Sometimes it’s interesting to look back on the fears and concerns of previous generations and time periods, especially when those fears can still somewhat be applied today. Threads is a film about nuclear destruction and the potential scenario that could come about in the aftermath. It’s rather effective for what it is, and honestly rather brutal and disconcerting at times, though it is somewhat obvious that it is a television production. Whether or not that’s a negative will be up to the viewer, but it makes good use of what it has and delivers a very uncomfortable yet important story about the dangers of atomic warfare.
The film mostly focuses on the situation itself, using the townsfolk of Sheffield, England, more as an ensemble, seeing them go about their daily lives in the first half and then become scarred, dying, looting survivors in the second. However, there are two figures that could be considered “main characters,” those being Ruth and Jimmy, a young couple preparing to get married due to an unforeseen pregnancy. At first, the film follows Jimmy, as we see him coming to terms with his future marriage and try to enjoy his last chances at bachelorship. In addition, we see his family’s reaction to the situation, with the folks even suggesting an abortion, but Jimmy is set on marriage, even if inside he seems a bit reluctant. While this is going on, several news broadcasts tell of the escalating conflict between the U.S. and Soviet Union, reaching a point of possible attack and sending the citizens of Sheffield into a buying and hoarding frenzy. The next morning, the attack is confirmed, as several bombs go off not far away from the town. At first, this fries most electronic devices, making them unusable, before sending a massive heat wave through the town, obliterating many folks on contact, and severely burning many others. Jimmy is killed in the blast while Ruth survives due to hiding in the basement with her family. During the succeeding weeks, the government tries desperately to maintain control of the situation, sending in forces to keep people in line, even at the cost of killing them for looting. However, the townsfolk have long since stopped listening to the authorities and are doing what they must in order to survive. Many even form a mass exodus from the town to the countryside, facing helicopter-based government retaliation along the way, but enough of them survive and are able to form a community out there in the fields. Ruth goes with them and gives birth to her daughter in an abandoned barn, but sadly the current conditions have made crop farming much harder, so Ruth has a difficult time providing for her baby girl, even resorting to less than savory means to keep her fed. As the years go by, society regresses to a much earlier state and the English language becomes exceedingly broken and simplistic. Ruth dies as her daughter stands over her, shakes her, and spouts one-word statements at her, such as “up” and “work.” Much later, after escaping the authorities for stealing food, the daughter and an unnamed boy fight over the bit of food they have, a fight that seems to morph into some form of animalistic sex. Later still, the daughter gives birth herself, but sadly, this results in a stillbirth, and the film ends with the daughter-turned-mother screaming.
As I was watching Threads, I was reminded of a similar film I had seen years ago called The Day After. This was another television production that dealt with a nuclear apocalypse and its aftermath, though the film was set in America rather than England and was much less brutal and bleak in its depiction of the situation. Granted, it has been quite a long time since I first watched it, but I don’t remember The Day After showing burning and scarred bodies, nor did it show the near complete regression of society (or at least not to the same extent), and I definitely don’t recall any stillbirths. I suppose that just goes to show the differences in standards between American and British television, at least at the time, but whether you wish to compare their overall quality or not, I believe that Threads is the more striking of the two films for the fact that it goes as far as it does in its depiction. Sometimes you need a story as unsettling as this to get your point across. Ironically, many of the old fairy tales we know and love would often use rather grim concepts and story directions in order to make their lessons stick much more (e.g., be careful around strangers as they may be “predators” that want to “eat you alive,” don’t play with matches or you’ll burn to death, etc.). In this film’s case, however, I believe that it wasn’t so much trying to send a message, per se, as trying to reflect the fears of the timeframe. The effects of a nuclear attack were generally known by most major countries of the world, as it had been almost forty years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose aftermaths were devastating. However, the size and quantity of nuclear missiles had grown a great amount in the years between ’45 and ’84, and now two large nations were poised on the brink of “pushing the button.” This was a very precarious situation that threatened not only the two nations, but also their allies, and truthfully, the entire world. And the truly sad part is that that situation hasn’t entirely gone away. True, the Soviet Union has long since disbanded and global relationships have changed over the last several decades, but more than just two countries have nuclear weapons now, and should those relationships shift, there’s no guarantee that one of them won’t call in the strike order. I think that’s why it’s important to look back on films like Threads. While it is a reflection of its time, the situation it depicts is still a potential reality for our world and it’s important to remember just how devastating that future is. The film doesn’t have the higher production value of a theatrical film, even just from the camera and sound quality you can get that impression, but in a way, that sort of helps to make it more effective. This production limitation gives the film a certain grit that might have been cleaned up if it went to theaters, and makes it feel a bit more down-to-earth and relatable, or at least as much as it can be. It may not be uplifting, but what story about an atomic apocalypse really is?
Ultimately, while this film is of its time, what it discusses is still rather relevant to this day. I’ll admit that I wouldn’t necessarily call this film a favorite of mine, though I have only seen it once so far, but it is still a mostly effective experience for what it is. As noted, it is rather graphic, so be judicious if you’re considering using this film as a way to introduce this concept to your children (there’s probably a good reason my school showed The Day After instead). But for whatever reason you decide to view it, it should make for a bleak yet interesting experience. Let’s hope that a potential nuclear future is still far away from the present (and, more hopefully, won’t happen at all).