I also re-watched Rollerball (1975) last night after many years after someone said it was a dissident film. I know there was a remake in 2002 which was stupid.

I agree that it is almost a dissident film. The reason for this is that the main character played by James Cann displays extreme reluctance to retire from the rollerball game just because the movie’s elites tell him to, even though they promise him huge economic benefits and even though it makes rational sense for him to comply. But he wants to know why, he is angry that they took away his wife, and he still loves the game. In other words, he is highly disagreeable. When he balks at doing what he’s told, the elites conspire to rig the game against him to kill him, even though they also consider having him die in “accidents” or otherwise. They fear Cann because he is so popular with the people, highlighting the populist/oligarchical tension at heart of society.

The reason why ultimately I think the film is not a dissident film is because Cann is not inspired by higher ideals. He just doesn’t like being told what to do. If this film was actually a dissident film it would be tied into how terrible the oligarchy is and how they exist as a parasitic force against the masses, and Cann would have raised the latter’s banner against the former.

The movie itself is well paced and directed and the action scenes are pretty thrilling. John Houseman representing the oligarchy does a great job in his role. The sub-plot around Cann trying to find physical books and being told by an AI that he can’t research the oligarchy doesn’t work, though.