Clean nuclear war in U.S. movies
Paul DeMone
Well since some of the natives are complaining about the lack of new posts
in a.w.n lately I will try my hand at stirring some up. My topic today is
the peculiar way that nuclear war has been portrayed in some U.S. movies as
rather tidy and fastidious.
In particular, "On the Beach" and and "The Day After". In The Day After the
unlucky citizens near ground zero are portrayed as sizzling out of existance
as if victim of a phaser strike and leaving only a shadow. At Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the ground zero victims had their viscera evaporated but left a
blackened semi-skeleton. In On the Beach San Francisco is portrayed as being
completely depopulated from fallout yet hardly a body is seen. Also, the
radiation sickness overtaking the characters is hardly depicted differently
from the common cold. I realize that film censor sensibilities were somewhat
delicate when OTB was made and TDA was produced for network prime time, but
this pattern is often repeated in other mainstream U.S. productions.
The post attack landscape is usually much more sanitized in most Hollywood
productions. You don't see the stray dogs fighting in the wreckage over
bits of charred corpses or a mother carrying a festering baby that has
been dead for days as in the excellent British film "Threads". This isn't
gratuitous sensationalism but rather a sobering look that hints at the
barely imaginable horrors of a full scale war.
Perhaps, the fact that Threads was produced in a nation with many living
survivors of large scale air attacks on civilians has something to do with
it. Also, the U.S. has the peculiar dichotomy of priding itself as a dem-
ocracy of decent, fairminded people yet at the same time being the only
nation to have actually conducted nuclear attacks. This fact has to have
some effect on the national psyche regardless of how morally justifiable
were the actions against an implacable foe. Finally, the U.S. needed
domestic support for the policy of deterrence which basically says the
best way to avoid a nuclear is to convince adversaries that you have the
capability and the *will* to respond in kind to a nuclear attack.
Alright, flame away.
--
Paul W. DeMone The 801 experiment SPARCed an ARMs race
Kanata, Ontario to put more PRECISION and POWER into
dem...@mosaid.com architectures with MIPSed results but
PaulD...@EasyInternet.net ALPHA's well that ends well.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Sanitized views of nuke war in film likely have as much to do with
practicle budget restraints and somethimes silly preconceptions of
weapons effects and such as to any effort for accuracy or lack thereof
(movie making is a whorish biz to begin with and issues like "accuracy"
are way down the list)
If anything, more modern films exaggerate weapons effects (Independance
Day and Broken Arrow come to mind right off) or play to pupular nuke
effect myths (quick vaporization in The Day After) becuase the film
makers don't know/don't care about factual depictions, they want
entertainment. On The Beach didn't need graphic depictions of terminal
radiation sickness to get its message across (arguably, grisly rad
sickness scenes would distract, and the quibble about no
bodies in the street forgets that fallout doesn't kill immediatly, so
victims would have plenty of time to crawl away to some corner to die)
I haven't seen Threads, but would like to.
I think most of the trouble with accurate depiction of nuke effects is
simply a matter of the idiot process of how film is made. Unless everyone
in the chain of command is keen on realism versus some overwrought
"dramatic" interpetation, only silly/false views will prevail.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>
>I get the impression that hardly anyone in the US really cares that their
>country nuked the Japanese. And whilst a few of the US citizens I've come
>into contact with make it _very_ clear how proud they are to be American,
>this largely seems to consist of an extreme reluctance to admit to their
>country ever does anything wrong, combined with a shocking display of
>innocent victim syndrome. In fact though I think that the development of
>the bomb and it's usage were relatively justifiable.
Yes, most Americans don't think about their history one way or the other,
certainly not with any critical view. If there is any effort done to
consider an historical issue, it is ususally shockingly superficial and
colored by the sensibilties or even fads of the moment, so context is
thrown out the window from the start.
>Most of the well educated americans I've talked with see right through
>the 'moral high ground' business to the 'political influence' business
>which it so convieniently masks. So I don't think many who are actually
>likely to ponder the matter are likely to find any great problem in
>fitting their country's use of nuclear weapons into their general view of
>their country and it's policies.
>
>I think that you are perhaps stretching it a bit though implying the US
>government in effect censored the film industries protrayal of nuclear
>war in order to insure public surport for it's policies. I think it is
>more likely that Hollywood just didn't see much money in making a
>depressing movie.
Here, here. If anything, especially in more rescent depictions of the use
of nukes, the effects have been overplayed, with a clear anti-nuke slant.
But most of the silly/stupid presentations of nuke effects have more to
do with hare-brained movie people than any govenment influence pro or con.
