Where have all the dead gone?


Theres seems to no dead bodies anywhere.
Even Benson Thacker says that he went to his home on Sutton Place and found no one there?

anyone have a clue?

reply

When Harry Belafonte’s character was first at the radio station the recorded announcer stated that every one had evacuated the city. But I agree there should have been bodies lying around somewhere.

reply

It could have been like in the Night of the Comet where all the bodies (except for the mutants) turned to dust which blew away. There were just piles of clothes everywhere.

Reality is Nothing - Perception is Everything!

reply

According to the movie, NYC was "evacuated," so presumably everyone would have died elsewhere, but I think the idea of evacuating NYC is pretty ridiculous. Same with On The Beach, everybody died and just evaporated in San Diego. They didn't want to shock the audience with too much realism at the time these movies were made, but it does ring false today.

reply

Yeah very good question... but zeggman, if you watch The Last Man on Earth made in 1964, there are "dead" bodies everywhere, so I'm not really sure the absence of corpses in the World... was intended to reassure the audiences.
Maybe it was just made to reinforce the impression of desolation and solitude?

reply

LMOE is a low budget, pre-grindhouse type film while TWTFATD is a higher production. Last Man was probably on the drive in circuit and a film like that can be more morbid. This film is trying to be classier and was more about the 3 survivors than anything else.

if man is 5
then the devil is 6
if the devil is 6
then God is 7
and if God is 7...

reply

i'm quite glad you mentioned this charliet59 cuz i was rather confused where all the bodies had gone as well. thought perhaps they had all vaporised!

cheers.

reply

In a book I have, "Apocalypse Movies" by Kim Newman, he states that the film "has humanity all but exterminated in a war fought with radioactive gas. Buildings are left intact, but people are instantly vaporized - one wonders if the inventors of the neutron bomb were trying to mimic the effect."

I have no good reason and suspect that monkeys possess some sort of soul. Geode

reply

In M.P. Sheil's "The Purple Cloud", on which "The World, the Flesh and the Devil" is based, everyone dropped dead instantly when the gas hit. When the main character got back to a depopulated London he found one of his friends still sitting at his desk.

Unlike a deadly gas radiation, even from a neutron bomb, would be fatal over a period of time and people would have time to contemplate their deaths. Most would prefer to die comfortably indoors to breathing their last breath laying on concrete outdoors. The people who had evacuated would have met their end in their cars or at the evacuation center far outside New York. This would explain the lack of dead bodies.

Also if you look closely at the scene where, Harry Belafonte is standing on the dock, there appears to be a body, in work clothes, laying on the ground so not everyone, in the reality of this movie, died in an easy chair or in a Red Cross tent someplace.

TAG LINE: True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.

reply

Inger tells Harry that she and two friends got into a "decompression chamber" when the gas hit, but the friends left after two days. Wonder how many other people around the world survived inside the chambers?

"We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did."

reply

The idea of evacuating NYC is rather ludicrous, when you contemplate the logistics. In actuality, there aren't enough cars or even buses (or subway cars) to handle that number of people unless it was very well-organized and spread over a period of weeks. Even then, there are plenty who would simply not leave, or who could not.

Back around 2000, NYC averaged over 150 deaths per day (from all causes), and under the high stress of a forced evacuation it's hard to imagine it wouldn't go up astronomically, especially when you consider the tens of thousands in hospitals, many of whom are pre- or post-op or otherwise can't be moved safely. Add in the psychos in the nut wards & rubber rooms, who'd be lots of fun to move (where to?), and the evacuation looks even more hopeless. Not to mention the question of where a few million people will go, or how they'd live if there WERE enough infrastructure to support them. It would look like the last few days of Woodstock, with overflowing portable toilets and no fresh water -- except it would happen in hours, not days.

Most of the current zombie movies, silly as they are (scientifically & biologically speaking), are probably closer to what the streets of most cities & towns would look like -- rotting corpses everywhere, and thirty miles of highway in all directions, jammed with dead cars full of dead people.

