Title: Special Bulletin
Year Released: 1983
Genre: Mockumentary/Fake News
Director: Edward Zwick
Medium: TV Movie
Running Time: 105 minutes
Free news media is one of the most important elements of a democratic society. When you have news and journalistic media that can report on what's going on in the world and in the government, the people have the ability to know what's going on around them. However, can the news media have a negative impact when covering a major news event, especially one that can potentially bring harm to innocent people? That's the major question that the TV movie Special Bulletin attempts to examine. Through the style of realistic mock live news, the film attempts to investigate the media's responsibilities and irresponsibility when covering breaking news. While rather preachy and one-sided, the film is still a somewhat decent (though not particularly great) realistic examination of the news media as well as nuclear stockpiles of the late Cold War era.
The story is set on the fictional RBS Network based in New York, where Susan Myles (played by Kathryn Walker) and John Woodley (played by Ed Flanders) act as our anchors covering a breaking news story in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. A small group of people have taken control of a small tugboat and have docked in the harbor. After a firefight between Coast Guard forces and the crew of the ship, a local news reporter (played by Christopher Allport) and his cameraman are taken captive on the boat along with a couple Coast Guardsmen. Their main demand in exchange for the captive Coast Guardsmen is for a live network feed over the RBS Network. Using this feed, they announce that they have a nuclear bomb on board the ship and will blow it up if they are not given all detonation modules for every nuclear warhead in the Charleston area. Their professed goal is unilateral disarmament and clearing the way for peace in the nuclear age. If they are not given the detonating modules or they are impeded from exiting the harbor, they will detonate their nuclear device on-board the ship, which is highly secured. What follows is the reveal of the nuclear bomb, the backgrounds of the members of the "terrorist group" and the increasingly ominous progression of the events of the news story as time grows tighter to fulfill the terrorists' demands. By the end, the government faces the choice of either acceding to the terrorists demands or denying them their goal in the hope that their nuclear threat is a bluff.
The main goal of the film is to show that the media has an impact on a news story when terrorists are given live access to the airwaves. The film also shows how skepticism in the news media can trivialize possible threats to innocent people. The one truly good aspect of this film is its realism in portraying news events. There are many times where you might forget you are watching a movie. This realism prompts the movie to warn that "The following program is a realistic depiction of fictional events. None of what you are about to see is actually happening" in order to prevent panic in the audience. The acting as well as the facts that the film was shot on videotape lend credibility to the realism of the film. The ways the actors trip up on words, stumble and experience technical issues also help you feel like you're watching actual news broadcasts. However, the acting does have moments where it slips into hammy/cheesy territory, especially near the end of the film. The only major break in immersion is the film's skipping several hours at a time to continue the story as well as the aforementioned hammy and cheesy acting when the characters are trying to force the idea that they're emotional and upset.
Aside from its realism, this particular film is rather clumsy in its attempts to deliver its views on the connections between the news media, news stories and the people being covered in the course of a story. The film is incredibly preachy while offering no real solutions of its own. Some might say that the film doesn't try to answer the questions it presents, but with how aggressively it criticizes the news media, to not try to approach any answers to the problem is cowardly in this case. The film also doesn't really fairly approach the other side of the issues at play here. The media figures in the film try rather limp-wristedly (particularly John Woodley) to defend the news media and their actions, but they are not given nearly as much of a platform as the critical viewpoints. This lack of fair debate in the events of the film cause me to feel less impacted by movie's end because of the feeling that the filmmakers were only interested in pushing their critical views without giving all sides their due time. In the end, the realism on the surface of the movie is what leaves the most impact, but little else. Calling attention to an issue is not enough when you try so hard to show that something is a problem.
Is there any real reason to watch this movie? Well, the realism does draw you in and welcome criticism of the news media is presented, but the ways it goes about presenting its views are clumsy and one-sided. The film, at worst, demonstrates a missed opportunity to make a stronger anti-nuclear sentiment and instead settles with its heavy-handed yet self-limiting message that the media has negative impacts on the quality of coverage of breaking news events. It's a sentiment worth exploring, but Special Bulletin does not explore it very well. Therefore, the film is watchable but not a particularly good nuclear movie, even by TV movie standards.
Final Verdict: Special Bulletin is a good example of realistic mockumentary-style film-making, but the film ultimately falls short in its anti-nuclear sentiment (there's not much substance to it) and criticism of the news media (one-sided and not allowing for a true debate). Overall, the film is not particularly bad. However, it's not particularly good either.
Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series on nuclear war movies in the next day or so. Take care everyone!
No comments:
Post a Comment