An Australian pediatrician gives a speech on the consequences of a nuclear war.An Australian pediatrician gives a speech on the consequences of a nuclear war.An Australian pediatrician gives a speech on the consequences of a nuclear war.
- Won 1 Oscar
- 3 wins total
Photos
Helen Caldicott
- Self
- (as Dr. Helen Caldicott)
Vannevar Bush
- Self - In front of map of Japan
- (archive footage)
Winston Churchill
- Self
- (archive footage)
Leslie Groves
- Self - In front of map of Japan
- (archive footage)
Ronald Reagan
- Self
- (archive footage)
Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Self
- (archive footage)
Richard Tolman
- Self - In front of map of Japan
- (archive footage)
Harry S. Truman
- Self
- (archive footage)
Clement Attlee
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Ernest Bevin
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
James Byrnes
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Ed Herlihy
- Universal Newsreel Narrator
- (archive footage)
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
Ernest O. Lawrence
- Self - with Cyclotron Controls
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
William D. Leahy
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Vyacheslav Molotov
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Joseph Stalin
- Self - at Potsdam
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
I understand the 1st British showing of this film was at the RENOIR London WC1 on the 13th April 2008.It is remarkable that it won an "Oscar"The film is short and to the point and I found it very moving even though it was made over 25 years ago,the use of historical film is well done and includes some of President Ragan when he was a film actor during W.W.11,the faces of the young people listening are priceless.Through out Dr.Helen Caldicott put across the truth about the use of Nuclear Weapons and using drawings at the end is very powerful.Well worth seeing but please remember there is sad and moving film of people damaged by Nuclear Weapons.
It must be understood that this film was released in a particular historical context with a particular objective. It was part of a world-wide campaign to prevent NATO from deploying medium range nuclear missiles in Europe. The Soviet Union had deployed similar missiles in Eastern Europe in the 1970's and this was perceived as a danger to the people of Western Europe against which the missiles were directed. NATO then decided to deploy similar missiles in Western Europe directed at Eastern Europe.
At the time thousands of people were organized to try to prevent this. There were riots in West Berlin. There was a months-long campaign to try to prevent the deployment of Cruise Missiles in Britain. IN the Netherlands the parliament agonized over whether to go ahead with deployment. Cities world-wide declared themselves nuclear free zones. This film was released right into the middle of this uproar. Its purpose was clear.
When the missiles were ultimately deployed anyway the whole anti-nuclear campaign folded up its tents and disappeared. My opinion is that the Soviet funding evaporated once it was clear that NATO was not going to be deterred from countering the Soviet deployment by domestic political pressure. Today the same Helen Caldecott defends the Iranians' right to develop Uranium enrichment technology.
I would like to believe that the people responsible for this film were, like so many others at that time, unwitting dupes of the Soviet Union rather than actually being their paid agents. This was never about protecting humanity from nuclear weapons. None of these people ever complained about Soviet weapons. It was part of an effort to shift the balance of world power in favor of the Soviet Union. Fortunately it failed and even more fortunately the Soviet Union is no more.
The film is a good example of effective propaganda. It will frighten an uninformed viewer. As a more informed viewer, I was outraged by it rather than spurred to action, because I saw that the antinuclear campaign was only directed at missiles in the free world and not at those in the Soviet Union.
Watch it as a cautionary experience of the power of propaganda.
David in Ottawa
At the time thousands of people were organized to try to prevent this. There were riots in West Berlin. There was a months-long campaign to try to prevent the deployment of Cruise Missiles in Britain. IN the Netherlands the parliament agonized over whether to go ahead with deployment. Cities world-wide declared themselves nuclear free zones. This film was released right into the middle of this uproar. Its purpose was clear.
When the missiles were ultimately deployed anyway the whole anti-nuclear campaign folded up its tents and disappeared. My opinion is that the Soviet funding evaporated once it was clear that NATO was not going to be deterred from countering the Soviet deployment by domestic political pressure. Today the same Helen Caldecott defends the Iranians' right to develop Uranium enrichment technology.
I would like to believe that the people responsible for this film were, like so many others at that time, unwitting dupes of the Soviet Union rather than actually being their paid agents. This was never about protecting humanity from nuclear weapons. None of these people ever complained about Soviet weapons. It was part of an effort to shift the balance of world power in favor of the Soviet Union. Fortunately it failed and even more fortunately the Soviet Union is no more.
The film is a good example of effective propaganda. It will frighten an uninformed viewer. As a more informed viewer, I was outraged by it rather than spurred to action, because I saw that the antinuclear campaign was only directed at missiles in the free world and not at those in the Soviet Union.