Lee Russell
"On the Beach", the movie, actually follows the book pretty well. From a
dramatic point of view, the image of a prestine world, looking much the
same as our own, but no longer fit for human life, is much more striking
than any amount of charred landscape. Some '50's movies, like "The World,
The Flesh and the Devil", try to explain the situation through the use of
a radioactive dust, rather than by nuclear explosions, just to save the
image. In a non-nuclear mode, "The Silent Earth" and "The Shining" present
the same situation withour resort to nuclear war. In fact, "The World, The
Flesh and the Devil" is, itself, a film adaptation of a turn of a century
novel called "The Purple Cloud", by M.P. Sheil, which deal with a
"natural" occurrance.
Scott K. Stafford
In article <5oq547$m...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
Pcl...@worldnet.att.net writes;
> "On the Beach", the movie, actually follows the book pretty well. From a
> dramatic point of view, the image of a prestine world, looking much the
> same as our own, but no longer fit for human life, is much more striking
> than any amount of charred landscape.
Good point. It could also be noted that both the author and the film
maker were primarily interested in having their characters cope with the
impending doom of both themselves and their society. If the setting were
changed to a "realistic" nuclear landscape, then the characters would be
so busy scrabbling about in the ruins and trying to find clean water that
there wouldn't be much time for contemplating the issues the story was
really about.
It should also be mentioned that a probable literary conceit on Shute's
part was the seeming normality of everyday life as the nuclear shadow
bore down upon everyone. Hehehehe, just like us, eh?
--
SKS <sco...@together.net>
*********************************************************
"Argument is an intellectual process, not just the
automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
*********************************************************
pyotr filipivich
sco...@UNSPAMtogether.net (Scott K. Stafford) writes:
>In article <5oq547$m...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
>Pcl...@worldnet.att.net writes;
>> "On the Beach", the movie, actually follows the book pretty well. From a
>> dramatic point of view, the image of a prestine world, looking much the
>> same as our own, but no longer fit for human life, is much more striking
>> than any amount of charred landscape.
>Good point. It could also be noted that both the author and the film
>maker were primarily interested in having their characters cope with the
>impending doom of both themselves and their society. If the setting were
>changed to a "realistic" nuclear landscape, then the characters would be
>so busy scrabbling about in the ruins and trying to find clean water that
>there wouldn't be much time for contemplating the issues the story was
>really about.
If you rcall - the book takes place in Australia, the 'war' in
the northern hemisphere. Up north there was all the destruction, but
down under - well,it was more of a lack of spares than a real disaster.
The opening shot, if memory serves - is a view out the window of
bicyclying people while a voice reads an Offical Memorandum that due to
the recent unpleasantness, petrol was in short supply and blah blah.
"Nice of them in the ministry to finally notice we're unable import oil
any more.."
>It should also be mentioned that a probable literary conceit on Shute's
>part was the seeming normality of everyday life as the nuclear shadow
>bore down upon everyone. Hehehehe, just like us, eh?
People will strive for normalacy desite the evidence against it.
Part of Shute's mission was going up to A) find the guy who was sending
the gibberish morse code 2) check on the fallout/radiation levels. The
answer to part 2 was not good.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich, sometimes owl, Nikolai Petrovich in the SCA.
"Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes."
(If you can read this, you're overeducated.)
Lee Russell
sco...@UNSPAMtogether.net (Scott K. Stafford) wrote:
>> "The Shining"? I never had that take on it.
>
>I think the poster simply mistyped. He's probably referring to Stephen
>King's THE STAND, an apocalyptic vision where a CBW plague wipes out 95%
>of the earth's population and the survivors gird themselves for the final
>confrontation between good and evil.
You are correct! I meant "The Stand"! I'm not a Stephen King fan and I
mis-remembered the title!
>>..."The Silent Earth" and it's unique take on an unnatural
>> global catastrophe. It was very apocalyptic without any incidence of
>> nuclear war at all. A good example of why a nuclear war would be
>> terrible not only because of the type of destruction, but also because
>> of the fact that it would be brought about by the failure or mistakes
>> of our civilization.
I think the technology part was just a "deux ex machina" (boy is THAT
misspelled) thing. The real idea was again, the "Garden of Eden", with
two boys and a girl.
>And what about Larry Niven's (with Jerry Pournelle, IIRC?) LUCIFER'S
>HAMMER?
The artifacts of civilization suffer too much there, for me to put it in
with the other stories. But I should have added the movie: "Night of the
Comet", which postulated a depopulated world of Valley Girls and punks,
and "Day of the Trifids" where everyone in the world goes blind.
LR
Scott K. Stafford
In article <5oseig$326$1...@halcyon.com>, py...@halcyon.com writes;
> >Good point. It could also be noted that both the author and the film
> >maker were primarily interested in having their characters cope with the
> >impending doom of both themselves and their society. If the setting were
> >changed to a "realistic" nuclear landscape, then the characters would be
> >so busy scrabbling about in the ruins and trying to find clean water that
> >there wouldn't be much time for contemplating the issues the story was
> >really about.
