I just watched this on DVD for the first time last night, and must say this was an excellent well done movie, excellent acting and especially cinematography (unlike most armageddon movies this one has virtually no Special Effects).
The only part that didn't mesh right with me was when they family was watching TV and the signal gets interrupted by the newsman to announce that New York had been nuked and it was a National State of Emergency (then the Emergency Broadcast system coming on). The reactions by the 2 older kids and especially Jane Alexander did not look real at all, I mean, I'd think they'd be totally freaking out, not calm and composed like they were. Oh well, I guess since nothing like that has ever happened, who can know what our reactions would be. Anyway, that's my only problem with the movie, outside that its excellent and definitely stays with you. 9/10
I don't think they had much time to react with hysterics. The gravity, horror, and awe of something like a nuke hitting a major city would take at least couple minutes to sink in. It's hard to go from 0 to 60 when you weren't expecting to go driving in the first place.
Of course, they didn't have a couple minutes because shortly after the announcement the nuke hit San Francisco.
If you watch the movie closely you will find out (during the scene in the church where people gather right after the explosions) that the president has recently been shot. There has been a reinstatement of the draft and there are problems going on with a war. It's just like today...you hear so much all of the time that you become numb to the possibility of what terrible thing could happen next. I wasn't freaking out on Sept. 11th. I just sat there stunned and glued to the tv. So did most people I have talked with.
Sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin... from now on, unacceptable.
The older lady who is the piano teacher and also helps out with the school play she stands up and states that school was cancelled (for the children), that it was a mistake because when the president was shot "they went on". The scene where a large group of people are at the church discussing what to do next.
Steinbeck
Sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin... from now on, unacceptable.
THAT'S nuts!!! Why would anyone reference what happened twenty years ago in the middle of a crisis? That doesn't make sense. If you really want to be more accurate mixing movie fiction with real life Reagan was shot in March 30, 1981...But, let's go with the fact that ALL movies have their own worlds (not our world)...The draft was NOT reinstated in America (in the eighties)what would make you think the movie was referring to real life?
You two need to separate real life from movie fiction.
Sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin... from now on, unacceptable.
Actually in real life people do tend to refer to significant events as happening fairly recently even though they had happened some twenty or so years before. I remember, as a kid, people in the mid 1960s who referred to the bombing attack at Pearl Harbor as a fairly recent event- at least to them. You made a good point concerning Reagan being shot only a year or two before this movie was made; however, I do not believe the schools were let out because of the 1981 shooting as people thought that the wound was not as serious as it actually was. Nobody expected the President to die; and he didn't. By the way, the REGISTRATION for the draft WAS reinstated in 1980 and is still currently in effect and some people were indicited for not registering ;which is what is referenced early in the movie, NOT a full reinstatement of the draft. By the way Steinbeck11- have you registered for the draft yet? You need to realize the draft registration is not movie fiction.
I doubt they'd want the blood of an old fogey like myself.
If you watch the scene I referred to it seems apparent to me that it was a recent event.
The feel of the scene where the neighbor's son was indicted for not registering seems to me like there is a war going on and it's a full reinstatement. It's hard to believe a nuclear war would happen with out our previously being engaged in a war (even in movie fiction).
(Especially with the recent news of plutonium's that's gone missing!!!!)
Sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin... from now on, unacceptable.
Yeah, the Kennedy assassination really is one of those touchstones, like 9/11, where the common feeling is that the world can be divided into "before" and "after." Twenty years after JFK's assassination, people I know were still asking and talking about "Where were you when the president was killed," and we know exactly what and who was meant. It might be a boomer thing -- I was a kid when it happened, and to this day if felt like that was when the world changed.
Incidentally, I saw this devastating film at a press screening also attended by interested others in the NY film community, and I was so shaking with anxiety by the end and seeing the kids fighting over, I believe, morsels of cat food. (I could never see the film again -- it's too overwhelming, especially given the very real nuclear jitters we had then in the world, much less so now.) And if I were shaken, it was like a jolt seeing the actress Blair Brown leaving the screening room openly sobbing. Nobody could speak -- it was one of the most eerily quiet moments I'd ever experienced, punctuated only by that soft sobbing.
