“Threads” Will Melt Your Head

I recently watched one of the most frightening, thought-provoking films I’ve ever seen.

It is called “Threads,” and it’s a 1984 BBC teleplay depicting the after-effects of a massive worldwide nuclear conflict.

The Cold War setting of this film may be a bit dated, and the British lingo may be a bit confusing for the American audience…but neither of these factors detracts from the horror and mind-blowing realism that this film will blast upside your dome.

Pretty much what this film comes down to is that if countries start nuking each other, we are all completely screwed. It doesn’t flinch at showing the effects of megaton blasts, radiation poisoning, and the dark side of human nature as society breaks down. It does not have an ending laden with hope for a brighter future.

The comments on Youtube, where this film has been posted for easy viewing, are filled with British folks talking about how they saw this film as children and were scarred for life.

I warn you, don’t watch this movie if you are a little bitch…you may never recover from the fright.

“Threads” initially focuses on two young lovers, Jimmy and Ruth, who have no idea that their world is about to be ripped apart by geopolitical brinksmanship.

An interesting element of the film is its depiction of civil society’s attempt to manage a post-nuclear crisis event, and the ultimate futility of that enterprise.

As West and East move slowly towards all-out war, some people are closely following the situation, while others just ignore it. Voices of protest are drowned out by patriotic chest-beating. Many people don’t really want to think about what a nuclear war will entail.

The Americans and the Russians begin open combat, and people begin to freak out. Trade unionists are jailed along with other “subversives.” The country braces for nuclear war.

As disaster looms, you may find yourself rooting for the attack to happen: “Let’s DO THIS already!” That’s how I felt, anyway. Trust me, you will regret this emotion soon enough.

(The moment in the previous segment where a woman pees her pants in terror is actually how I came to discover “Threads.” It was recently the subject of a post on The Awl that mentions “the saddest IMDB page in existence.”)

Just in case you thought the worst was over once the nearby RAF base was nuked, the Commies decide to hit Sheffield directly, as 3000 megatons explode worldwide. Bad times.

A Youtube commenter notes that at this point, “Threads” is setting a new standard for disturbing cinema: “This is scary, makes Alien 3 and The Terminator look like Spongebob Squarepants.”

A week after the attack, things have only gotten more effed up. The scene in the hospital in the following clip might be the most brutal part of this entire film.

At this point, all hell has broken loose. Looters raid homes and kill anyone they find. Police summarily execute prisoners. The only valuable goods left are food supplies and the ability to labor. If you can work, you might survive.

This is where it gets incredibly shitty and unfair. Even if your region of the Northern Hemisphere didn’t get nuke or get nuked, you’re still completely screwed because nuclear winter sets in. You’ve heard of “natural childbirth,” but this is as real as shit gets.

The characters we met before the war are almost completely wiped out within a decade after the attack. Language and culture erode to the vanishing point as memories of a time before armageddon are erased.

(I’m pretty sure this segment contains an subtle hint at the mysterious fate of one of the main characters. Listen for a music cue towards the end.)

Ready for a horrifying ending? Here you go.

There’s not a lot to say after watching that, but if you’re like me and enjoy incredibly dark, apocalyptic visions, here’s a high-quality review from DVD Outsider that gives props to the people who created this film. I have excerpted the review here as best I could, there’s so much great info that I didn’t want to cut too much out. Read and be schooled:

Threads takes a very sobering and sometimes harrowing look at the effects of a nuclear war on the people of Sheffield. Though open from the start about its status as drama, it nonetheless utilises many of the codes and conventions of the documentary genre to ground the action in a very persuasive reality. Memorable incidents from Watkins’film are recreated here – the enforced post-war billeting of homeless survivors with uncooperative house owners, the shooting of looters, the shell-shocked faces of the injured and traumatised, even the extracts from the government’s Protect and Survive information film – but this is hardly surprising given that they were working from largely the same source material and with the same purpose in mind…

The intricate and informed script was by Barry Hines, who writes almost exclusively from a working-class perspective, and this is carried over into the structure and characters of Threads. Those who start the war, who launch the missiles, who attempt to organise what remains in the aftermath are never shown, as Hines concentrates exclusively on the effect events have on ordinary people. The only officials shown are those of the local emergency committee, themselves common folk who quickly discover that they are out of their depth.

