Threads (1984)

                I had been aware of this movie for a while, but had purposely avoided it because I knew it would be depressing.  I’m not proud of myself for that.  A war movie reviewer should be able to watch any war movie.  Except maybe “Shaving Ryan’s Privates”.  “Threads” was a British/Australian production for the BBC.  It was directed by Mike Jackson (“Live from Baghdad”).  His research included consulting scientists, psychologists, doctors, and defense specialists.  For the nuclear winter scenes, he used a Science magazine article entitled “Nuclear Winter:  Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions” by Carl Sagan and James Pollock.  The movie was filmed in 17 days in Sheffield.  The city  was chosen because it was a “nuclear free zone” which meant the city council would be amenable to the disruption of a movie production.  Unlike the similar “The War Game”, which did not air in 1966 because of pressure from the Wilson government, “Threads” was aired to a large audience.  It was nominated for 7 BAFTAs and won for Best Single Drama, Design, Film Cameraman, and Film Editor. It came up short for Costume Design, Film Sound, and Make-Up (the third degree burns were Rice Krispies and ketchup).

                The movie opens with a narrator proclaiming that society is made up of threads woven together.  This makes it strong, but vulnerable.  The film follows the families of Ruth Beckett (Karen Meagher) and Jimmy Kemp (Reece Dinsdale).  Ruth is pregnant so she and Jimmy are to be wed.  The Becketts are a working-class family and the Kemps are middle class.  The people of Sheffield are not concerned when the news reports that the Soviets have invaded Iran after a coup they blame on the U.S.  Three days later, an American sub gets sunk in the Persian Gulf.  The President claims the attack was unprovoked.  He sends American forces to Iran to protect the oil fields.  A week later, the U.S. accuses the Soviets of bringing tactical nuclear weapons into Iran.  Since Sheffield is near a NATO air base, the citizens of Sheffield should be fleeing the city.  It is an obvious target.  Most people are ignorant about the danger they are in.  Some leave when the U.S. issues an ultimatum that the USSR leave Iran.  Since governments are like people, they don’t like to back down, a red line has been crossed.

 

                I used to do a game with my American History classes in conjunction with covering the Cuban Missile Crisis. I called it “Escalation” because it emphasized that a Cold War confrontation could spiral out of control.  I divided the class into leadership councils for two countries.  They had to make decisions based on what the other country’s leadership had done.  In order to “win” or save face, it was eye-opening how far a country would go in a nuclear scenario.  My scenario had some similarities to “Threads”. 

                Since I doubt many of you will watch the movie, I’m going to run through what happens to Sheffield in the movie.  This may save your life some day as it is a realistic portrayal of what might happen.  You should not be in a major city when the nukes start flying.  We left the movie situation with the U.S. ultimatum.  Great Britain moves troops to Europe.  This results in pro-NATO and anti-war protests in Sheffield.  B-52s bomb Soviet forces in Iran. The Soviets use nuclear anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down several of them.  The Americans use a nuclear bomb on a Soviet base in Iran.  There is a naval battle in which an American carrier is sunk.  Now there is a traffic jam to get out of the city.  It’s too late. A nuclear blast over the North Sea fries all communications in Great Britain.  Nukes take out targets like the nearby air base and the city itself.   Sheffield is devastated.  Huge fires break out. Over 80 megatons of explosives hit the country.  Fallout blankets most of the country.  Few residents are prepared for the two weeks they must spend indoors away from any windows.  Hospitals are swamped with burn victims and radiation casualties.  The movie goes on to show the effects nuclear winter.  Survivors have to cope with lack of food in the present and the killing of crops and livestock in the next few months.  Ten years later, Ruth and her daughter are barely eking out their existence.  Civilization has collapsed.

                Watching “Threads” is a sobering experience.  I also could have used adjectives like gut-wrenching, depressing, emotional, and powerful.  Don’t avoid it as I did, especially if you have little idea of what a nuclear war will be like.  The scenario the movie posits is a realistic one.  Once one nuclear explosion occurs, anywhere in the world will be in danger.  If you want to live, you will have enough warning to take steps to survive.  However, watching this movie, you might not want to survive.  It is an indictment of human reaction to threats.  There was a time after the Cold War when “Threads” could be seen as a curio.  Unfortunately, the threat of nuclear war has returned. 

                For a low budget affair, “Threads” has high production values.  The special effects are gruesome, but they needed to be.  There are a lot of dead bodies, human and animal.  Don’t eat while viewing.  Just when you think it can’t be grimmer, there is a shot of a woman carrying her dead baby.  This movie is depressing.  Not one positive thing happens.  The film focuses on the emergency city council’s efforts to deal with a catastrophe that it is ill-prepared for.  There is no optimism even 13 years after war.  The final scenes depict the loss of humanity that will result from hundreds of nuclear explosions.