Apocalyptic themes are often interesting, but they've been done a lot better than this

I keep waiting for someone to film the 50s(?) book "Earth Abides," by, i believe, someone named Stewart. I read it a dozen times as a kid, and it was one of the more thought-provoking end-of-civilization stories I've ever seen. And far more realistic.

reply

It probably IS just a device of the movie to show how alone they are but that is the part that bothers the modern viewers the most. Why don't they try to get out of the doomed city and maybe find the evacuees? How did the pigeons survive? Why isn't there the lingering radioactivity and radiation sickness that everyone in that era was told would occur? Were other ships at sea safe? How about submarines? Could any release of a cloud of radioactive material or poison possibly cover both the northern and southern hemispheres at once? Where is the President? Everyone knows there is a bunker under the White House and the Prez could fly around in Air Force One as Bush did with 9-11 fears. There are also shelters at the command center for our nuclear warheads. In fact, in 1959 there were fallout shelters all over the place and as short a time as this lasted there should be thousands if not millions of survivors.

This couldn't be remade today without including plausible scientific rationale.

On the surface of it this is just another postwar "fear of Communism and the Bomb" movie but it seems to really be a race relations movie. I would guess the heavy UN overtones were to make this pass as an international story rather than an indictment of the sorry state of the US. Without that focus the ending would be perceived by some as black man with a gun who wants the white man's woman, all the elements that certain people in this country were told would happen some day, something they feared as much as WWIII. This movie must have wrapped up all their terrors in one neat package.

For the rest of us, the production is strangely lacking in creepiness. It's too sterile. Why do I care about these people? I don't care about these people. I'd like to see who else is left and if they have a compelling story to tell. :) I cared more about the outcome of the situation with the two social classes stranded on a deserted island in The Admirable Crichton than this lot. I have the very strong feeling that wherever our three go and whatever they do, it will be boring. :)

If they had weeks of time to prepare maybe they euthanized and buried all the ones who couldn't be moved. :) Now there's a horror story for you.

reply

I can answer some of this, I think, having just watched the film.

First - the lack of bodies. While I agree it seems odd that no bodies are seen anywhere, it's not really a plot hole to me. Meaning, it doesn't change the story in any way, if there are bodies laying about, or not (unless of course they re-animate, but this isn't the Walking Dead lol). So you can rip it for saying there should be some dead bodies, no way a city that large is completely vacant, and I would agree, but it doesn't change the plot or the story in any way that I can think of. If the streets have dead bodies in them or not, the fact remains that everyone is dead. (Unless you want to talk about rotting corpses and disease, but that's getting away from the real story.)

They don't try to find evacuees because they are all dead, or at least, that's what they come to believe. According to the recording Ralph found, the earth was blanketed with this poison for five days, it appears almost no one survived. Notice that besides people missing, you also don't see any kind of animals or wildlife (until the end). When Benson arrives, he confirms that he also did not see anyone in his travels prior to cruising up the Hudson. And remember, Ralph drove from somewhere in Pennsylvania to New York at the beginning of the film and he saw no one either.

We are not told how the pigeons survived. We are not told how Benson survived either, but obviously he did. The point of showing you the pigeons, I think, was to show that life still goes on, that nature is going to begin to repair itself (as with the flowering tree branch). I think that was why we don't see the pigeons until the end, so that they would not be a distraction in the middle of the film. (Pigeons are related to doves, I'm not sure if the film-makers were throwing a Noah's Ark homage in there or not.)

There is not lingering radioactivity, I'm guessing, because this wasn't thermonuclear war. Because you're right, 'nuclear winter' and all that was the talk back then, should the US and USSR lob ICBMs at each other. Instead, this was some sort of 'atomic poison' which apparently blanketed the earth for five days, then dissipated. They didn't go into a lot of detail about exactly what it was or even who started releasing it.

I don't think any ships were safe at sea. No one was safe anywhere in the world, unless you were able to hide from the poison. Submarines are a possibility, that is a good point, but I'm not sure how long they can stay under before they have to surface. Or how long ones in 1959 could. Or if they can breathe self-contained air for five days, if they could stay under that long.