This is very effectively illustrated in the build-up, with information of the impending conflict caught in brief glimpses of newspaper headlines and radio and TV broadcasts as a kitchen-sink family drama plays out in the foreground, inevitably recalling Hines’work with Ken Loach, emphasised by the use of actor Phil Askham, so memorable in The Gamekeeper and Looks and Smiles, in a support role. Like The War Game, Threads also delivers a string of sobering facts and figures through on-screen graphics and voice-over, its ace-in-the-hole here being narrator Paul Vaughan, whose voice was at the time of broadcast familiar to the viewing public through his extensive work on the BBC’s prestigious scientific documentary series Horizon.

Where Threads and The War Game walk hand-in-hand is in their sheer power as persuasive film-making. If Hines provides the structural foundations, then they are built on to extraordinary effect by director Mick Jackson, a man who has since been swallowed up by Hollywood, but who was once one of British TV’s most crucial talents, directing the breezily seductive A Very British Coup in 1988, and what we here at Outsider regard as the very greatest TV movie of all time, Life Story, in 1987. Never wasting a shot, Jackson’s potent but economical use of imagery and sometimes razor-sharp editing (courtesy of Jim Latham and Donna Bickerstaff) communicating the very real horror of the events as much through suggestion as direct exposure.

Individual images linger long after the film has ended – the nuclear explosion seen from the streets of Sheffield, the woman who wets herself in the street in terror, the screaming panic that is cut off halfway by a second blast, the body of a loved one left upstairs to rot, the shell-shocked girl staring directly at the camera cuddling a teddy bear in place of the baby she has presumably lost, the stark gloom of the nuclear winter that follows.

The final third is as dark as any television I can remember, as the population is reduced to medieval numbers and the absolute basics of existence, even language itself mutating into a localised but limited collection of short, monosyllabic survival phrases. A brief flicker of hope towards the end soon fades, grimly upturned in a chillingly suggestive finale that cuts to black just before a scream of horror not just for personal loss, but for the very future of mankind, if indeed it has one. You are left stunned, as you should be, and if the years have distanced us a little from a time when the events described here seemed frighteningly possible, the film contains, tucked away in those half-caught broadcasts in the first half, an all-too pertinent warning. Here the flashpoint for nuclear annihilation is not the Cold War favourite of Berlin, but Iran, the very country that American and British politicians are at this moment issuing guarded warnings to regarding their nuclear programme. The Berlin wall may have fallen, but in too many other respects the world is still too ready for war.

This is why people who play politics in opposition to global nuclear disarmament piss me off…

We should thank our lucky stars that our world isn’t as close to nuclear apocalypse as it used to be, but we are still FAR too close to making “Threads” a reality.

Vladimir Putin Masterminded the Climatology Scandal!

Hippies everywhere are in agony: the skeptics of anthropogenic global warming have loaded their rhetorical quivers with stolen emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

Many are calling the email evidence “Climate-gate,” but I think people who affix “-gate” to every scandal are part of a scandalous confederacy of dunces that I like to call Watergate-was-not-a-scandal-involving-water-you-idiots!-gate.

The now-notorious emails don’t prove that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is a hoax, as some have asserted; but they are extremely bad publicity for the climate-change lobby on the eve of an epic summit in Copenhagen.

With the global economy in shambles, the appetite for a tax on carbon (don’t give me this “cap and trade is a free market” nonsense) has waned in the United States; meanwhile, rising powers like China and India are loath to arrest their growing fossil fuel consumption.