                The cast was mostly unknowns.  Director Jackson wanted fresh faces that the audience could identify with.  Karen Meagher stands out since her Ruth is the only character that is followed to the end.  Well, not quite the end.  Karen gives birth in a barn.  She cuts the umbilical cord with her teeth.  (That’s licorice, by the way.)  The acting is decent and kudos to make-up for showing how nuclear war will affect appearances. 

                I have the goal of seeing some more of the nuclear war subgenre.  Movies like “The Day After”, which was the American equivalent of “Threads”.  Also the animated “When the Wind Blows”.  But I think I’ll wait a while before I watch the next one.  Realistic movies about nuclear war can be real downers.

GRADE =  A       

                 

The Mauritanian (2021)

 

            

                “The Mauritanian” is based on the memoirs (“Guantanamo Diary”) of Mohamedou Ould Slahi.  He was held for 14 years at Guantanamo Bay for suspected involvement in the 9/11 attacks.  The movie was directed by Kevin Macdonald (“The Eagle”).  It premiered on Amazon Prime.  The film was well-received.  It was nominated for Golden Globes for Best Actor (Tahar Rahim) and Supporting Actress (Jodi Foster).  It was also nominated for several BAFTAs:  Best Film, Outstanding British Film, Best Actor, Adapted Screenplay, and Cinematography.

                 In November, 2001, in Mauritania, Slahi (Rahim) is at a wedding.  His cousin is associated with Bin Laden.  Slahi is taken by the police for what he is confident will be a short time.  Instead, he is not seen or heard from for three years.  Four years after his arrest, his case lands on the desk of Nancy Hollander (Foster).  She takes it pro bono.  She learns that Sahim was imprisoned at Guantanamo because he supposedly fought for Al Qaeda, and helped organize and recruit for the 9/11 hijackers.  He's like the Forrest Gump of Al Qaeda -  where ever you look, he’s there.  Hollander is helped by her assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley).  They will go head-to-head with Lt. Col. Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch).  A friend of his was on one of the planes that hit the Twin Towers.  Hollander and Duncan visit the prison to interview Slahi.  He is understandably bitter and untrusting.  There is some conflict between the defense attorneys as Duncan thinks he’s innocent, but Hollander does not.  She plans to make the case about lack of evidence.  The movie flashes back to his interrogations.  At this point, the movie enters its two tracks -  his torture through the years and the attempt by Hollander to get him released.  The torture runs the gamut of water torture, heavy metal music, stress positions, humiliation by women, and threatening to imprison his mother. This leads up to the trial.

                “The Mauratanian” is a movie that all Americans should see.  You can still be patriotically bitter about 9/11 and yet admit that some wrongs were committed in overly zealous treatment of suspected terrorists.  Gitmo became infamous as the maximum security facility housing the most dangerous jihadists.  Undoubtedly, many of the prisoners belong there.  But there are a few like Slahi who were wrongfully detained and then tortured to make the detainment seem rightful.  His confession can be attributed to the success of enhanced interrogation techniques.  The movie is effective in depicting what he went through.  The cinematography uses surreal imagery to show the hallucinations Slahi underwent.  Keep in mind that what he received was worse than the movie portrays.

                The strength of the movie is in the acting.  The cast is stellar with Rahim and Foster standing out.  Cumberbatch and Woodley help make a strong quartet at the core of the film.  Hollander and Duncan are stereotypes from courtroom dramas.  Hollander is the cynical veteran who will work hard to exonerate someone she does not believe is innocent.  Duncan is the bleeding-heart liberal who refuses to believe he is guilty.  Couch is the most interesting character because usually the prosecutor is a villain in movies like this.  His character arc is not a familiar one.  Overall, the plot follows the pattern of most military justice movies.  The format of flashing back to the various tortures makes the film seem fresh. 

It won’t seem fresh to any conservatives that force themselves to watch it.  The film is clearly liberal.  It does not balance Salim/Hollander/Duncan with an equally determined prosecuting attorney.  Normally, a courtroom movie where there is a person of color on trial, you would have a white savior as his attorney.  Hollander and Duncan do fit this trope, but the movie is dominated by Salhi, especially through the flashbacks.  It does not flash back to the 9/11 attacks.  It assumes the audience knows what happened on 9/11, but is ignorant about what happened afterwards to bring the perpetrators to justice.  Some of the methods were featured in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but “The Mauritanian” covers them in more depth. “Zero Dark Thirty” was criticized for pushing the narrative that harsh interrogation got answers that led to Bin Laden.  Few have criticized “The Mauritanian” for showing how the techniques led to a false confession.

“The Mauritanian” is an important movie.  We have had other movies that have tried to show the darker side of the war on terrorism.  Movies like “Standard Operating Procedure”, “Rendition”, “Redacted”, and “Lions for Lambs”.  The importance is that Slahi’s story is a true one.  It packs more of a whallop because of this.  It is the best movie to chronicle the situation at Gitmo.  It does not smack of propaganda, although it is one-sided.  Both the Bush, Jr. and Biden administrations would argue it is not the story of an innocent man.  However, it is hard to watch it and not think the war on terrorism has been marked by some mistakes and violations of justice.  That does not mean that we sank to the level of the terrorists, it means the war on terrorism has led to questionable tactics on our side.

