Threads should be compulsory viewing for… | Little White Lies

Threads should be com­pul­so­ry view­ing for Pres­i­dent Trump

13 Dec 2016

Words by Brogan Morris

Riot police and protesters confronting each other on a snowy street, with protesters raising their arms in defiance.
Riot police and protesters confronting each other on a snowy street, with protesters raising their arms in defiance.
Not even Don­ald Trump could deny this har­row­ing vision of nuclear war.

No pan­el of experts or mil­i­tary mid­dle­men could inter­vene. When it comes to America’s awe­some nuclear arse­nal, the deci­sion to fire in the moment falls to one per­son alone: the Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States. The real­i­ty today is that an indi­vid­ual who once came close to caus­ing an inter­na­tion­al inci­dent sim­ply by accept­ing a phone call is the­o­ret­i­cal­ly just one com­mand away from launch­ing a nuclear strike.

One con­cern­ing sto­ry that was doing the rounds dur­ing the 2016 US Pres­i­den­tial elec­tion cam­paign said that Don­ald Trump, while being briefed on nuclear weapons, repeat­ed­ly asked why, if Amer­i­ca has nukes, the pres­i­dent can­not use them. Pre­sum­ably the con­cept of MAD (Mutu­al­ly Assured Destruc­tion) was calm­ly and ratio­nal­ly explained to him, but a more apt response in that moment might have been to draw the cur­tains, wheel in a tele­vi­sion and play Trump one of the most dis­tress­ing pieces of dis­as­ter fic­tion ever made.

There have been many films made about the haz­ards of nuclear war – from On the Beach to The War Game to Mir­a­cle Mile – but Mick Jackson’s 1984 TV movie Threads is eas­i­ly the most pow­er­ful. It has plen­ty in com­mon with oth­er films that show life before and after The Bomb, but what sets Threads apart is how drawn out and detailed its descent into social hor­ror is. Set in Sheffield at the height of the Cold War, it ini­tial­ly sets out its stall as a social-real­ist dra­ma. A young work­ing-class cou­ple makes a go of it after an acci­den­tal preg­nan­cy, while in the back­ground a rapid­ly esca­lat­ing con­flict between the West and the USSR plays out on radio and television.

At first hard­ly any­one takes notice, but lit­tle by lit­tle an obscure skir­mish in the Mid­dle-East leads to war, before a brief exchange of nuclear fire brings the con­flict to an abrupt, apoc­a­lyp­tic end. Hav­ing briefly intro­duced the char­ac­ters, the film then begins prop­er by explain­ing in doc­u­men­tary style what would hap­pen to the aver­age man and woman were a post-nuclear world to become reality.

Fol­low­ing the ini­tial blasts, star­va­tion, dis­ease, radi­a­tion sick­ness and a rapid break­down of law and order all cul­mi­nate in mass casu­al­ties. After the chaos comes the nuclear win­ter. When that even­tu­al­ly clears, our char­ac­ters find them­selves in a bright and bleak new world where the ozone lay­er deplet­ed by 3,000 mega­tons. The point at which Threads returns to a sta­tus quo of sorts, 11 years after the bombs fell, Britain has regressed to a state of medieval squalor, where­in the harsh ultra­vi­o­let sun burns cataracts into people’s eyes, and illit­er­ate youths roam the earth like wild ani­mals. The film ends with new life enter­ing the world – only the infant is a still­born muta­tion too hor­rif­ic to be shown.

No sin­gle film ham­mers home the total­i­ty of nuclear action bet­ter than Threads. It is report­ed­ly one of two films (the oth­er being 1983’s The Day After, a more melo­dra­mat­ic take on the nuclear dooms­day sce­nario set in rur­al Amer­i­ca) that helped soft­en the for­mer­ly gung-ho Ronald Rea­gan on nuclear deter­rence. You can call Threads a piece of fic­tion pow­er­ful enough to change the course of his­to­ry, because it already has. It is a work once watched, nev­er for­got­ten, its har­row­ing images of des­per­ate, ban­daged scav­engers for­ev­er seared into the mem­o­ry. No one who expe­ri­ences Threads could ever under­es­ti­mate the grav­i­ty of nuclear war­fare again. Not even Don­ald Trump.

You might like