But one country stands to benefit not only from maintaining the global energy status quo, but potentially from global warming itself: Russia, a major purveyor of fossil fuels that would be able to unlock vast fuel deposits in the Arctic Circle if ice melting trends continue apace.

Read more of this post

LEGO my Sudoku

GIZMODO put out a post yesterday about this amazing creation.

It’s a robot made out of Legos that can read and solve Sudoku puzzles.

sudoku1

sudoku2

The really cool things about this robot are (a) it’s made out of Legos (b) it writes numbers with an awesome script (c) it solves the puzzle in approximately 2 seconds…most of the work is just scanning the paper (d) when it’s done, it says, “Game ovah” in a cheeky British accent.

It’s the work of Swedish hacker Hans Andersson.

Monetize Your 15 Minutes of Fame

The Youtube Partnership Program is an effort by Google to put money in the pockets of people who create viral videos.

It was originally set up for people who operate popular channels on the site, but every so often Google has reached out to people like the dad who recorded “David After Dentist” to share the wealth.

Now, they’re making it an official policy. From now on, the creators of  extremely popular YouTube videos will be invited to set up AdSense accounts and profit off of the advertising from the millions of views they’re racking up.

monetization

According to the Google Blog, “These individual video partnerships recognize the role popular “one-off” videos play on YouTube, and have helped many people earn thousands of dollars a month as their videos went viral and endured over time.”

We decided it was time to spread the wealth. Today we’re excited to announce that we’re extending the YouTube Partnership Program to include individual popular videos on our site. Now, when you upload a video to YouTube that accumulates lots of views, we may invite you to monetize that video and start earning revenue from it. To determine whether a particular video is eligible for monetization, we look at factors like the number of views, the video’s virality and compliance with the YouTube Terms of Service. If your video is eligible for monetization, you will receive an email and see an “Enable Revenue Sharing” message next to your video on the watch page, as well as in other places in your account.

This is a cool move by Google.

No idea how much money you could actually make off a viral video, but hopefully it was enough to buy David an ice cream or something for his brilliant performance.

Walmart of the Wilderness

Wilderness

“Over near Chancellorsville, where the whipporwills began calling plaintively soon after sunset, now as then, the mood was much the same. The fighting had been heaviest around here last year, and there still were many signs of it, including skeletons in rotted blue, washed partly out of their shallow graves by the rains of the past winter. No one but the devil himself would choose such ground for a field of battle, veterans said; the devil and old man Lee.

In an artillery park near the ruin of the Chancellor mansion, which had burned to its brick foundations on the second day of conflict, a visiting infantryman looked glumly at a weathered skull that stared back with empty sockets, grinning a lipless grin. He prodded it with his boot, then turned to his comrades – saying “you and “you, ” not “we and “us,” for every soldier is superstitious about foretelling his own death, having seen such words come true too many times – and delivered himself a prediction. “This is what you are all coming to,” he told them, “and some of you will start toward it tomorrow.” Shelby Foote, The Civil War

The Battle of the Wilderness was the first confrontation between Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee.

It was the beginning of a grueling campaign that lasted six weeks. Instead of confronting Lee directly, as his predecessors had attempted with disastrous results, Grant began a series of side-steps to force Lee to defend Petersburg, Richmond’s main supply base.

This strategy required an iron will. Lee first forced Grant to fight in the tangled woods of the Wilderness, treacherous terrain that favored the defenders. It was the place where Lee had inflicted huge casualties on the Union army one year earlier, in the Battle of Chancellorsville. Grant did not back down: “If any opportunity presents itself for pitching into a part of Lee’s army, do so without giving time for disposition,” he told his subordinates.

The battle began with Union General Hancock attacking from the right and whipping up on Confederate Gen. A.P. Hill’s forces, but a devastating counterattack led by General Longstreet seriously damaged Hancock’s men and forced them to retreat. All the while, a bloody stalemate raged on the Union left.