>
> If you rcall - the book takes place in Australia, the 'war' in
> the northern hemisphere. Up north there was all the destruction, but
> down under - well,it was more of a lack of spares than a real disaster.
Well, the disaster hadn't occurred *yet* in Australia, but the point of
the book from the very beginning is the impending doom that all on the
continent face as the radioactivity from the war zone makes its way down
under.
> People will strive for normalacy desite the evidence against it.
> Part of Shute's mission was going up to A) find the guy who was sending
> the gibberish morse code 2) check on the fallout/radiation levels. The
> answer to part 2 was not good.
It always struck me that one character was missing from both the film and
Shute's book; the survivalist. I realize that the point of the piece was
coping with a nuclear fate, but it occurs to me that a significant
fraction of the population would choose to cope by *not* coping--and
would be busily digging themselves nice, deep shelters and putting up
some provisions. I forget how long a period of time goes by in the
story, but it was multiple months--plenty of time to start building...
Lee Russell
>It always struck me that one character was missing from both the film and
>Shute's book; the survivalist. I realize that the point of the piece was
>coping with a nuclear fate, but it occurs to me that a significant
>fraction of the population would choose to cope by *not* coping--and
>would be busily digging themselves nice, deep shelters and putting up
>some provisions. I forget how long a period of time goes by in the
>story, but it was multiple months--plenty of time to start building...
I think the whole post-war period is about a year. But the author didn't
want any of his characters disputing the central premise, that a nuclear
war would inevitable kill every last living thing on earth, if not
directly, then by radiation. It is still a powerful movie to watch.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <5p2681$t...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
story, is easy to discount. Also, I'd wonder about a survivalist being a
more American thing anyway. or at least a non-mainstream upper-middle
class thing to be doing. But, agian, including that would only distract
from the main thrust of the story.
On a realated note, can anyone recall a truely honest and accurate nuke
war story? Not burdened with plucky survivialists or doomed victims, in
either case making an often partisan point over the goodness/badness of
atomics or just overwrought drama or bathos.
Scott K. Stafford
In article <bevnsagE...@netcom.com>, bev...@netcom.com says...
> On a realated note, can anyone recall a truely honest and accurate nuke
> war story? Not burdened with plucky survivialists or doomed victims, in
> either case making an often partisan point over the goodness/badness of
> atomics or just overwrought drama or bathos.
I always enjoyed (if that's the right word...) TESTAMENT. I thought it
was a quiet and realistic version of probable events in a small town
after the "big one" had come and gone. The image of the young couple
bartering for a dresser drawer to bury their newborn child in still gives
me a chill.
Of course, the H-bombs aren't on stage in this one either. Just a flash
and the power going off, followed by invisible fallout...
--
**Scott K. Stafford <sco...@together.net>**
cant stop lose job mind gone silicon
what bomb get away pay day make hay
break down need fix big six
clickity click hold on oh no brrrrrrring bingo!
Greg Groves
Lee Russell wrote:
> I think the whole post-war period is about a year. But the author
> didn't
> want any of his characters disputing the central premise, that a
> nuclear
> war would inevitable kill every last living thing on earth, if not
> directly, then by radiation. It is still a powerful movie to watch.
Supposedly the reason that the Southern Hemisphere lasted a year
longerwas that the air (and in this case the fallout) intermixed very
slowly across the
equator. Yet I remember when that big volcano in the Philippines erupted
a
few years ago, we had some spectacular sunsets here in the Northern
Hemisphere that same year due to the volcanic dust.
So does fallout move differently than dust and ash? Or was Shute's
premise
fatally flawed?
--
Greg (ggr...@flash.net)
"This acreage is zoned RESIDENTIAL! I'll not let you turn it into
a wholesale SLAUGHTERHOUSE!" - from Howard the Duck, 1976
Carey Sublette
>
> Supposedly the reason that the Southern Hemisphere lasted a year
> longerwas that the air (and in this case the fallout) intermixed very
> slowly across the
> equator. Yet I remember when that big volcano in the Philippines erupted
> a
> few years ago, we had some spectacular sunsets here in the Northern
> Hemisphere that same year due to the volcanic dust.
>
> So does fallout move differently than dust and ash? Or was Shute's
> premise
> fatally flawed?
>
Not at all. If we haul out our atlases we will see that Mt Pinatubo, along
with the rest of the Philippines, are in the northern hemisphere!
Of course, very close to the equator we might expect the northern and
southern distributions to be roughly the same.
Shute was absolutely right about the slow mixing between the hemispheres
under normal conditions. However, it is now clear that widespread urban
destruction will massively disrupt the global circulation due to the
injection of of millions tons of soot causing extensive mixing. Shute
couldn't have known about that.
Carey