leeper@ahutb.UUCP (leeper) (03/05/85)
This is a response to a piece of mail. I am posting it to the net partially because my software is complaining about the return address, but also because the content may be of general interest. >Just got your review of 9 Feb. Re: > > "TESTAMENT wasa very well-made film, beautifully > directed with great insights into the > characters. But while those characters > were believable, the situation was not. The > producers failed to do their homework." > >How was the situation not believable? My knowledge of what a post-nuclear war environment is based predominantly on the following: -- BBC documentary "The War Game" dir. by Peter Watkins -- Discussions with friends -- Reading parts of THE FATE OF THE EARTH (I don't remember the author, but it's because of the current interest in nuclear holocausts it is in most book stores.) The fact is that TESTAMENT examined only the radiation effect of the war and for a community within commute distance of San Francisco they way under-rated even that. At the time TESTAMENT was made the concept of nuclear winter had already been established, yet the film did not show the dropping of temperatures. On the contrary, some survivors were headed up to Canada where the cold alone would have been deadly. The breakdown of the social order was shown with one kid stealing a bicycle. With the the big (and many not-so-big) cities gone, there would be no distribution of food. Nothing grown would be safe. The breakdown of social order would start with food hoarding. (Non- and slightly-contaminated food, after all, and guns, would be the most valuable commodities for survival.) Half-starving gangs would be scouring the countryside to find anything to eat. They would roll over the town in TESTAMENT, like it were nothing at all. (I suppose you could accuse me of rattling off Survivalist dogma here. I dislike the Survivalist movement myself, but their view of the post-holocaust world is probably closer to the truth than most people realize.) Then there would be disease. Within a large radius around targets there would be millions dying with nobody to bury them. Disease would run rampant with no real facilities to stop it. The town in TESTAMENT is hardly isolated enough that the disease would not come there. The people on the fringes of the destruction and even the air currents would carry it. Then there are the injured and maimed. The dubious assumption of the film was that this town was far enough from any of the blasts to avoid direct physical injuries. It wouldn't have avoided the walking wounded, it just wasn't that isolated. In any case there is a long list of reasons why things just would not have been as shown in TESTAMENT. A post-nuclear-war is very probably worse than we can imagine, and the town in TESTAMENT was not. Responses to net.movies please. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper
kenw@lcuxc.UUCP (K Wolman) (03/06/85)
At some "realistic" level, "Testament" may indeed have underestimated the prolonged horrors of a nuclear war aftermath in ways "Threads" did not. But the death of the mother's (Jane Alexander's) little boy (remember the scene at the sink?) and her almost maniacal search for his teddy-bear told me more than I ever wanted to know about a particular part of that horror. The deaths that follow seem to have a lessening impact until, by the end of the film, the viewer is damned near numb. This could be a flaw, or a far-too-successful realization of what used to be considred a "fallacy," i.e., Imitative Form. -- Ken Wolman Bell Communications Research @ Livingston, NJ lcuxc!kenw You can't "read" me because I'm not a book.
leeper@ahutb.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (03/08/85)
REFERENCES: <524@ahutb.UUCP>, <320@lcuxc.UUCP> >At some "realistic" level, "Testament" may indeed have >underestimated the prolonged horrors of a nuclear war >aftermath in ways "Threads" did not. But the death of the >mother's (Jane Alexander's) little boy (remember the scene >at the sink?) Do I! >and her almost maniacal search for his >teddy-bear told me more than I ever wanted to know about a >particular part of that horror. Somehow there is more sadness in the death of one person than in the death of millions. When you hear that 30,000 people are killed in a firestorm you do not feel 30,000 times as sad as when you hear one person is killed, particularly if that person is someone you have gotten to know. It may be less painful for the world to go with a bang than a whimper. The scenes you mention are the most memorable of the film, though others stand high. I guess that is why I have such mixed feelings about TESTAMENT. It was a great film but technically very (perhaps dangerously) inaccurate. It left me sadder than THREADS did. There are forms of warfare for which what is happening in the film is more in character with the facts. TESTAMENT is somewhat closer to a possible scenario for bacterialogical warfare then nuclear warfare. Yes, there are still problems there, but less of the film might have to be changed to make it accurate to that situation. > >The deaths that follow seem to have a lessening impact >until, by the end of the film, the viewer is damned near >numb. THREADS and THE WAR GAME stun and numb the viewer much faster to individual deaths, but overall they are more frightening. Less depressing but more frightening. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper
