Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich
From: eich@uiuccsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: 'The Day After' - (nf)
Message-ID: <3990@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Nov-83 15:46:57 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3990
Posted: Sun Nov 20 15:46:57 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Nov-83 02:37:10 EST
Lines: 29

#R:rlgvax:-140500:uiuccsb:11000069:000:1415
uiuccsb!eich    Nov 18 14:13:00 1983


I do intend to watch it if I've got the time.

But the producers were not so scrupulous about not hinting at who
started the final war as you indicated (DoD I don't expect subtlety
from).  There was the line spoken by a fictitious Russian General which
mumbled something about Pershing II launcher movement on the East
German border.  This has now been excised, but its presence in a
near-final cut shows not only bias but possibly a specific political
aim (naming a weapon about to be deployed by NATO).

Newsweek reports that Nick Meyer claimed to be aghast at finding this
line in a work he takes pride in (he didn't have a completely free hand
editorially, unsurprisingly).  He noted that the executives who allowed
this example of bias to get through seemed oblivious to its
portentousness.  Maybe, but it warms the cockles of the Freeze groups
(for which, again, it was pre-screened, another dubious practice).

That's a good point about civil defense -- in order to make a film
titled "The Day After" one has to suppose there would be enough people
alive and capable of histrionics.  Somebody in net.tv was of the
opinion that conservatives disliked the movie because "some people will
come to believe, after viewing the movie, that there is not as great a
need as we thought to freeze the nuclear build-up, while liberals may
feel that this is to the advantage of the nuclear program."  Can you
beat that?