Watching the World Die: Nuclear Threat Films of the 1980s
Published by McFarland, 2023. 261 pages.
By Mike Bogue
Back in 2018, I reviewed Mike Bogue’s previous book, Apocalypse Then: American and Japanese Atomic Cinema, 1951-1967 (click HERE for that review), which I really enjoyed since it was much more than what it looked like at face value, not just about giant monsters created from atomic energy, but giving a really good insight to even the differences between countries and how they each looked and perceived what had, or could, happen.
When I received his latest book, Watching the World Die, at first thought it would just be about movies dealing with nuclear war and the aftermath, along the lines of films like The Day After (1983). And honestly, I have to say for someone that likes to use movies as an escape, reading about some truly terrifying films like Testament (1983) or Threads (1984) is a bit rough. Not to say that cinema can’t have a message, and a lot of these films do exactly what they set out to do, and do it well, but for me personally, it’s not a particular sub-genre that I enjoy watching or reading about. On that same note, writing about futuristic worlds that are struggling to survive after the destruction is easier to put it in more of terms of a fantasy, and even horror, that I can enjoy a lot easier. It’s about the after-effects, not the actual holocaust, if that makes sense.
Here, Bogue takes in a much wider range of titles, which must fall within 3 categories he came up with to qualify it as a “nuclear threat movie”.
– Movies that depict nuclear terrorism, nuclear extortion, nuclear theft, or any combination thereof.
– Movies that depict or speak of destruction by nuclear weapons on a small or large scale. This includes films portraying a post-nuke apocalyptic environment.
– Movies in which an extraordinary nuclear aspect either is the plot or is a substantial part of the plot. This includes movies in which radiation has mutated humans, animals, or both.
I do like that Bogue set up his ground rules and stuck to them. If you’re looking for a book to cover such a variety of films that all have their ties to the nuclear (or possible) disaster, then this is it. Personally, I would have preferred it to be narrowed down to a bit more straightforward subject matter, instead of so many different sub-sub-genres into one volume. Having some James Bond films, that really only have the threat of a bomb going off, to me, isn’t the same as Warlords of the 21st Century (1982). It does follow Bogue’s guidelines, but for me, it just kind of throws you off when you’re reading about a battle between the last remaining humans and some mutated monsters, and then reading about a spy film.
The only other issue I have is that it seems Bogue isn’t a huge fan of some of the titles, especially some of the cheesier, Italian-made, post-apocalyptic ones, and his feeling of the films come through in the writing. Some fans who love those films might start to take the other thoughts of Bogue with a grain of salt because they might enjoy some of those that are written off as silly, trash, or just boring. Remember, this is Bogue’s book and his opinions. Doesn’t mean they are right or wrong, but if it makes you think about the film a little more, then it’s a win-win.
When discussing films like Threads and The Day After, he goes into a lot more details about those. These are the real horror films and, for me, reading about them is pretty depressing on how close we still are now, four decades after the one discussed in this book. But his thoughts and notes on these films do show the power there of what the filmmaker was trying to accomplish, and at the end, does just that. But if you are looking for a book that has a compilation of titles dealing with the threat of nuclear war, the actual war, or the dreaded aftereffects, then this book is definitely for you! It has such a wide range of titles as I stated earlier that will keep you bouncing around to many different sub-sub-genres but does give you enough info on whether you might enjoy it or not, if you haven’t seen it. There are spoilers and plot synopsis in the reviews, so tread lightly. Same with the opinion of Bogue. Just because he might not like it, doesn’t mean you feel the same. That’s the beauty of cinema.

“Threads” is a classic, but relentlessly bleak. It strives so hard (and effectively) for realism that I would never have thought to classify it as a horror film, but I guess it certainly could be.
For me, it really encapsulates the oppressive climate of Cold War dread that I grew up with as a kid in Thatcher’s Britain in the 1980s. The hell depicted in threads actually seemed like a reality that we could face any day.
I wonder if the book mentions the “Protect and Survive” public information films that were produced by the British government in the late 70s/early 80s? They were a step-by-step guide for the general public on how to cope in the event of a nuclear attack—from constructing a makeshift shelter and rationing food to disposing of dead family members.
You can see them on YouTube, and, in a way, they are an unintentional horror film in themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I double checked the book and didn’t see anything on Protect and Survive but yeah, sounds like a lot of fun!
LikeLike
Sorry–it wasn’t my intention to give you work!
But it’s surprising that it’s not mentioned, even though it is not a fictional movie. It actually makes an appearance in Threads–being broadcast on TV in some scenes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not intend to duplicate my message below, and I apologize for this — I am new to commenting on sites.
LikeLike
To Sober Horror Fan, I apologize that I didn’t make a mention of the nonfiction “Protect and Survive” films in my “Threads” overview. Your point is well-taken.
However, I do mention the “Protect and Survive” pamphlet in my “Threads” analysis, stating on page 130: “The government pamphlet ‘Protect and Survive’ offered unrealistic advice on how a family could weather a nuclear strike.”
I also mention the pamphlet in my overview of 1986’s “When the Wind Blows,” noting that the character Jim unwisely takes the document as gospel (page 164).
LikeLike
Wow–a reply from the author!
Thanks for responding! However, absolutely no apologies necessary–it was just a random thought that I had. Your book sounds really thorough and well-researched!
LikeLike