I'll try to answer your points one by one, mdonin. (Your original paragraphs in italics.)
I'll add that some of your points are more fully addressed in the book. If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend it. It's much better than the movie and fills in some gaps in the narrative and other information.
So, people were lining up to get suicide pills because the end was drawing near, yet everyone seemed relatively calm and well-behaved. They're all going about, doing their jobs, and acting like nothing's changed.
While I don't agree that people were acting like nothing's changed, the depiction of most people staying calm and orderly and accepting their fate has been a topic of discussion elsewhere here. One point to remember is that the book was published in 1957 and the movie made in 1959. Societal norms were very different then. In the book it's said that right after the war public drunkenness and other social problems were bad, but that this had abated after a time. (But in the novel it's about two years between the end of the war and the time radiation reaches Melbourne, whereas in the film it's only a few months -- a crucial difference.) In that era people were more likely to behave in a normal manner, especially once they'd had time to adjust to the realities of the situation. Ultimately they'd go back to work and their regular lives just because there was nothing else to do. Of course, having more time to come to terms with impending doom helps bring about a certain level of acceptance and even peace with one's fate, which it does in the book, which is more realistic. Whether this would happen today is another question. People may be too self-absorbed to act responsibly.
As to the people lining up to get suicide pills, while I think this scene works from a cinematic standpoint, it's not too logical. In the novel people simply have to go to their local chemist's shop (drug store) to pick up the pills. Forcing people to line up, stand for hours, and give their names to receive their pills is pretty stupid -- cumbersome and pointless. It looks very dramatic in the movie, but in real life it'd be unworkable, especially as people would by then already be sick and dying. Besides, what would be the point of checking people's names off a list? Are they worried someone might start a black market in death tablets?
The secretary hadn't had any boyfriends because none of the guys, of which there were plenty, had approached her. What's wrong with that picture? She was a cute girl but even if she wasn't, it wouldn't have mattered.
Yes, I see no reason why men -- certainly other naval officers -- wouldn't have pursued Osgood, the secretary (a character not in the book, by the way). But here again, a dramatic point is being made: how people can miss out on living and lose so much, and now, with all life about to be extinct, this young woman will never know love. It's a reminder of yet another aspect of what's being lost with the passing of mankind -- human emotions and human interactions. It also allows for the Admiral to propose his final toast: "To a blind, blind world"...a comment both on the folly of men who didn't see Lt. Osgood for the lovely girl she is, and of the folly of mankind for destroying itself and the world given them.
I'd love to believe people are this well behaved under these circumstances or under pressure but I know better. I've seen how they act during those black Friday sales so I would have expected a lot more chaos than what I saw in this movie. Some people may have continued working and remained peaceful but many would likely be spending their final days in debauchery; doing whatever they darn well pleased.
I mostly spoke to this question above, but you make a point. Again, to me it depends on the time element involved. In the few months during which the film takes place, I think that, even then, people would have behaved in debauched ways because there were only a few months left. Here again, the novel provides a long enough period between the end of the war and the final end of man (two years), so that people, once past the initial shock, would eventually go back to their daily lives, because they realized this is what brought satisfaction to them and made their remaining lives better. Besides, the absence of gasoline and difficulty of travel would have made it harder to get too out of hand. Over a few months, people might go crazy, but given a longer time I think calm reflection and acceptance would have emerged. No one can sustain an endless orgy.
Most of the men would, no doubt, have harassed the women; trying to get them to have sex. A lot of the women would have obliged but those that didn't would be attacked; taken by force.
Once more, this might have happened in the immediate aftermath but granted enough time it would likely abate. Apart from that, people wouldn't put up with non-stop lawlessness, even -- maybe especially -- in their final days. (Or are you suggesting that at last Lt. Osgood would lose her virginity?)
Mary seemed to have been the only person to lose her mind due to the stress of the situation. I suspect that would have been more widespread; probably the norm more than the exception.
Yes, certainly more people would have been in denial like Mary, but I'm not sure it would have been as widespread as you may believe. Remember, Mary was like this anyway, kind of flighty; she was predisposed to be in denial and unable to handle bad news. The end of the world (and death of her baby) would quite naturally push her into a heavy denial of reality. Her character is the same in both the book and movie.
And, when Dwight leaves Moira, I was perplexed. If he had to go back with the men, why wouldn't he have just taken her along with them? Surely, no one would have been concerned with protocol at a time like that. The movie just doesn't make any sense or ring true to me; not at all.
This is where the book comes in handy. In the novel, Dwight is a man who believes in protocols, and in following procedures accordingly. He takes his oath as an officer seriously -- and also his marital vows to his now-dead wife. That's why he never sleeps with Moira in the book (whereas he apparently finally does in the film), nor does he say he wants to stay with her, as he does in the movie. In the book Moira asks him at the dock if she can come with him, and he refuses, saying he's been asked the same thing by three other men and turned them down. In the U.S. Navy women weren't allowed aboard ship, and he felt duty-bound to keep it that way until the end. (They were also just going to sail down the bay into international waters in the Bass Strait, and sink the sub there; they weren't going back to the States, and Dwight had only ten men sailing with him, all of whom intended to go down with the ship.) You may agree or disagree with whether Nevil Shute's characterization of Dwight was logical or reasonable but in its context his actions make perfect sense (and given the circumstances, maintaining protocols and discipline was the only way to keep his ship and his men safe and functioning).
Unfortunately the film never makes Dwight's character too clear in this regard. And in the end it departs from Shute's conception and has Dwight wanting to stay with Moira (though not take her with him), which would have meant deserting his command. (But notice too that in the film Moira does not ask Dwight to take her with him; she first thinks he's staying, but when he says he's going she just accepts the fact that's he's leaving; she doesn't ask to go along.) You may ask what difference does it make at this point, but it's another aspect of the author's intent, showing people staying true to themselves and their characters as they face their ends. The movie abruptly fudges this in the end. (The 2000 made-for-cable version, which is terrible in every respect, has Dwight blithely walking out on his men for his own selfish wish to stay with Moira, while his dying crew takes the sub out on its last cruise...completely eviscerating not only Shute's original intention but even the 1959 film's more creditable -- and, I believe, credible -- characterizations.)
Frankly I like the idea of a Naval Commander remaining faithful to his duty and his men instead of breaking the rules just for personal convenience. That's a cop out. The ending rings true to me, but then the book is so much better you might feel differently if you had that as background. It's still in print after 59 years and I think you'd like it. It would certainly give you a different perspective on the story, and on the film...which Shute, by the way, hated! (He died less than a month after its premiere.)
reply
share