I saw the film years ago and due to this episode watched it again yesterday.
It is a typical,boring made for TV movie of its time.The two English productions,the 1965 War Game and I believe also 1983 Threads,were far superior in quality and were much more terrifying.
I agree, when I first watched it in 1983 it chilled me to the bone, as it did nearly everyone. I love the parallels in the show of this movie and the Russian near miss. It was cool to see all the players in the show watching the movie, and having their own reaction to it. It was indeed very relevant at the time.
Me too!! I wasn't allowed to watch it when it premiered because I was too young, but when I finally did (late '80's) it affected me DEEPLY and scared me like nothing else!
At the time, "The Day After" was THE most Realistic portrayal of War/Nuclear Holocaust that had ever aired/been attempted and its impact on viewers cannot be underestimated - the writers/directors were right in giving "The Day After" the notoriety it most certainly earned in the 1980's.
I saw it when it came out, too. It scared the living sh*t out of me. I was in middle school. I haven't even seen it since then and I can still remember it vividly -- that girl going blind from looking at the mushroom cloud. It probably looks all dated now -- that guy from Lou Grant was in it -- but at the time, it was extremely relevant. Gripping. The entire country was glued to it. It was like everyone's civic duty to watch it. We talked about it in class. You know, I don't miss the Cold War. People are scared of terrorists? Pshhhhh. Terrorists are nothing next to Soviets and their constantly impending doom of complete nuclear annihilation. Terrorists are rag tag. The Soviets, they had sh*t together -- they we're organized -- and they were HUGE - even bigger than America.
I can assure you very few people thought it was crap when it originally aired in 1983.
I'm one of those people, and it freakin' scared the hell out of me.
Gotta agree. It was a national phenomenon for a few weeks. Would have been "viral", if that was around back then. But I agree with the OP, Threads was much better.
Kind of ironic though, because quite a few experts say we are closer now to nuclear war than ever before. Because we are modernizing our nuclear stock piles and investing more in tactical nukes. With smaller yields, we could be more prone to use them, possibly leading to an escalation.
"the world's smartest man poses no more threat to me than does its smartest termite." -Dr. Manhattan
reply share
Not even close to great art, but a better cast than the vast majority of made for TV films in the early 80s. I think it is intellectually dishonest not to give some credit for the impact it had.
I saw it when it was first on. I was 15 at the time and had trouble sleeping for weeks afterward. Regarding propaganda, one thing i noticed from the movie and that the newscasters made a point of commenting on after the film aired was that the movie never mentions who started the war.
What I think was funny is, if the CIA had been honest to the Carter Administration that the Russians got killed during the 74-75 global economic crisis, this junk in the 80s never happened.
They didn't want the cold war to end. Even by late 83, the Soviet Union was dead. Russians weren't getting what they wanted out of it anymore and the satellites were starting labor protests the Russians couldn't put down anymore. Yet, they kept on deceiving everybody they were a big threat.
Yes,but I didn't compare it to something modern.I compared it to a British docudrama,made 18 years before it and a contemporary British film.In my eyes,compared to those two,The Day After is very poor.
Remember how we thought Star Wars was a great movie? It's dated and the special effects are comical now.
I am not sure about that. It might look a bit slow, but the idea of the spaceships behaving like planes in dogfights of the second world war still works rather well. There are obvious blue screen moments, but since unlike today's blockbusters it had a story to tell, it did not matter too much. And the story is kind of an evergreen: the bunch of underdogs in the shape of the rebels fight against a soulless and faceless coperation, the main villain is not even in the movie.
The Day After was a low budget production compared to a real movie. It generated interest by tackeling an issue of its time, drawing its emotional impact from that. And with this issue, that impact disappeared and it has become more of a document how the world was seen rather than being a compelling experience itself. I doubt a modern movie even with a significant higher budget could make anything out of the topic, unless the angle gets significantly changed and the focus would shift to a connected but still relevant topic.
reply share
As another who remembered seeing it when it originally aired, it scared me, too. Another one that always stuck in my mind that came out the same year was "Testament."
Honestly I don't remember watching it, but I just watched the attack scene and I can see the skeletonizing effect (however unrealistic it may look) scaring the crap out of people.
I had to seek this movie out as soon as I finished this episode. I was an infant when the movie first aired, and don't have a general recollection of my parents or older sister ever talking about or watching it again as I was growing up. I'm really surprised as my Mom's from the town according to Wikipedia that was considered as an alternative to Lawrence.
I can see how and why the movie was intense and a phenomenon of its own when it originally aired. But, overall it did come off like a run of the mill 80's TV movie. And it really did feel dated watching it now. I think the build up to the attack was too long and the aftermath of the attack lost its real narrative the longer it went on. While campy, I can admit the attack part of the movie was the only part that really kept my interest.