As for the president, bunkers, and shelters - those are fair points, I'm not sure how airtight those are. You are right when you say those bunkers and shelters were everywhere in the 50s, but were they airtight? Sarah mentioned she was in a decompression chamber, so we are to understand that that was airtight. Perhaps most bunkers and shelters were not to that extent. They still probably had intakes to breathe the outside air, even underground, and if so that would have been fatal.

Overall I thought it was pretty good. I actually did care for the people. Or two of them at least. Benson was a cad. Ralph was smart and resourceful but plagued by inner demons about his ethnicity it seemed. Sarah was guarded but eventually warmed to him, then recoiled when his race issues surfaced. So I was interested in both of them. Benson was just a POS though lol.

reply

It was the 50s, couldn't show dead rotting bodies. A different time and place.

reply

You have to give the filmmakers a break on this. First, they weren't out to make a horror movie as such--they were out to tell a story of three isolated survivors in a unique and interesting situation. Plenty of corpse-filled movies were made in the late '50s, and I think the director didn't want to go down that path, even though he could have. But from a practical view, having stacks of rotting bodies everywhere the actors turned would have made it impossible to actually tell the story they wanted to tell. The dead (and the effects of their decomposition) would have been foremost in the lives of the survivors ALL THE TIME, which would have made the interaction of the three much different. In this case, the corpse-free city is just a storytelling device, so just go with it.

Now those radiation-proof pigeons, on the other hand...well, THAT's a goof!

reply

Hey Jid,

Your comments on the film make a whole lot of sense to me. While this was never my favorite film, I do remember it had a fairly profound impact on me in 1959. Like you said, the film was not about dead bodies, it was human relationships at the most basic level. As I look back on the film now after just watching it again for the first time since 1959, it does not have the same affect on me now as it did back then, and that has nothing to do with "where are all the bodies?" I think it is simply the fact that my living 50+ more years since first seeing it is bound to make some things from back then a little less significant than they were.

Looking at the radiation proof pigeons now, I tend to put a positive spin on their presence. I choose to think the pigeons flew to the city from another area that was not irradiated, and they represent a new beginning for our three survivors.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

reply

I took that the same way. The idea was not to make you question how the pigeons survived, but rather, you are supposed to notice that they did survive (as well as the trees in park, from where Sarah brought back flowering branches). The message being that they are not totally alone, it's not completely desolate, and the earth is basically going to 'start over' from here.

reply

Low-budget genre films don't need to show thousands of rotting corpses to portray a nuclear holocaust. However, a few bodies judiciously placed can at least efficiently convey this idea.

Check out how low budget 50's scifi films with similar themes such as "Target Earth" (1954) and "Five" (1952) cinematically treated Atom Age victims. In "Target Earth", the star Richard Denning, unexpectedly stumbles onto an early dead victim on the sidewalk. On this hapless victim there is has a horrified expression frozen on her face. In the post-apocalyptic, scifi film "Five" the random skeleton in a car or in a ruined building effectively created an indelible image of the dire consequences of an atomic war.











reply

The fallout shelters and basements are probably jam packed with bodies. They knew the cloud was coming, why would you stand in the street when it hit?

If a day does not require an AK,
it is good
Ice Cube
Warrior Poet

reply

It could just be that it saved a lot of money where they were doing basically a hit and run at down on quiet streets. In those days, there were actually times where there was no one around in NYC.

reply

I am watching this movie for 1st time as I type:

I noticed the lack of dead right away, my thinking is back in those days, it was not considered appropriate. Heck, I bet some old dames were still wearing girdles. It was not a "Norm" at the time. In fact, until recently, last 15 years or so, I think there was a "Movie rule" of some sort which stated you can not show a gun fire and hit a person in the same film frame. You might see the gun fire and then the frame changes to the person getting hit, never understood why that is.

Night of the living dead and other movies started to make the change to what we have now, blood, blood, and more blood. This movie reminds me of Omega Man, I am sure this movie was "Omega Man" beginning

reply

I was actually wondering that as well. But it didn't bother me enough to take me out of the film.

reply

same here, it was odd but did not take anything away from the movie.

reply