Nuclear War Movies Part 2: Countdown to Looking Glass

Title: Countdown to Looking Glass
Year Released: 1984
Genre: Political Thriller/Mockumentary/Drama
Director: Fred Barzyk
Medium: HBO TV Movie
Running Time: 87 minutes

     One of the most interesting parts of the Cold War was the political back and forth of the two superpowers trying to gain an advantage. The omnipresent threat of nuclear war seemed to keep the U.S. and Soviet Union from jumping over the edge of the abyss into all-out war, but how close could the two powers come to looking into the abyss before backing off? 1984's Countdown to Looking Glass attempts to examine the breakdown of Cold War foreign policy as well as the potential that one news story could change the course of a war. How well does it do those things? While it's not the best anti-nuclear film in this series, it certainly does a better job than Special Bulletin at portraying both sides of the nuclear argument from the viewpoint of news media as well as realistically portray a decaying U.S.-Soviet relationship.

     Like Special Bulletin, this film is set on a fictional news network, here called the CVN News Network. We begin the film in the middle of a growing crisis in the Middle East as well as at home. What started as a debtor's cartel of South American countries defaulting on their loans and causing three major bank failures has grown into an international conflict. The government of Oman has been overthrown by Soviet-backed guerrillas and the bank crisis at home in the U.S. has caused increased tension and protest. This new government of Oman then takes control of the pivotal Strait of Hormuz and imposes a $10,000 toll on all oil tankers entering the sea lane. Saudi Arabia invites U.S. troops into the country in order to maintain western interests and deter aggression in the region. This serves as the point where tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union begin to grow. CVN's Don Tobin (played by Patrick Watson) reports on this growing crisis and, through other CVN reporters, shows us how relations between the two superpowers decay and the buildup to armed conflict begins. Meanwhile, reporter Dorian Waldorf (played by Helen Shaver) tries to push out a potentially course-changing story thanks to her White House insider boyfriend source despite stonewalling policies being forced on her by CVN.

     One of my favorite aspects of this movie is just how compelling it is. Maybe it's the politics, maybe it's the drama, but this film is definitely much more interesting to watch than Special Bulletin. The level of realism and authenticity presented is not as direct as a fully simulated newscast, but the film does make a great effort to convince the audience that what is going on could actually happen. Inclusion of real-world political and media figures of the time (such as Newt Gingrich, Nancy Dickerson, Eric Sevareid, Lincoln Bloomfield and Eugene McCarthy) adds some authenticity to the events of the film and gives the audience some way to relate the story to real-world politics and news events. It also seems like this film does a better job of arguing it's anti-war sentiment while also presenting positions that support standing up and being prepared to fight if necessary. The film leaves more of an impact because of its more dramatized look at the buildup to nuclear conflict as well as its less preachy means of feeding its message. By the end, you feel like the film has respected your boundaries and not beat you over the head with its message without presenting a more intelligent platform for debate.

     Another good thing about this film is its more human approach to covering a potentially world-altering crisis. Between the news stories and reports, we see characters dealing with personal dramas such as Dorian and her boyfriend as well as Don Tobin talking to his wife. These moments of drama allow us to identify more with the characters and perhaps even become attached to them. As events continue to heat up and the two superpowers move towards a showdown in the Persian Gulf, the film's tone becomes more nervous and worried as one would expect in a real crisis. The low-key acting and focus on what's going on helps to keep the spotlight on the events so you're not thinking that there are actors instead of actors and political figures. Finally, I like the gradual buildup to armed conflict in the film as well as the uncertain note that the film ends on (despite the final events of the film).

     That's not to say that the film is without weakness. First, despite the film's opening saying that the scenario is based on a war game, I find it hard to suspend my disbelief and accept that the U.S. would let Oman be toppled so easily even though the guerrillas had the backing of the Soviets. Also, the dramatic scenes can feel unnecessary when the situation gets particularly grave in the Middle East. They still help lend some compelling moments, but ultimately everything else feels more important at that time. Finally, the film's ending feels kind of sudden. It's hard not to spoil it, but I will say that the ending scene feels like the situation takes a jarringly giant step before ending on the aforementioned uncertain note.

     Overall, Countdown to Looking Glass is a good movie and definitely better than Special Bulletin. The impact it leaves might be somewhat muted because of the dramatization at work, but it's still compelling to watch. The film (as well as Special Bulletin) can be viewed in full on YouTube. I would recommend this film because it's compelling, authentic and an interesting look at the breakdown of Cold War foreign policy as well as how the news media can possibly change the course of a conflict (and the consequences of not taking that course-changing action). If you find yourself looking for a compelling movie about the breakdown of Cold War relations and the buildup to nuclear confrontation, try Countdown to Looking Glass.

Final Verdict: Countdown to Looking Glass is more worth watching than Special Bulletin, and serves as a reminder of the importance of news media as well as the potential consequences of political and military crises.

Stay tuned for Part 3 of my Nuclear War movie series in the next day or two. Take care everyone!

Nuclear War Movies Part 1: Special Bulletin

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!