) living alone during some catastrophic breakdown of modern society.
Young illiterate kids live like rats in the subways, garbage covers the streets and nomadic people scavenge in aimless traveling groups.
The woman is given a young teenage girl (Leonie Mellinger) to take care of and the girl becomes sexually involved with a young man who takes on the task of caring for homeless children (while he simultaneously sleeps with them).
Alongside this melancholic tale, there's another dimension revealed when the woman discovers a Victorian family living inside a strange membranous wall of her apartment.
There are curious psychological parallels between the world in the wall and the goings-on in the woman's other dystopia world.
The final scenes are truly weird and puzzling so if you like your movies straightforward with tidy narratives, this one isn't for you.
For those who enjoy the bizarre and challenging, take a look.
My only real criticism is the truly awful synth soundtrack (by Mike Thorne?any relation to Ken?) which constantly works against the imagery..
I see from the last few reviews (at least one of which is one viewer's opinion of Christie's career more than of this particular film) that they didn't like the movie.
(And for the record, the fact that some have access to working helicopters doesn't mean most people would, and an extensive, working infrastructure isn't needed to maintain relatively few of them.) I've got the DVD of this film, and the transfer certainly leaves something to be desired.
But if that, or the "helicopter issue", or a "tacky" film score, will negate any enjoyment you might have, then this film (and this type of film) is not for you.
But it definitely is worth watching.
Maybe a different director, or the same director taking a different approach would have made this a better film, and one that would have pleased its' critics..
to be recommended.
I saw this film on TV in the early eighties.
Looking back I remember very little of the detail but it was one of those rare films that made you feel cheated when it finished because you wanted it to continue.
Strange yes, but still maintained a credibility throughout.
I was totally engrossed.This film was my introduction to Doris Lessing and shortly after seeing the film I bought the book.
Now, having read all her books, Lessing is one of my favourite authors.
Would like to see the film again - anyone know if it's likely to be re-released?.
Psychological Philosophical Thriller - if indeed there is such a genre.
Mobia and Jon F (above) describe this movie pretty well.
It is a deeply 'philosophical' piece, which sounds an awfully elitist thing to say I know, but it is a movie that demands a reflection upon what it means to be human and the sorts of relationships that bind humans together.
It may also be called 'psychological' in that it examines intra-psychic conflicts as well - particularly from the female perspective (which I am not) and that is powerful.
It is based in an era of social decay and reminded me of Hobbes where life is "nasty, brutish and short", where humans have been reduced to animals, where the bonds of humanity have been stretched.
I loved it.
It haunted me.
I became a Doris Lessing fan after this and have just finished the book.
No exploding cars for those that love that sort of thing..
Missing links.
Not having read the book on which this was based, I found myself wondering quite a lot during the movie: a) I wonder what's going on b) I wonder what this has to do with the plot (if there is a plot) c) I wonder why I rented thisThe soundtrack is very poor and there are moments in the movie when the dialog is unintelligible.
Had there just been a little more connection or linkage between the "real" world and the fantasy world, I may have empathized with the character more.
As it was, I felt that I was suffering more than "D" - but was grateful my agony would only last two hours..
My brief review of the film.
The sets, lighting design and foreboding music score all match the gloominess of the material here well, and the atmosphere that these combined elements achieve is what keeps the film relatively intriguing.
The first third definitely works better than the final third of the film though, as in the beginning one is trying to decipher what it is all about, and towards the end it just drags, and it looks like it is building up to some revelation, yet at the end nothing new is revealed.
The plot is really strange, with many different elements of science fiction worked in, ranging from portholes to the notion of a dire dystopia.
It seems somewhat messy, but even so, some have been able to find their own meanings in it, so the film is probably worth a look if it sounds interesting.
I would not call it a brilliant film myself, but it definitely does have some elements that will be of interest to certain viewers..
Quintessential 60's Star in Descent.
Saw this dud in London when I was heading East in '82.
It was the worst kind of cinematic torture.
One of the most pretentious and boring things I've seen.
The radiant Julie Christie looking as drab as your auntie Eyesore.
She had just turned down a million bucks to star in "The Greek Tycoon".
Then she comes up with this piece of aimless drivel.
To my mind it marked the downward turn in her career.
Instead of showing the film world she was still a player (post Beatty), she drops out and bombs doing it.
Can't understand how this tripe has made it to DVD.
There are a bunch of good Christie films that warrant the medium: "Darling", "Far From The Madding Crowd", "Petulia", "The Go-Between", "McCabe & Mrs. Miller", "Don't Look Now", or her personal triumph in "Afterglow".
Want obscure?
What about the underrated "Return of The Soldier", "Heat and Dust" or "The Railway Station Man".
