"threads"

[maria paula]

talking about disturbing film, this is one of them, i have seen it may years ago, and i still i have it on my mind.

"Threads is a no-holds barred, no punches pulled account of the horror of nuclear war. There are scenes still burned into my mind, despite the fact that I last saw it over a year ago. The milk bottles melting on the doorstep when the fireball hits, the woman peeing in terror at the sight of the mushroom cloud, and the devastated hospital full of dead and dying babies hit you for six.

Threads is not a slick, polished Hollywood producton, but a narrated documentary style "play" which depicts the human tragedy of nuclear war in the most horrifying, and presumably realistic way possible.

The government, police, armed forces, schools, hospitals, power, food and any resemblance of organised society are wiped out with the blast. In the shattered remains, people kill each other for scraps of food. Babies are stillborn and deformed. Bodies lie charred in what remains of the streets, and kids grow up unable to speak in a non-existent society. The ruling authorities are gone, and 13 years on, the city looks the same as it did 10 minutes after the Bomb. Its terrifying and numbing, yet holds a grim fascination.
 Bluntly organized into "chapters" set six weeks, four months, and finally 13 years after the war, Threads details the most relentless, scientifically accurate, and sociologically plausible apocalypse in film history. The bombs' electro-magnetic-pulse paralyzes communication; millions die in the blasts. A makeshift police state tries to restore order as nuclear winter ensues and cancer, cholera, typhoid, dysentery and worse become rampant. Survivors eventually count it a good day if they can find an irradiated rat to eat and if only one of their kids turns out to be a running-sore mutant mess., Threads simultaneously argues that we could survive nuclear war and invites the viewer to ask, "Why would anyone want to?"

This film doles out shock after shock, yet despite the sheer unadulterated horror, it is not gratuitous gore and violence in the Hollywood sense. Instead, its the work of a film-maker depicting one of the most horrible subjects known to man, in a way that leaves the audience under no illusion as to the realities.

The most powerful, gripping and shocking film ever made. Everyone should see it at least once."



Post Edited (04-15-04 17:17)

[JohnL]

I haven't seen Threads, but if you 'like' those kind of movies, you should also check out Testament starring Jane Alexander. It doesn't have any special effects or gore, but it shows the aftermath of a nuclear war in a town that was far enough away to escape any direct damage, but close enough to be hit with the fallout. Very depressing.

[maria paula]

i have already seen it, well, i have seen almost of this kind of films, and maybe i watched them in the eightiees, why?? cold war.
i think they are scaring because that was something real, horror films can be scaring but they wont be real, anyway, zombies will never rise from the graves, alines wont attack the earth with bill pullman as president, or with clown form :), vampires wont suck my blood and ghost come to me at night, unless, most probably.
but nuclear weapons are there, maybe countries will never use it, well, who knows, but they have them to keep the people scared, and that was a big probability during the cold war, was something real.
yes, testament its one of those disrturbing films also.

[JohnL]

>but nuclear weapons are there, maybe countries will never use it

They'll probably never be used by countries again, as I think most governments are intelligent enough to realize that nobody would win. What I'm afraid of is terrorists using nuclear weapons. Today there are bombs small enough to fit in a suitcase which can be smuggled into countries fairly easily. Experts have said that it's not a matter of IF terrorists will ever detonate a nuclear bomb in the US, but a matter of WHEN. :(

[Flangepart]

THREADS scared the crap out of me. More so then the overly hyped American film that was big then...and whos title runs away from my mind...you know! The one With Jason Robarbs...yeah, that one.

JohnL : You make me remebre the flick done "Live news" style. The one with the terrorist with the nuke? And THAT title escapes me too!
Sorry, guys....gettin' old...

[raj]

I had a big problem with Threads, when it came out.  Yes, it was decently well done, but the backdrop of the times was Reagan's decision to base theater level nuclear missiles in Europe.  The Euro-left was horrified that Reagan was going to challenge the Soviet Union ("Evil Empire?"  how gauche!)  "Threads" was part of that mindset that Reagan was going to lead the world into a nuclear holocaust.  I just could not separate the politics from the movie.  And of course, the only thing that came to pass was the end of communist regimes in Europe, with even freakin' Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia now part of NATO.

