"The Day After" DVD Cover
Most of us don't worry about nuclear war the way we did when there was a cold war to go along with it
. Today, thanks to terrorists and chemical weapons, war is smaller, but deadlier. But it was on this day in 1983 that ABC premiered the TV movie, "The Day After." Billed as a "starkly realistic drama of nuclear confrontation and its devastating effect on a group of average American citizens," it was viewed by 100-million people, half the adult population of the United States and the largest audience for a made-for-TV movie up to that time.
There was controversy --major advertisers fled in such droves the network decided that no commercials would be shown after the bombs dropped on screen.
There was buzz. Filmed in Lawrence, KS, of the 80 cast members with speaking roles, only 15 were from Hollywood. The rest were town folk --farmers, university professors, local businessmen. Hundreds of other residents participated as extras.
Right before the movie aired it was screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who reportedly thought they were going to snicker or pick it apart. Instead they sat there like they were turned to stone.
The majority of Americans responded in similar fashion as ABC set up 1-800 lines and distributed half a million "viewer's guides" as a way to help the Cold War-paranoid audience psychologically deal with the subject matter.
But here's the most interesting tidbit, and perhaps a sign of how much we've changed as a culture: Immediately after the broadcast, Ted Koppel hosted a live panel discussion to help viewers cope with what they'd witnessed. Dr Carl Sagan, Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, William F Buckley and George Schultz were among those who participated. It was during this gathering where Sagan first introduced the phrase "nuclear winter" into the lexicon (an event actually depicted in the film). And he presented the vivid analogy that the arms race between the U-S and Soviet Union was akin to "two men standing waist deep in gasoline --one with three matches, the other with five."
Can you imagine how cable news would handle such a discussion today? It would be juvenile, partisan, petulant and completely unproductive. This film generated differences of opinion, to be sure. In the panel discussion, Buckley argued for deterrence; Sagan called that futile and argued for disarmament. Today we wouldn't define it that way; cable news, with its simple-minded hosts, would turn it into a cage match, as if that were the best way to deal with an issue like nuclear proliferation.
There are indeed some things to be said for the good old days.
Incidentally, after the movie aired, President Reagan actually changed his mind about the idea of a winnable nuclear war. His administration came in thinking about "acceptable numbers" of nuclear casualties (as revealed in his memoirs), but when he signed the Intermediate Range Weapons Agreement at Reykjavik (in 1986) with Mikhail Gorbachev, he actually sent a telegram to the film's director Nicholas Meyer. It read, in part, "Don't think your movie didn't have any part of this, because it did."
What a flip-flopper.
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After" (Part I)
Watch the remaining parts:
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After," part II
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After," part III
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After," part IV
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After," part V
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After," part VI
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After," part III
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After," part IV
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After," part V
ABC News Viewpoint - "The Day After," part VI
Comments
Thank you for posting this, lest people forget the gift that Carl Sagan gave us: another chance.
Fish: I never thought of it that way. Well put. It's really interesting to watch the ABC discussion segements. Actually, it's refreshing. People in disagreement without calling each other names, with no rude behavior, just a well-guided discussion with good points made all around. The threat of mutual destruction may or may not be gone, but watching the way we discuss important issues today, it certainly seems like civility is gone. I suspect the people on this panel would be appalled by the way cable news hosts and their guests behave today.
Good article, and very well made points. How I wish the national media could again raise themselves to that level of professionalism and maturity. How I wish our country in general could.
Boy, no kidding Dan. I remember watching this in college --a room filled with about 100 of us in some TV room, quiet as church mice. We were just dumbstruck speechless at the end. The ABC segments afterward were almost a real relief, and almost everyone stayed to watch them. Thanks for posting them here. I hadn't seen them since that night. It's refreshing to watch them again, but it's also a little sad. We don't do that kind of stuff much anymore. Mostly it's just juvenile delinquints yelling at each other.
Good article, and very well made points. How I wish the national media could again raise themselves to that level of professionalism and maturity. How I wish our country in general could.
Wow. That a dramatic presentation of this sort could actually help change one man's mind and policies at the national and global level is a powerful argument for how story shapes the world around us. A timely reminder, in this era of a proliferation of conflicting stories and national debate that reflects that disunity.
Teramis -- I think it was more than the movie, but the ABC news special afterward, which included people like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and George Schultz. These people were no strangers to Pres Reagan (Schultz was his Secretary of State) and you can be certain people in the White House were paying attention to both the film and the panel discussion. Combined, it may all have had an impact on Reagan's thinking. As a person with ties to Hollywood, the letter he sent to the film's director makes sense, and I've heard personal stories about Reagan that would confirm this kind of thoughtfulness. I imagine any sane person would arrive at Carl Sagan's conclusion, but Mr. Buckley's argument can draw on 30 years of proof that mutually assure destruction can assure deterrence.
For fun, google Able Archer 83.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!