I made the mistake of watching this film alone. Emotionally devastating is not half of it. My children were just babies and I think this probably resulted in my strong reaction to the movie.
I could never get my wife to watch it. I do not blame her.
Read Roger Ebert's review of this film to see how it impacts a person who reviews thousands of films.
Never have seen a more moving film and will never, ever forget it.
Why do you imply this post was not useful. Maybe the person has not had time to watch the movie or has to be in a certain mood to do so. It could also be that the movie is to painful to watch, so the user has not done so yet. Try thinking about why someone posts something before criticizing it.
"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31 I try doing this with my posts
Thank you, steinbeck11, and everyone else participating in the lively discussion!
Your argument that a nuclear strike in fact would be a natural consequence of a war in progress, but other scenarios could fit here. A really devious ruler/leader could feign friendship in the hop a preemptive strike could be avoided, and even then even dimmer hope that the attacker's country could avoid contamination (fat chance) -- or it could simply have been a technical malfunction.
I should say the effect of the attack took more of my attention than the cause. Everyone was superb, but Alexander in particular -- too bad she didn't take 'The Award' for which she was nominated (again).
I'm not sure if schools were let out when Reagan was shot, because that day was already a half day in my school. (I was in 3rd grade)Were any schools let out?
When 9/11 happened, I didn't freak. I just sat there in shock, it will be forever burned into my memory. Now lets say, I had heard the missiles were on the way and I had only 15 maybe 20 minutes to live, whats the point of freaking out, trying to escape(I live in West Seattle, well within the blast radius). You would just have to calmly accept that the future is over, no need to worry about that dentist appointment tomorrow, or that over due library book in a few minutes it won't matter. If I was at home I would probably go out on the roof and watch it streak across the sky, and if I was in class I would probably just leave and take a walk in the nearby park.
It's so obvious that Kennedy is being referred to here that I don't know what else to say. I'm only 24 but even I know that in the early 80s the assassination of the president was still somewhat fresh. I mean, when space shuttle Columbia blew up, everyone immediately thought of the Challenger disaster even though it was two decades before.
seroteamavi2001 is right, the woman was talking about JFK. It's not so nuts to reference something that happened 20 years ago . . . it would be something that people could relate to and remember because it was such a shock. I was stunned at the news, and can remember it so CLEARLY, and I was in the 4th grade. In reality, on Monday, November 26, 1963, the day of Kennedy's funeral, everything in the country, EVERYTHING, was closed. I believe when the woman spoke of Kennedy, she was saying everyone had to be strong and stick together, help each other.
And why should you have to separate real life from movie fiction? Mixing fictional movie plots with real characters or events has been a staple of movies for years, making the movie seem more realistic.
Hi! I just want to add one more argument to the JFK reference side. In the movie The Day After, which was also released in 1983 and is also about the aftermath of a nuclear war, there is a scene where an old couple lies in the bed and is discussing the war situation (before the launch of the a-bombs).There the woman says:"Do you remember when Kennedy was on the TV?" and later the man says:"we went to the window and waited for the bomb" "but it never came"-replies the woman. So if you think about it, the two movies are about the same theme, were made in the same year, so having the same reference is normal.
The Kennedy assassination was a shocking, life-altering event for many people in the 60s. People who didn't experience it sometimes have a hard time understanding what a huge impact it made on us as a society. The nation basically stopped dead in its tracks for a little while to mourn, and then we picked up where we left off and went on as the lady in the film said. I was only 6 at the time, but I can remember the impact it had on my family and neighborhood.
The elderly lady in the movie was referencing a time that made a huge impact on her. People, especially elderly people, often reference past events when addressing a new event. "This is what we did back then. Maybe we should try it now."
I see nothing wrong with that. ____________ A learning experience is something that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that."
