The Day After (1983) (Movie Review)

    I’m rarely one to get scared or disturbed by movies, and on the occasion that I do, it’s never from horror movies of the genera … but instead its movies focusing on real life parallels, or in other cases, its drama’s asking the plausible question of “What if this really happened?”. In this regard, the 1983 TV movie “The Day After” is an experience that shook me to my core, and for over a decade has lingered in the back of my mind. Paralleling the real world Cold-War paranoia taking shape in the early 80’s, “The Day After” was the daring and controversial movie to ask … what if we really did escalate into a full-scale nuclear exchange? I first saw this movie when I was in my juvenile and care-free high-school years, in which I was convinced that nothing could bother me in a movie. However, two movies I watched at the time quickly snapped me back to reality, and reminded me that I’m still quiet human. The first being the 2000 picture “Requiem for a Dream”, and the other naturally is “The Day After”. I was plenty familiar with nukes prior to watching this film, and even watched a number of movies revolving around them, including "Dr. Strangelove", "War Games", "The Terminator" franchise, and even select episodes of "The Twilight Zone" ... yet, “The Day After” was the movie experience that really channeled an alarming concern ... that it might just happen to us one day. 

   This movie originally aired on the ABC television network, with more than 100 million viewers, in nearly 40 million households, all tuning into the program … and for over three decades, has been held as the highest rated TV program of all time. Still to this day, it’s regarded as one of the greatest TV movie productions, and one that still packs quiet the punch, forcing the viewers to ponder its probable warnings, and still leaves a terrifying effect all these years later. 

It's so effectively executed that I never once feel like I’m watching a TV movie, and by extent, it feels all the more relevant and timeless all these decades later. One of the film’s most effective decisions was it’s simple, relatable, “day in the life” presentation. The first half of the movie mainly focuses on our recognizable everyday world, and there’s no real narrative in play, or even conventional characters. It’s just watching people live out there days. The whole point of this is punctuated when a young lady visits a museum, comments on a chinses painting, and addresses that it wants to make the viewer feel like they’re part of the picture, rather than just looking at a canvas. Of course, the cold-war tension finally reaches its boiling point, and suddenly on one horrible day … 300 Soviet warheads fly overhead, with America’s missiles flying East to Russia, culminating into a full-on nuclear bombing across the globe. The second half follows a hand-full of survivors trapped in a nuclear winter, who are subsequently the more unfortunate victims of the event … as their emanate demise are going to be slow and horrific.  

   While the first half was admittedly very boring on first viewing … it really made things all the more effective when everything goes to Hell, as it gives the apocalyptic aftermath a sense of tangibility. Also, prior to the bombings is a slowly built, yet affectively ominous sense of dread, which looms in the details. One of the most poignant conversations is an exchange between two doctors, as they discuss the turmoil and paranoia around them. 

The first doctor plainly asks … “What’s happening in the world?”, to which the second grimly responds with … “Stupidity … which has a habit of getting its way!” It’s also worth noting that the movie never gives us a clear answer as to what happened or which side struck first, which was a sticking point for the military, who were insistent that the film give a straight forward answer. However, the point the film is clearly trying to make is that, in the end … it doesn’t matter who fired first, as all sides of the living pay the consequences. The cast is all very effective in conveying both the pathos and dread of the event, and it helps that most of the cast isn’t very recognizable. Although, there are two note-worthy exceptions, with John Lithgow playing a quite local, who seemed to be most aware of the inevitable, and possibly even the most excepting of man-kinds fate. Steven Guttenberg, famous for his comedic roles in films like “It Takes Two”, and the “Police Academy” movies, turns in what could well be the best dramatic performance of his carrier, as a level headed survivalist, who's just trying to help those close to him get through the end times.    

   Perhaps the most effective detail of the whole film is during the main bombing sequence. Rather than show an onslaught of people dying, the film takes an almost artistic approach by going another step further … focusing on humanity in general dying. We get these still-shots of people at weddings, birthdays and other daily events, frozen in place, and then suddenly reduced to skeletons. While the effect is kind of cheap-looking, it’s the intent behind the imagery that really hits an emotional cord. 

The low-budget look and presentation of the film also helps to make the event feel grounded and plausible. Naturally, there’s a number of grizzly details on display, like seeing the prolonged exposure of radiation slowly killing people. However, it’s the other implied details that make me feel sick to my stomach. For example, there’s a sequence with a farmer who’s trying to encourage locals to grow new crops … except there’s no longer any clean land to grow healthy plants or vegetables … which means the populous will eventually starve to death. There’s also a boy who loses his sight during the blast, and in the aftermath, a doctor comments that even if he retained his vision, there would still be nothing to see. Another gut-wrenching detail is when a family chooses to leave their pet dog outside to die in the radiation storm, because in a fight for survival, you can only afroed to feed a select number. Aside from one new-born baby, the movie never really gives you any kind of release from the depressing apocalyptic aftermath, and closes on two bitter strangers offering their last shred of humanity to comfort each-other in the blackness ahead. 

    All these years later, I still find this film to be a powerful, potent drama, and one that continues to hold relevance in our day and age. While not a very positive viewing experience, it’s one of those rare movies that I feel everyone needs to watch at least once … not necessarily to live out their days in fear, but to respect, and hopefully learn from the potential danger depicted in the film. Disaster movies in general take potentially terrifying “What if” scenarios, and exploits them as over-blown, special effects driven excitement ... which certainly has its place, but are too often over-utilized. “The Day After” is one of the special exceptions, in which it isn’t driven by spectacle, and aims to be as real, as practical, and as brutally grim as posable. Although, it still concludes with a foot-note stating that the events of the film do not properly represent a real nuclear-war, and that the actual thing would be a million times worse. In other words, the bleak and depressing tone of this film is sunshine and rainbows compared to the real thing. Personally, I think this movie can best be summed-up by the famous line of Mr. Scrooge from “A Christmas Carol” … “Are these the shadows of things that will be … or are they the shadows of things may be” … and in the end, it all depends on how we take this knowledge moving forward.  

Thanks for reading my review of the 1983 movie Drama “The Day After” … and continue to look for substance in the stories and films you view.