Watch it as a cautionary experience of the power of propaganda.
David in Ottawa
Dr. Helen Caldicott is one of the most renowned individuals in the world. She founded Physicians for Social Responsibility to protest nuclear weapons. We've loosely heard about the risks of nuclear war as well as the potential effects of nuclear fallout. But you can't understand the sheer horror of it until you hear Caldicott describe it. The main thing that she makes clear in the Academy Award-winning "If You Love This Planet" is that there would be no winner in a nuclear war, just a dead planet and people slowly dying of radiation poisoning. She noted that there was the chance that we weren't going to make it to 1990 due to the high number of nuclear weapons in existence.
While we made it past that year, and both the US and post-Soviet Russia have decreased their stockpiles, other countries have developed nuclear weapons. I recently saw a photograph of an anti-nuclear protest at which people held up signs saying NUCLEAR-ARMED -- BE ALARMED, showing the faces of Donald Trump (United States), Theresa May (United Kingdom), Emmanuel Macron (France), Vladimir Putin (Russia), Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel), Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan), Narendra Modi (India), Xi Jinping (China) and Kim Jong-un (North Korea).* These countries have the means to bring about the end of civilization as we know it. Indeed, a recent alert in Hawaii mistakenly said that there was about to be a nuclear attack.
Everyone should see this documentary. One thing that I would like to see would be a debate between Helen Caldicott and climatologist James Hansen, whose studies the Bush administration censored. They have taken opposing positions on whether nuclear energy contributes to global warming - she says yes, he says no - so I'd like to hear a debate between them.
*For the record, the only country that developed a nuclear weapons program but then abolished it entirely is South Africa, in which the apartheid government developed nuclear weapons but the post-apartheid government dismantled them.
While we made it past that year, and both the US and post-Soviet Russia have decreased their stockpiles, other countries have developed nuclear weapons. I recently saw a photograph of an anti-nuclear protest at which people held up signs saying NUCLEAR-ARMED -- BE ALARMED, showing the faces of Donald Trump (United States), Theresa May (United Kingdom), Emmanuel Macron (France), Vladimir Putin (Russia), Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel), Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan), Narendra Modi (India), Xi Jinping (China) and Kim Jong-un (North Korea).* These countries have the means to bring about the end of civilization as we know it. Indeed, a recent alert in Hawaii mistakenly said that there was about to be a nuclear attack.
Everyone should see this documentary. One thing that I would like to see would be a debate between Helen Caldicott and climatologist James Hansen, whose studies the Bush administration censored. They have taken opposing positions on whether nuclear energy contributes to global warming - she says yes, he says no - so I'd like to hear a debate between them.
*For the record, the only country that developed a nuclear weapons program but then abolished it entirely is South Africa, in which the apartheid government developed nuclear weapons but the post-apartheid government dismantled them.
I definitely agree with the comment posted above. A good description of the film. Yes, Caldicott does explain the absolute worst case scenario of nuclear-war, from the environmental consequences, the biological outcomes and the absolute physical destruction that would arise. She does not hold back and shares all of the gruesome and realistic details in the outcome of a nuclear war. However, we need to remember that this was shot in 1982, at the height of the cold war. The outcomes she discusses are all factual and possible outcomes of nuclear war. This movie touched me, even though I was not even born at the time. It instilled a feeling of shock and dismay over nuclear-armament.
10llltdesq
This documentary, an Oscar-winning production of the National Film Board of Canada, is an extremely good, if clearly biased, look at the dismal prospects of nuclear arms. Let me state here that, while I share those biases, I think that it is necessary to admit that, throughout, worst-case scenarios are discussed, even though 1) they weren't most likely scenarios and 2) even most likely scenarios are scary. The effects of a bomb blast will be catastrophic. This was like gilding a lily! I personally think that they didn't have to engage in the overkill they went to here. But I salute their efforts nonetheless and may we never see a mushroom cloud outside of a piece of film ever again!
Did you know
- TriviaThis film was labeled "foreign political propaganda" by the United States' Justice Department in an attempt to limit its distribution. All distributors who sold a copy were required to give the purchaser's name to the Justice Department. This may have had the opposite effect from the suppression desired by the Reagan administration, as the negative label caused a rallying of support around the film from anti-censorship activists. During her Oscar acceptance speech director Terre Nash thanked the US Justice Department for their effective "advertisement" of her film.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Unfinished Business (1984)
Details
- Runtime
- 26m
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content