I was in elementary school in 1963 when Kennedy was shot, and we were not dismissed early. The teacher was called out about five minutes before the dismissal bell rang and she came back in and made the announcement that President Kennedy had been shot dead in Dallas, Texas and that we were all to go straight home after school. We just all kind of sat there in shock. Years later I later realized that we were told to go straight home because no one knew what had happened, if the Russians were involved and whether there would be bombs dropped.
I, too, was in elementary school in 1963. It seems almost immediately after it was announced President Kennedy was dead, we were all sent home. My dad came home early and we all watched the television. I don't think the TV was off for that entire weekend. We didn't have school on Monday, which I believe was the day of the funeral, but we went back to classes after that. It seemed to be a global mourning which we all experienced together and then came out on the other side feeling closer. I was much too young to understand any of the politics, but I do remember our next door neighbor began to rail about the "commies" at every opportunity. Sorry, I don't recall anything at all about a "Russian" plot or the threat of bombs. The death of the President was horrific enough.
As for the movie, and I admit I haven't seen it for quite a number of years, I believe I interpreted the scene about the President being shot as meaning President Kennedy's assasination. When Reagan was fired at, it was more of a blip on the scene of news and faded quickly except for the Brady Bill which was passed in honor of the SS agent who was shot. I remember thinking the shocking part was the attempt on a president's life was made by a member of the Manson "family." Therefore, to me, that event was not nearly as significant as the actual murder of a President.
Lastly, I was at home preparing for a lecture I was giving later that morning at the local Red Cross office when I heard and saw the news on the Today Show about the attacks on 9/11. In devastating shock, I didn't know what to do so called the Red Cross. They had no more information than what I saw so suggested I come anyway. On the way there the streets were empty, businesses and schools where closed or closing, government offices all closed. I arrived to the building where I was checked by security, bombarded by PA announcements to donate blood, stock supplies, and other various emergency arrangements. I began my lecture, but no one was listening to me and I couldn't concentrate. It took a couple of days for the horror and fear to abate for most people and then the many questions needed to be answered.
The weekend after 9/11 I was driving to western Mass. for a meeting and everything just seemed "odd." No planes in the sky, few cars on the road, EVERYWHERE American flags as the country pulled itself together much the same we we did when President Kennedy was killed. No one had to coax us into doing it, we just did it all on our own.
This may contradict some of my other sentiments on here, but I remember going to the grocery store the night of 9/11 and trying to exhibit normalcy and good cheer, thinking that a resolute and warm attitude would be contagious and the best possible response to the terrorists. Instead, I remember asking a grocer a question about some frozen food and she looked at me like I was insane for wanting to even buy anything or communicate with someone. Gah!
I just found this, and I don't know if you were referring to my post or not. I was making a comparison vis a vis my own observations about how people react during a national crisis/day of mourning. You have heard of drawing parallels right? Troll.
After having not seen the film in almost 15 years, it was so good(in a sad way)to view again.
In the church scene though, the teacher seems to be pointing out how even after some as shocking as Kennedy being shot, people picked up and went on with life.
Granted, that whole take seems very naive when contrasting it to a full nuclear attack. Maybe that's why its in the film to begin with, to show how some people just can't (or won't)grasp the scope of something.
Also, it probably would have been better to give this dialogue to someone without such a strong accent. So as to avoid confusion in what is in the context of the film, a very exposition heavy scene.
p.s. Maybe her "somewhere is Europe" accent was meant to underscore the faulty wisdom of Old World stiff-upper-lip quality in the post WWII world. And maybe she was just an actress they hired who had an accent. :)
Stiff upper lips get theirs head-on though in THREADS! An unflinching British take on Testaments themes. And I mean UNFLINCHING!
You, Mr Neville, are the refuse of the past. You are discarded!
When (if?*) the media broadcast of the Apocalypse is announced, the vast majority of people will stand there incredulous, many acting as though it were the daily, routine weather forecast. Even back in 1983, people had been desensitized to horror to a great degree. Now, the mundaneness of the extreme drama on television has progressed even more greatly, and I can visualize the "Oh, here it comes, let's get on with it" (with little excited emotionalism).
