Many people have stated how much this film terrified them when they saw it at cinemas in the late 1970s and I do agree that this could have been one of the most realistic and chilling films of the 20th century where doomsday is concerned ...
... But...
The producers of the movie went and shot themselves in the foot by taking sides . Certainly you never feel you're being preached to while watching but the more you think about it afterwards the more you realise that the audience aren't being allowed to think for themselves
For example if a nuclear power plant comes close to a meltdown as shown here why would everyone with the exception of Jack Godell choose to ignore it ? Surely their lives and the lives of their family are on the line as well ? Surely they'd be worried more about their lives rather than their jobs ? Surely it wouldn't just be left to the lone noble crusader to take on the corporate giants ? And if you think Jack's is a little too quick to turn from loyal company man to anti nuclear eco warrior then I agree with you . That's because the subtext is unapologetically anti nuclear therefore the audience are expected to realise Jack has seen the light even if it feels unnatural from a dramatic point of view
In short Jack is something of a cliché as is the portrayal of the media with ambitious go getting TV journalist Kimberly Wells hot on the trail of an earth shattering story . Certainly casting Jane Fonda has helped because Fonda can act and Fonda knows how to fight her corner . Now imagine how laughably clichéd and one dimensional the role would have been if a pretty blonde bimbo actress had been cast instead ? Same with Michael Douglas cameraman Richard Adams . How many people watched the film thinking " Hey his dad's a famous movie star " or " I preferred him in that cop show with Karl Maldern " or " I can see why he ditched the beard " rather than " Would a cameraman really put his ass on the line for a point of principle ? "
Unfortunately this makes the movie appeal only to people who are vehemently and unapologetically anti nuclear which is a great pity because no matter what divide of the nuclear debate you are on I'm sure we all want answers to the same questions like what safeguards are there in a nuclear plant ? and is it a good idea building nuclear plants in regions that are bothered by earthquakes ? but with this movie no one will have their minds changed about anything
... But...
The producers of the movie went and shot themselves in the foot by taking sides . Certainly you never feel you're being preached to while watching but the more you think about it afterwards the more you realise that the audience aren't being allowed to think for themselves
For example if a nuclear power plant comes close to a meltdown as shown here why would everyone with the exception of Jack Godell choose to ignore it ? Surely their lives and the lives of their family are on the line as well ? Surely they'd be worried more about their lives rather than their jobs ? Surely it wouldn't just be left to the lone noble crusader to take on the corporate giants ? And if you think Jack's is a little too quick to turn from loyal company man to anti nuclear eco warrior then I agree with you . That's because the subtext is unapologetically anti nuclear therefore the audience are expected to realise Jack has seen the light even if it feels unnatural from a dramatic point of view
In short Jack is something of a cliché as is the portrayal of the media with ambitious go getting TV journalist Kimberly Wells hot on the trail of an earth shattering story . Certainly casting Jane Fonda has helped because Fonda can act and Fonda knows how to fight her corner . Now imagine how laughably clichéd and one dimensional the role would have been if a pretty blonde bimbo actress had been cast instead ? Same with Michael Douglas cameraman Richard Adams . How many people watched the film thinking " Hey his dad's a famous movie star " or " I preferred him in that cop show with Karl Maldern " or " I can see why he ditched the beard " rather than " Would a cameraman really put his ass on the line for a point of principle ? "
Unfortunately this makes the movie appeal only to people who are vehemently and unapologetically anti nuclear which is a great pity because no matter what divide of the nuclear debate you are on I'm sure we all want answers to the same questions like what safeguards are there in a nuclear plant ? and is it a good idea building nuclear plants in regions that are bothered by earthquakes ? but with this movie no one will have their minds changed about anything