GRADE =  B+

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  How accurate is it?  Considering the script, the movie makers did not bother to ask for the chance to film at Gitmo.  Instead, a very realistic set was created, with heavy input from Slahi.  Slahi also helped with the script.  One must admit that the script is based on “Guantanamo Diary”, so it is Slahi’s version of what happened.  And he had reason to tell a story that would create public sympathy.  The movie is very accurate if you believe Slahi’s account.  There is certainly less reason to believe it compared to the government’s case.  Slahi was actually arrested in his home, not at a wedding party.  This was two months after 9/11.  Although he was never charged, the government’s evidence pointed to his being a recruiter for Al Qaeda and a facilitator of 9/11.  He did fight in Afghanistan with the mujahideen against the communist government.  He later was trained by Al Qaeda and swore allegiance.  He claims he cut ties with the organization, but the CIA insisted he was a sleeper agent and there is some circumstantial evidence supporting this.  He did have some connections with Al Qaeda, but they seem to be sporadic and not consequential.  He admitted to being involved in 9/11 because of the torture.  All the torture in the movie is representative of American interrogation techniques.  Although Slahi claims it was worse in reality, it is also possible that the movie shows methods used against various prisoners and puts them all on Slahi.

As far as the characters, they are true to life.  Hollander was contacted by Slahi’s family.  She did construct her case based on lack of evidence.  As in the movie, Hollander came to believe Slahi’s story and they are friends since.  Duncan was her assistant.  Couch did drop out of the case when he learned the confession had been achieved by way of inhumane methods.  He did have a friend who was one of the pilots whose plane crashed into one of the towers.

Dog (2022)

 

                Dogs have been used in war since ancient history.  The earliest mention was in a history of King Alyattes, King of Lydia, around 600 B.C. He used the war dogs against the invading Cimmerians.  There have been a few movies that told the stories of actual war dogs.  “Sergeant Stubby” is set in WWI,  “Chips, The War Dog” is WWII, and “Megan Leavey” in Iraq.  “Dog” is different because it is not based on a true story and it covers a post-war dog.  The film saw the directorial debuts of Channing Tatum and Reid Carolin.  The story was inspired by Tatum’s experience with his dying dog, Lulu.  They took a road trip and Tatum found it cathartic.  The movie was dedicated to Lulu.  Three dogs played the dog, also called Lulu.  In the movie, Lulu is a Belgian Malinos.  The pandemic shut the production down for 9 months.  This was actually beneficial as the cast was better able to bond with Britta, Lana 5, and Zuza.  The movie was a hit.  It cost $15 million and made $85 million.  This is a testament to the box office appeal of Channing Tatum.  And dogs.

                The scrapbook of a war dog and his handler (these are called “I Love Me” books) highlights the credits.  Jackson Briggs (Tatum) was a Ranger, but now he is working at Subway because of a brain injury.  Like many cinematic veterans, he’s having trouble adjusting to civilian life.  He desperately wants to return to the military.  His ex-commanding officer holds out that possibility if he does a job for him.  A comrade of Briggs, who was a dog handler in the Middle East,  has recently died and Briggs reluctantly agrees to transport the dog to his funeral.  Lulu has anger management problems, so the pair both have PTSD.  After the funeral, Briggs is to drop Lulu off at a base where she will be euthanized.  Briggs has no problem with this outcome.  At first.

  We’ve got ourselves a road trip movie, so clearly there will be bonding over a series of adventures.  For instance, Lulu runs into the woods and Briggs has an encounter with a militia-type.  Briggs uses Lulu to pretend he is blind to get a free hotel room.  Briggs visits his daughter, but his ex-wife doesn’t allow him to see her.  Lulu ruins Briggs chance of a threesome.  Lulu bites a Middle Eastern man, which gets Briggs arrested for a hate crime.  The truck breaks down and they hitchhike.  Will they make it to the funeral?  Will Lulu be put down?  Gue

Since this is a road trip movie, some of the plot is predictable.  It has the usual format of a series of vignettes.  There is an eclectic mix of songs that provides the soundtrack for their trek.  The PTSD plot does break new ground by involving a military dog, but Briggs is a stock character.  The movie relies on Tatum’s charm to compensate for it’s lack of originality.  Tatum carries the movie as he is the only recognizable actor in it, aside from a cameo by Bill Burr.  His co-stars, the dogs, are decent actors, but you will not be amazed at their acting.  They don’t get to show much range because the movie makes the questionable decision to not show Lulu in flashbacks.  There are vague references to her career.  However, we don’t know why she has PTSD.  Did she search for IED’s?  Did she patrol bases?  At least, she gets some therapy, unlike Briggs.  The movie does not serve as a tribute to war dogs, which would seemingly have been low-hanging fruit since it is aimed at dog-lovers.  We are left with a Channing Tatum movie.  Entertaining, but dog-eared.

GRADE  =  C