* I say "if" both because there is a small likelihood that the mental cases who run our world, both the "good" guys (USA, etc.) and "bad" guys (Iran, etc.), won't actually succeed in wiping us out, and also, because I believe the government might not even bother telling us that ICBMs were on their way.
They could have been referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Kennedy was indeed on TV talking about it. The US came very, very close to nuclear war then.
I don't think they had much time to react with hysterics. The gravity, horror, and awe of something like a nuke hitting a major city would take at least couple minutes to sink in. It's hard to go from 0 to 60 when you weren't expecting to go driving in the first place.
well done anderson... the post to end all posts....
Exactly, I am pretty certain you are right about that scene. Kennedy did make an announcement at the beginning of the crisis, and people then expected the weapons to be fired at times during the next two weeks. None actually were; but we (both sides) were within about three minutes of firing nuclear weapons at a couple of points due to unexpected developments.
I have always found the "newscaster" scene to be the most chilling one in the movie, because, for most people, this is probably what a nuclear attack would be like: the sudden announcement from the media that something has happened, followed by the interruption for the Presidential message, followed by nothing, as the power and communications structures fail. (Provided that there was time for even that much.)
Correct. In a war all communications (radio and TV) are generally stopped anyway, except for what is absolutely required by the military (and which would generally not be available to most people). So, even if you had a portable electrical generator you would probably not receive any news of what was happening. You might see some planes (military of course) flying over, but from where and where to would not be known by you.
You would not know if the U.S. had won or lost for some time. Where the fighting was and outcome would also be a mystery to you. You would be on your own and I doubt that even the HAMS could give you much informtion.
Well, I agree that a nuclear conflict would have horrible casualties but there would still be a definite winner and loser. At least there would be a cease fire and then a reevaluation of the situation.
I didn't freak out on 9/11 even though I live 20 miles from NYC. Truth is at the time I was so consumed with personal problems and so pesimistic my thoughts then were that 9/11 was less worse than I was expecting, I thougt we would have a nuclear war before then and am surprized we still haven't. It would be hard for most people to know how they'd react to a nuclear attack I think, because there's no precendent for someone so large and global in scale.
Hopefully not a redundant thing to add seeing as it has been said at least twice now but when I saw the news footage of the twin towers being struck (I live in London,England)it wasn't instant fear I was feeling.
It was shock and incredulation because it was quite unbeliveable thing to see and even then it wasn't terrosim that I though caused it at first I thought it was some hidious accident or the piolet dieing at the controls or something. It took a while for it all to sink in but even when it turned out to be terrorism I still didn't panic as I thought this was an unfourtunate and sad introduction of forgien terrorism to American shores.
Let's also not forget it's children who are viewing the emrgency broadcast and there would be a fair amount of denial going on in the minds of the kids even if they did know what the full magnitude of the broadcast ment. When you a child the last thing you want to aknowledge is that one day you are going to die and if you are being told that this could happen before you reach your next birthday you are going to pretend that isn't happening for as long as you can.
If I saw the 4 minite warning (if it even exsists) pop up on my televison I think I would just sit there in shock and maybe in the last minite start shouting and vainly packgin an inadaqete suitcase for the artic :P
I have to disagree with the original poster and say that the reactions were very realistic. Most people when such shocking news is presented to them are stunned and scared and do not scream and panic and run all around. It's more of a feeling of sheer terror and your heart beats fast and your adrenaline gets pumping. Think about people who have been in plane crashes and 9/11 its usually just an intense fear that leaves us speechless.
I was definitely just stunned when 9/11 happened. I was in Ireland and just heard word from another tourist that "two planes hit the WTC, one hit the Pentagon and there was an earthquake in San Francisco". Definitely had an end of the world type feel.
I highly disagree with the OP... that is what's called "natural" acting... Think about it, would any of us react any different if we were watching regular TV and suddenly something like that is announced??? I don't think so... i'm glad there was no over the top acting here that we see in so many Hollywood movies today. Excellent movie and brilliant acting!!