Talk about getting it wrong!
I expect the next one out of her's will be "In Search of Gregory".
At least Criterion is offering "Billy Liar".
It's good - check it out.
Avoid "Memoirs of a Survivor"..
A slog to get through, but earns one's respect.
'Memoirs of a Survivor' is a film that really can't be recommended.
It's slow, obscure and poorly directed.
One suspects that it would be a lot more interesting for people who've read the source novel but a film needs to exist on its own and the filmmaking isn't good enough to do it.But despite it being largely tedious and dreary, in another way I found it mildly admirable.
It makes no attempts to be a 'commercial' sci-fi film and wants to tell its odd story in its own way.
While it isn't successful on that score, it maintains a sense of integrity.I have similar feelings about Julie Christie and her performance.
On one hand she plays such a passive, inert character that her significant talents are wasted.
But in another way it's admirable that she decided to take such an unusual role in an ambitious film when she could've easily coasted along in Hollywood in bland big-budget blockbusters.Overall, 'Memoirs of a Survivor' is a failure as a film, but its effort and ambition are to be admired..
One of the ten worst - ever.
It's easy to take shots at 50s horror flicks featuring people you'd never heard of before, nor will ever hear from again.
But that such a comparatively modern film, featuring name stars such as Nigel Hawthorne and Julie Christie could be so mind-numbingly bad beggars description.The opening screen reads "When Things Stopped".
It's puzzlingly inaccurate as we know officials have working helicopters.
Could the film makers be unawares of the complex infrastructure needed to keep those delicate machines flying?
Hardly something you'd expect after societal collapse.
The opener is accurate in one sense, though as much of the film left me feeling the plot - what there was of it - had stopped.Christie?
She practically send a surface mail letter in to stand for her performance.
Much of the film has her so listless that one wonders if the character (or actress) has been shot with an elephant tranq dart.The bit with the wall that's a gateway to another reality?
Excuse me?
What possible reason would Christie's character have for wanting to return to her dismal reality after her first time through?
The whole concept made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
And the kids dancing around the giant egg?
Just what drugs did someone slip in the writers' drinking water?
A memorable passage from Ayn Rand's book THE FOUNTAINHEAD has a character reading something which is essentially gibberish and thinking it "...must be profound because he didn't understand it." Wanting to be sure about that here, I showed it to a friend who, at the time, was working on her psych doctorate (with a Lit minor).
The film over I asked her if there was something, some deep, subtle meaning I was missing.
She replied by pointing out that some non-conforming stories are trying to tie into (she spewed forth psych-babble-double-talk) and make reference to literary (more jargon).
Pausing, she looked at the now turned off TV screen, then back to me and went on ..."And then there's films such as this which are just garbage, plain and simple.".
Nothing screams futurism like a wrecked Morris 1100.
A woman lives in an apartment with a magical wall (apparently).
She is living in the near future where society has somewhat crumbled (apparently).She is enlisted to adopt (or foster) a teenage girl and the story largely follows this new character henceforth.
The teenage girl hooks up with a young man who is (apparently) running an orphanage despite being first depicted as a street hood with bad character.
Strange.There are also some wild children who, for no apparent reason, wear black theatre make-up on their faces and wear cave-man outfits.
The man who runs the orphanage tries to bring these wild children back to his orphanage where they cause havoc.As far as I could tell this was the plot; it was hard to tell because the story was so poorly told it was quite hard to keep track.This was made in 1981 and set in the future ...
why the hell does it look like the early 1970's??
There is virtually nothing to indicate it is supposed to be the future, except that newspapers are strewn across the streets.And if society has collapsed why then are there police sirens heard and food on the table.Why did a government agency force the lady to adopt the teenage girl yet there seem to be orphans everywhere not watched over by the state.I can't even be bothered talking about the magic wall and the interaction with a Victorian-era family.
An idiotic distraction from the "plot".This is a dreary, badly made film.
One is not rewarded by sitting through the entire length of it..
Yawn.
Let me preface this by saying it is 2016, I have no knowledge/read the book from which this odd movie comes from.Latenight TV & I miss the first few moments of the screening, but first thing I see is a magical portal, so I decide to record & view the following morning.Character 'D', is supplied by an official with a new young girl/person to look after, well, because.
Along with her comes her pet, increasing the mouths to feed.Gangs of youth roam the streets, BBQ ing animals & not doing much else.
The magic wall, leads to a room which changes at the whim of the director.Like Alice in Wonderland, I guess the 2nd reality is supposed to mean something, but this failed on me.Cave-children are seen once & are there for effect only it seems.The future might in fact be bleak, but certainly will be more exciting than this movie.