Clearly, William F. Buckley is a critic of The Day After. What is the basis for his criticism, and what do you think of it?
2 thoughts on “Week 10 Day 1 Discussion Question 4”
James Peacock
Buckley seems angry with ABC because they claim that the film is not political, while he believes that it very clearly is. Buckley states that the film’s main message is that “it is wrong to own nuclear bombs.” He writes that the film’s writer, Edward Hume, wanted to encourage people to question the idea of using the accumulation of nuclear weapons as a way to defend the US. Buckley seems supportive of the US maintaining a nuclear arsenal, saying the arsenal is essential for preventing events like those in The Day After. He states a better film would be one that explores what would happen if the US got taken over by the Soviet Union. But while Buckley disagrees with the central premise of the film, his main criticism is that the film is encouraging viewers to get upset about something they have no control over. He states that the “public has absolutely no control” over the situation. He makes the argument that those who would die in nuclear war would have died anyway and claims that this means people can just live on protecting US values without worry. This is a rather weak argument, as those people could, by the same right, live happier without a nuclear threat, regardless of a more or less painful death. This film made people think, and it scared them. And I think the public must have some control over the situation. I can’t imagine what it would take for governments around the world to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, but that does not mean that we should not protest and demand that they do.
One of William F. Buckley’s criticisms is that The Day After is a political film, despite the claims that it was meant to be apolitical. Buckley bases most of this criticism on a passage from the New York Times about the film’s writer Edward Hume and the politics of the film: “Although Mr. Stottard was determined to avoid any political statements, Mr. Hume acknowledges that the film cannot entirely avoid a political interpretation: ‘I would like to see people starting to question the value of defending this country with a nuclear arsenal. What troubles me is that there’s no dialogue on the subject. I hope this film will wrench the dialogue back to the surface. To that extent, it is a political film.'” Mr. Buckley criticizes Mr. Hume’s statement that he “would like to see people starting to question the value of defending this country with a nuclear arsenal.” Mr. Buckley asserts that if America doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal to defend itself against the Soviets it would be akin to surrender, and the Soviets would invade America in a manner similar to the Nazi invasion of Poland. While I don’t know what the Soviets would have actually done if the US completely disarmed all of its nuclear weapons, it seems doubtful that they would have invaded the US. I don’t think the Soviets acquired nuclear power as a means of world domination, I think they just wanted to protect themselves against the US, which was hostile to the Soviet’s way of governance. Mr. Buckley mostly criticises Mr. Hume’s statement and does little to criticize the actual content of the movie, saying only that the consequences of nuclear war are obviously horrible and that the movie was boring and lacked an engaging narrative or analytical rigor. I think that Mr. Buckley missed the point of the movie. Its main goal was less to analyze the situation of nuclear proliferation than just stimulate necessary conversation about the subject, which it certainly did.
Buckley seems angry with ABC because they claim that the film is not political, while he believes that it very clearly is. Buckley states that the film’s main message is that “it is wrong to own nuclear bombs.” He writes that the film’s writer, Edward Hume, wanted to encourage people to question the idea of using the accumulation of nuclear weapons as a way to defend the US. Buckley seems supportive of the US maintaining a nuclear arsenal, saying the arsenal is essential for preventing events like those in The Day After. He states a better film would be one that explores what would happen if the US got taken over by the Soviet Union. But while Buckley disagrees with the central premise of the film, his main criticism is that the film is encouraging viewers to get upset about something they have no control over. He states that the “public has absolutely no control” over the situation. He makes the argument that those who would die in nuclear war would have died anyway and claims that this means people can just live on protecting US values without worry. This is a rather weak argument, as those people could, by the same right, live happier without a nuclear threat, regardless of a more or less painful death. This film made people think, and it scared them. And I think the public must have some control over the situation. I can’t imagine what it would take for governments around the world to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, but that does not mean that we should not protest and demand that they do.
One of William F. Buckley’s criticisms is that The Day After is a political film, despite the claims that it was meant to be apolitical. Buckley bases most of this criticism on a passage from the New York Times about the film’s writer Edward Hume and the politics of the film: “Although Mr. Stottard was determined to avoid any political statements, Mr. Hume acknowledges that the film cannot entirely avoid a political interpretation: ‘I would like to see people starting to question the value of defending this country with a nuclear arsenal. What troubles me is that there’s no dialogue on the subject. I hope this film will wrench the dialogue back to the surface. To that extent, it is a political film.'” Mr. Buckley criticizes Mr. Hume’s statement that he “would like to see people starting to question the value of defending this country with a nuclear arsenal.” Mr. Buckley asserts that if America doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal to defend itself against the Soviets it would be akin to surrender, and the Soviets would invade America in a manner similar to the Nazi invasion of Poland. While I don’t know what the Soviets would have actually done if the US completely disarmed all of its nuclear weapons, it seems doubtful that they would have invaded the US. I don’t think the Soviets acquired nuclear power as a means of world domination, I think they just wanted to protect themselves against the US, which was hostile to the Soviet’s way of governance. Mr. Buckley mostly criticises Mr. Hume’s statement and does little to criticize the actual content of the movie, saying only that the consequences of nuclear war are obviously horrible and that the movie was boring and lacked an engaging narrative or analytical rigor. I think that Mr. Buckley missed the point of the movie. Its main goal was less to analyze the situation of nuclear proliferation than just stimulate necessary conversation about the subject, which it certainly did.