mathnews2@watdcsu.UUCP (mathNOOS [editors]) (03/08/85)
In article <524@ahutb.UUCP> leeper@ahutb.UUCP (leeper) writes: > >Just got your review of 9 Feb. Re: > > > > "TESTAMENT wasa very well-made film, beautifully > > directed with great insights into the > > characters. But while those characters > > were believable, the situation was not. The > > producers failed to do their homework." > > > >How was the situation not believable? > >The fact is that TESTAMENT examined only the radiation effect of the >war and for a community within commute distance of San Francisco they >way under-rated even that. At the time TESTAMENT was made the concept >of nuclear winter had already been established, yet the film did not >show the dropping of temperatures. On the contrary, some survivors were >headed up to Canada where the cold alone would have been deadly. Canada isn't that cold, and would be only three or four degrees colder than San Francisco (Celsius). Canada also would, in the more remote areas, be less ravaged by radiation, and could serve, through use of hothouses (yes, you can have hothouses in freezing temperatures; my father has done that for years), as a storehouse for the remnants of civilisation. >The breakdown of the social order was shown with one kid stealing a >bicycle. With the the big (and many not-so-big) cities gone, there >would be no distribution of food. Nothing grown would be safe. If you'll note, the survivors accepted the fact that the end was inevitable, and just chose to live out their days as best as they could. While I cannot recall anyone eating fresh food (remember the storeroom with all the cans and jars), it wouldn't really matter to them whether the food was contaminated or not, they were going to die, anyhow. >Then there would be disease. Within a large radius around targets >there would be millions dying with nobody to bury them. Disease would >run rampant with no real facilities to stop it. The town in TESTAMENT >is hardly isolated enough that the disease would not come there. The >people on the fringes of the destruction and even the air currents >would carry it. > >Then there are the injured and maimed. The dubious assumption of the >film was that this town was far enough from any of the blasts to avoid >direct physical injuries. It wouldn't have avoided the walking >wounded, it just wasn't that isolated. The producers assumed, as there were no prospective medical facilities available, that the walking wounded would not be coming that way apparently. >In any case there is a long list of reasons why things just would not >have been as shown in TESTAMENT. A post-nuclear-war is very probably >worse than we can imagine, and the town in TESTAMENT was not. I'll grant you that. TESTAMENT sought to show the fatalism that would arise after the big war. I found it far more believable than THE DAY AFTER, as that show had everyone assuming that, even though they were in a major target area, they had little trouble hoping to survive, and in fact believed after each death that that was the last one. --Scooter! @ mathnews2 @ watdcsu (mathNOOS[editors]) UW Dept. Computing Services UNIX(*) mathNEWS--the math student newspaper at the University of Waterloo {allegra|clyde|linus|inhp4|decvax}!watmath!water!watdcsu!mathnews2 UUCP mathnews2%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet CSNET mathnews2@watdcsu NETNORTH (*)UNIX is a trademark of AT+T Bell Labs. -- mathNEWS--the math student newspaper at the University of Waterloo {allegra|clyde|linus|inhp4|decvax}!watmath!water!watdcsu!mathnews2 UUCP mathnews2%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet CSNET mathnews2@watdcsu NETNORTH
jimc@haddock.UUCP (03/09/85)
Just a tid-bit: *The Fate of the Earth* was written by Jonathan Schell,
a magazine columnist who I believe has done work for New York Magazine.
I agree with your assessment of *Testament*; I thought the acting
was marvelous (particularly Jane Alexander's performance), but it
just didn't show enough destruction to accurately reflect the
nightmare of nuclear war. Also, some of the dialogue was sappy
and unbelievable ("Your children are not dead; they have simply
gone away until the world deserves them"). Still, I suppose that
if nuclear war were accurately portrayed, there would be no story
or drama, just death and dying in its many ghastly forms.