At one point during the battle, General Lee attempted to lead a charge into the fray but was held back by his men. The battle was mayhem, with no clear front or rear, and desperate fighting in the tangled wilderness, and great volumes of blood shed. In the confusion, Longstreet was shot and seriously wounded by his own troops; on the Union side, General Sedgwick was sniped by Conferate sharpshooters after claiming, “They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.”

When the fighting finally died down, a great brush fire raged through the forest, burning hundreds of wounded soldiers alive while the two armies witnessed their horrible fate.

7,500 Confederate soldiers were lost. Over 15,000 Union troops were killed or wounded. The fighting ended in a virtual draw; a tactical victory for the Confederates, but ultimately part of a strategically victorious campaign by the Army of the Potomac.

Grant was not deterred by the losses, as every Union General had been before, and continued his bloody assault on the Confederate army, steadily moving to the left. With each move, Lee inflicted massive casualties, but Grant ignored his growing reputation as a “butcher” and proceeded stubbornly towards the Virginia cities that Lee could not fail to defend. When he began to threaten Petersburg, Lee had no choice but to occupy it.

Grant then besieged Lee in Petersburg and ultimately forced his capitulation after forcing him out of the city and on the run.

The Battle of the Wilderness is a vital chapter in the Civil War, and marked the beginning of a bloody campaign that the Union required three brutal years to steel itself for. Attempts to defeat Lee and his brilliant subordinates with a frontal assaults on their own terrain was a strategy that had repeatedly failed. An entrenched pattern of backing off after serious bloodshed was ruinous to Union war aims and morale. The only way to win the Civil War was to break Lee’s supply lines, while being able to stomach the massive casualties this task would require.

Grant was the first leader of the Army of the Potomac with the stones to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia, and he announced his intentions to do so in the Wilderness.

wild

The battlefield is a monument to the most merciless fighting of the war; a place where the bitterest determination of both sides was put to a test.

With all that said, doesn’t the battlefield sound like an awesome place to put a Walmart?

walmart

Historian James McPherson (“Battle Cry of Freedom”) was unrestrained in his criticism of the plan:

To commemorate the bloody struggle, portions of the Wilderness — which is near Locust Grove, Va., in Orange County — were set aside as a national military park. However, just 21 percent of the battlefield is permanently protected; other key areas are privately held and vulnerable to development.

This vulnerability became apparent when Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced plans to build a 138,000-square-foot superstore on historically sensitive land directly across the road from the national park. The store would sit on a hill overlooking key parts of the battlefield, looming over a national treasure.

Preservationists are not opposed to Wal-Mart opening a superstore in the region. A coalition of national and local conservation groups has merely asked Wal-Mart to choose a different location. Together with more than 250 other historians, I signed a letter to the company in support of that idea. We wrote that “the Wilderness is an indelible part of our history, its very ground hallowed by the American blood spilled there, and it cannot be moved. Surely Wal-Mart can identify a site that would meet its needs without changing the very character of the battlefield.”

“Wilderness Wal-Mart” supporters argue that because the proposed store site lies just beyond the park, it lacks historic significance, a profound misunderstanding of the nature of history. In the heat of battle, no unseen hand kept soldiers inside what would one day be a national park. Such boundaries are artificial, modern constructions shaped by external factors, and they have little bearing on what is or is not historic. To assume the park boundary at the Wilderness encompasses every acre of significant ground is to believe that the landscape beyond the borders of Yosemite National Park instantly ceases to be majestic.

Many Civil War buffs and preservation supporters protested the development plans, including Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and the great Robert Duvall.

To no avail, as the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the permit for the Walmart on Tuesday, by a 4-1 vote.

walmartComing soon, the Gettysburg Battlefield Home Depot.

“Walmart doesn’t care about American history,” sneered the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, and pointed out that after all, these are the same people who willingly decorate cakes for Nazis.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.