[Eirik]

I've been tearing every video store within 50 miles apart looking for this one but still haven't found it.  While Testament was good - though depressing - I think it pulled lots of punches.  Meanwhile, "The Day After" was a freaking joke.  I remember at the time, Threads was shown on PBS in the US, but my folks didn't watch it (and hence I didn't either).  I recall someone making this comparison:

Threads is to nuclear war what All's Quiet on the Western Front is to conventional war.

The Day After is to nuclear war what Hogan's Heroes was to conventional war.

Ouch.  Raj, you may be right about the context of Threads in the 1980s (though the left back then never seemed to acknowledge that it takes two to tango and the USSR had several times the warheads we did)... but that doesn't mean that it wasn't an excellent movie, especially after it outlived it's temporal context (the way Breaker Morant has outlived what was an intended Vietnam analogy).

BTW - OT: I've been away from the board for a while.  Did I miss anything good?

[raj]

That's probably true Eirik -- I haven't seen Threads since the '80s.

What have you missed?  There's a new Quiznos ad out, Andrew's back, and that's all I can think of off the top of my head.  And time to turn the computer off.

[Flangepart]

Eirik wrote:
 I recall
> someone making this comparison:
>
> Threads is to nuclear war what All's Quiet on the Western Front
> is to conventional war.
>
> The Day After is to nuclear war what Hogan's Heroes was to
> conventional war.
>

Dude....such a perfect description! Wish you could remember who wrote it.
I saw it on PBS too. Sometimes, they do have good stuff....glad it wasen't dureing "Beg for money week"

[JohnL]

>While Testament was good - though depressing - I think it pulled lots of punches.

Like what? You mean by not showing any of the actual destruction caused by the bombs? If so, I agree somewhat, but I liked how they showed what the effects of the war would be on average people. There have been many movies, both realistic and unrealistic, showing the aftermath of nuclear war, with cities destroyed, people covered in radiation burns etc., but few movies have shown the effects on people outside the blast radius of the bombs. How they would think they were lucky, then discover that they're not, watching their community break down, waiting for help that will never come...

[Eirik]

">While Testament was good - though depressing - I think it pulled lots of punches.
Like what?"

First let me say - Testament was an excellent movie for all the reasons you mentioned.

The pulled punches fall into two categories:

1.  Ever seen pictures of people dying of radiation sickness?  It's more than just some clumps of hair falling out and the occasional vomit.  Think fingernails and teeth falling out, open sores, peeling skin and burns/blisters appearing for apparently no reason.  Rapid dehydration leading to cracked and dry lips and tongue.  It's horrid.  (The director may have felt that would have detracted from the human story, so maybe it was a good omission given what he was aiming for).

2.  The collapse of society was depicted as a bully who stole some cans of food and the kid's bike.  In reality, anyone with a gun (including possibly the sheriff) would have spared that family a slow death and taken everything they had.  The message I guess was "small town folks hang together no matter what."  I don't buy that message for a second.

(Look for Kevin Costner and Rebecca DeMornay in cameos by the way)

[jmc]

With TESTAMENT I think some of the pulled punches may have been motivated by budget.

[JohnL]

>1. Ever seen pictures of people dying of radiation sickness?

Actually, no I haven't. The hair and vomitting are the symptoms you hear about the most. Aren't the symptoms more or less severe depending on the amount of exposure?

[Eirik]

Actually, no I haven't. The hair and vomitting are the symptoms you hear about the most. Aren't the symptoms more or less severe depending on the amount of exposure?
*****  Yes, but someone exposed little enough that the symptoms were mild would also live probably a good long life as was seen with people who got mild doses near Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  This isn't to say that those people didn't suffer lifelong maladies, but in a situation where people were dropping like flies, the exposure would have been enough to see some pretty gory side effects.

Anyway - minor points I guess.  I did think it was a pretty sad and moving movie.

[Conrad]

Flange, old chap, the big budget US film was "The Day After" - also featuring Steve Guttenberg.  The most chilling scene for me was the launch of American missiles - out in the countryside, but still close enough for stunned people out on nearby town streets to watch in alarm ...

The other film is, IIRC, "Three Minute Warning".