Jim Campbellleeper@ahutb.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (03/11/85)
REFERENCES: <524@ahutb.UUCP>, <1090@watdcsu.UUCP> Discussing flaws in TESTAMENT: >>On the contrary, some survivors were >>headed up to Canada where the cold alone would have been deadly. > > Canada isn't that cold, and would be only three or four degrees >colder than San Francisco (Celsius). Canada also would, in the more >remote areas, be less ravaged by radiation, and could serve, through >use of hothouses (yes, you can have hothouses in freezing >temperatures; my father has done that for years), as a storehouse for >the remnants of civilisation. I would refer you to THE COLD AND THE DARK by Ehrlich, Sagan et. al. The charts on page 98 show in one plausible model temperatures dropping 25 degrees or so in the San Francisco area and 30 to 40 degrees in Canada within 40 days after a nuclear strike. The point is that Canada is the wrong direction to go to avoid the effects of nuclear winter. The point is that Canada is the wrong direction to go. > >>The breakdown of the social order was shown with one kid stealing a >>bicycle. With the the big (and many not-so-big) cities gone, there >>would be no distribution of food. Nothing grown would be safe. > > If you'll note, the survivors accepted the fact that the end was >inevitable, and just chose to live out their days as best as they >could. While I cannot recall anyone eating fresh food (remember the >storeroom with all the cans and jars), it wouldn't really matter to >them whether the food was contaminated or not, they were going to die, >anyhow. That may have been their attitude, but food shortages would be widespread. There would be several thousand scavangers scouring the countryside for food. This town would be discovered very quickly. > >>Then there would be disease. Within a large radius around targets >>there would be millions dying with nobody to bury them. Disease would >>run rampant with no real facilities to stop it. The town in TESTAMENT >>is hardly isolated enough that the disease would not come there. The >>people on the fringes of the destruction and even the air currents >>would carry it. >> >>Then there are the injured and maimed. The dubious assumption of the >>film was that this town was far enough from any of the blasts to avoid >>direct physical injuries. It wouldn't have avoided the walking >>wounded, it just wasn't that isolated. > > The producers assumed, as there were no prospective medical >facilities available, that the walking wounded would not be coming >that way apparently. The hoards would come for food and just what was in the medicine cabinet and grocery stores. They wouldn't just seek out hospitals and Johnson and Johnson factories. > >>In any case there is a long list of reasons why things just would not >>have been as shown in TESTAMENT. A post-nuclear-war is very probably >>worse than we can imagine, and the town in TESTAMENT was not. > > I'll grant you that. TESTAMENT sought to show the fatalism that >would arise after the big war. I found it far more believable than >THE DAY AFTER, Both were incredibly optimistic and unrealistic. I strongly recommend you see THREADS or if possible THE WAR GAME. Or read "The Fate of the Earth" by J. Schell. I am told WAR DAY by W. Strieber is a science fiction novel that has a reasonable treatment of the after effects of nuclear war. Films like ON THE BEACH or TESTAMENT serve to misinform the public. I am not trying to exaggerate out of ban-the-bombism (in fact, I see some danger in lowering the number of nuclear weapons to the level where one of the super-powers could think it might win a nuclear war) but I really think that most of the public is out of touch with how really terrible a nuclear war is. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper
srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/11/85)
Frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not TESTAMENT was an accurate scientific description of the after-effects of a nuclear war. That wasn't the point of the movie at all. TESTAMENT tried to show why nuclear war is bad idea, by showing the effect of the war on one person and her family. A depiction of nuclear winter might move you to stand against nuclear war, but for me, the scenes where the little boy died and where the recording is discovered on the answering machine are much more likely to change my emotions and political stance. A film is hard-pressed to make a statement on broad, general issues without showing how those issues become personal. -- Scott Turner
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/14/85)
I have a strange sense that this discussion is rapidly going to turn to
different opinions on the precise effects of nuclear war, just as the
discussions on "2010" slid into various topics in physics. Before making
any more postings about "Testament", "Threads", or "The War Game" to
net.movies, consider if your posting is actually about the films themselves.
If not, try to move your discussion to another newsgroup.
Thank you,
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reihermupmalis@watarts.UUCP (mike upmalis) (03/16/85)
> REFERENCES: <524@ahutb.UUCP>, <1090@watdcsu.UUCP> > > Discussing flaws in TESTAMENT: > > >>On the contrary, some survivors were > >>headed up to Canada where the cold alone would have been deadly. > > > > Canada isn't that cold, and would be only three or four degrees > >colder than San Francisco (Celsius). Canada also would, in the more > >remote areas, be less ravaged by radiation, and could serve, through > >use of hothouses (yes, you can have hothouses in freezing > >temperatures; my father has done that for years), as a storehouse for > >the remnants of civilisation. > > I would refer you to THE COLD AND THE DARK by Ehrlich, Sagan et. al. > The charts on page 98 show in one plausible model temperatures dropping > 25 degrees or so in the San Francisco area and 30 to 40 degrees in > Canada within 40 days after a nuclear strike. The point is that Canada > is the wrong direction to go to avoid the effects of nuclear winter. > The point is that Canada is the wrong direction to go. > Two points, if there is a world wide cloud cover, then the plat level of the food chain would be gone, you may as well be in tahiti till you starve to death. However, living in -30c +- 20c temperature is being done now in the artic, Norway, Sweden and Siberia. As long as there is a food source, then there is hope. Living in a mine would free one from reliance on heating required, and if there was some power source available, hydroponics would do the trick. I do like my chances in Canada I must admit...... -- ~~ Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo>