MovieChat Forums > Testament (1984) Discussion > Why didn't they leave?

Why didn't they leave?

posted 17 years ago by overfloden
29 replies | jump to latest

I know that they were waiting for the father and that it was their home.
But I'm sure people in US, 1983, were well informed about the effects of radiation and that it would make sense to leave as soon as possible. And when people are dying around them that would be obvious. They even had radio contact with several places. I'm sure they could have a much better spot for surviving. In my opinion the mother kills her children by staying there.

[–] drjeff21 9 years ago

How would they get anywhere? Technically, with the EMP nothing electronic or mechanical should have worked after the blast (automobiles included.)

[–] karnevilelp 9 years ago

But if you had a well-stocked and defended place in Oregon or one of the countries near the equator you'd have a great chance to get by

What?!?! In a nuclear attack that in terms of this movie wipes out most of the US (we can assume that the US counter-striked so Europe/Russia/Asia would be toast too), no "well-stocked" place in Oregon is gong to matter because guess what? Those supplies will run out eventually, they certainly wouldn't be able to hunt for meat. Radiation at the level in this movie would easily last 100,000 years, so some survivalist in Oregon is going to be able to survive that long? C'mon.

What does the equator have to do with it? I don't think the nuclear fallout is going to go "You know, those islands in the Pacific are really beautiful, I'll give them a pass".

[–] lm362 8 years ago

Did she ever say or imply she definitely knew a safer place to go? No. If she did, then you could rightly say she killed her children by staying there. But she did not know any other place to go and it would have been foolish to go anywhere else without sound evidence that another place was safer. She did right.

"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts