The Day After
August 7th, 2007 | by Scott |As a kid one of the things that would scare the snot out of my was the possibility of nuclear war. The only hope, it seemed, of avoiding all out annihilation at the hand of our communist enemies could be summed up in two things:
1. Sting’s prayer that the Russians love their children too.
2. The inane doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.
No, it was obvious to my adolescent mind that we were gonna get blowed up. Hopefully, we would have the opportunity to escape their clutches and reassemble in the mountains to make our all out assault on the Russian forces with the lone cry “Wolverines.”
In the midst of that scare came a movie that was so intense and so real that as a slightly skittish 15 year old I refused to watch. The Day After premiered on a Sunday night in November 1983. I was in 10th grade and the movie promised to be a realistic look at the aftermath of a nuclear attack on the United States.
Because it premiered on Sunday night I did not get home in time to watch it in its entirety. Nor did I want to. I remember the anxiety level in the media leading up to its premiere. There was a tremendous amount of controversy about showing something so provocative, something so close to our greatest fears. There would be hot-lines to call after the movie for those freaked out to call. The movie would run uninterrupted after the bombs hit to heighten the anxiety and fear. Vigils were held throughout the country. A debate, moderated by Ted Koppel between Carl Sagan and William F. Buckley aired afterwards. During that debate Sagan said that the arms race was “two sworn enemies standing waist-deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.”
100 million Americans watched that movie. I was not one of them.
I finally saw the movie this past Saturday night, almost 24 years later. The reality of that sort of event is now the subject of one of my favorite TV shows. So much of the plot and ideas conveyed seemed archaic. The acting was not professional in many cases, nor was it intended to be.
However, despite the passage of time the impact of the film is still compelling. We no longer fear an attack from those behind the Iron Curtain. But still so much of us are gripped by fear. We are more likely to meet our deaths in this nation through natural causes or accidents than we are through a bomb or a bullet. But it is that fear of the “other” that captures our attention, stirs our imagination and quickens the pulse.
24 years later I was seized by the hatred and baseness of man that could elevate the threat of annihilation as a distinct possibility. Man’s inhumanity to man is still one of our greatest sins.
At the conclusion of the film, the producers ran this closing statement:
The catastrophic events you have just witnessed are, in all likelihood, less severe than the destruction that would actually occur in the event of a full nuclear strike against the United States.
It is hoped that the images of this film will inspire the nations of this earth, their peoples and leaders, to find the means to avert the fateful day.
We still must hope that our leaders will find the means to avert war and destruction.
Do you remember seeing The Day After? What were your thoughts when it was shown? To refresh your memory here is the video of the attack:
9 Responses to “The Day After”
By Jeff Slater on Aug 7, 2007 | Reply
I was a freshman at Harding, and we watched it in another guy’s dorm room (he had a COLOR TV). We all thought it was interesting, and perhaps a bit unsettling.
But we all believed that President Reagan would never let that happen. He stood toe-to-toe with the Evil Empire and made them blink. At least that’s how my friends and I saw it…
By Scott on Aug 7, 2007 | Reply
Reagan did cut quite an imposing figure. He was resolute that “Peace Through Strength” was assure us of safety.
By Belinda on Aug 7, 2007 | Reply
Think about it . . . a republican in the White House then (1983) and a republican in the White House now. Scare tactics at their best — just a different variety. My husband is from Russia - lived there until 1999. I had a class in high school on communism. What was in that book and what he says - someone that was actually there - are very different. Most things are not as “exact” as they are portrayed.
By Marie on Aug 7, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I totally remember watching it in the late eighties, not when it first came out. My mother made me watch it with her and my dad. Like you, I always feared nuclear war as a child, and I suppose deep down I still do to a lesser extent (thanks to the theory of MAD). That movie has always affected me, and I still bring it up in discussions today. My husband was stationed at Ft Leavenworth, and if I remember correctly, there is a scene where Steve Gutenberg (I think?) is driving toward Ft Leavenworth and everyone else is trying to get out of it. I still can’t get that image out of my head.
It amazing how vivid these images can be.
By Scott on Aug 7, 2007 | Reply
Belinda, I remember visiting Chelyabinsk in 1996 and visiting with several people of my age who talked about how they were taught to fear us. You are right, history is much more nuanced than we often realize.
Marie, it is such a vividly arresting movie that I’m shocked I haven’t heard more people describe their remembrances of it. I did have one friend tell me today that his parents would not allow him to watch it. He was 12 at the time.
Is the scene you are thinking about the one where Jason Robards is driving? I know Gutenberg was hitch-hiking.
By Steve Allison on Aug 8, 2007 | Reply
I recall watching a few minutes of it. I was in my thirties but didn’t have the stomach for it or interest. Probably the analogous thing for me was watching Dr. Strangelove when I was about 12. We saw it in a theater where the big screen renders such presentations more vivid and arresting. I have always been haunted by the final image of that guy riding the bomb all the way down and causing the end of the world. Since I endured the communist scare of the late fifties and early sixties, the one in the early eighties didn’t faze me much. Along about 1965 or 1966, Cliff Ganus gave a talk about impending conflict with the Russians at our church up in Pocahontas. After church, my dad asked how long we would have and Cliff said 5 years.
By Belinda on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
The Russians don’t want a war! Especially a nuclear one. They managed to survive WWII - I think that’s more than enough for them. I don’t think many people that have ACTIVELY participated in a war ever want to be involved in another one.
By Scott on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Belinda, I don’t think anyone has indicated that Russia wants a war.
By Belinda on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
I didn’t mean to imply that the Russians did want a war … sorry it came across that way. I was trying to emphasize that not many countries actually want a war . . . it should always be the very last resort. After all I was taught in my early years and the things I know now, I guess I’m overly sensitive. I apologize.