300 articles and commentaries that try to convince readers that the answer to this question must be yes. Dismantle all bombs and reactors before the centennial of the Trinity Nuclear Bomb Test on July 16, 1945. Sooner would be better, but since the human race loves centennials, this is one to put in your calendar.
The French Association of
Thyroid Disease Sufferers (L’Association
française des malades de la thyroïde, AFMT) has published a graphic novel
based on the trial records of the case it brought against the French state. The
storyboard tells how the government minimized the consequences of Chernobyl on
the national territory, with a disregard for the health of citizens.
The battle lasted ten years.
In March 2001, the AFMT, the Commission for Independent Research and
Information on Radioactivity (CriiRAD), and fifty-one patients with thyroid
disease filed a criminal complaint against “X” for involuntary injury (coups et blessures involontaires). They
blame the state for having minimized the impact on French territory of the
radioactive fallout from the explosion at the Chernobyl power plant on April 26th,
1986, and they also blame it for having taken no precautionary measures. On
September 7th, 2011, the Paris Court of Appeal pronounced a “general dismissal”
(un non-lieu général), which was
confirmed by the Supreme Court in November 2012. Professor Pellerin, the head
of the Central Agency for Protection from Ionizing Radiation (Service central de protection contre les
rayonnements ionisants, SCPRI) at the time had his name definitively cleared,
at the age of 87. The next year, a last recourse was rejected at the European
Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
André Couzet, an active
member of the AFMT for thirteen years, asked, “After that, what was left for
us? Our frustration and several dozen boxes of documents. In the court records,
we found information that shows unambiguously the role played by French
authorities. We thought a graphic novel would be an original way to make people
understand what really happened.” He hopes also that the work will help the
sufferers to “mourn” their status as victims, which was never previously
recognized. “Many people find it absurd that the nation was told that the
Chernobyl cloud stopped at the French border… but few people know what really
came down and what effect it had on the health of French people.”
The graphic novel entitled Chernobyl, the Endless Cloud, will be
officially released on April 23, 2016. It covers close to 900 files in the
court record. It required the work of ten people over a year, primarily members
of the AFMT organization (Chantal L’Hoir, the founder, Marc Saint Aroman and André
Crozet). The work was supported by financial help from Réseau Sortir du Nucléaire and 300 donors who provided 24,000 Euros
in a crowdfunding drive.
Along with the graphic novel
there is a website, www.nuagesansfin.info
that will provide dozens of files from the trial. This will allow readers to
have access to the sources. The sixty-four pages of illustrations were based on
the most striking of the files. One can discover, for example, the sales trend
for Levothyrox in pharmacies since the start of the 1980s—a document from the
laboratories of pharmaceutical companies that was very hard to obtain. “Sales
of this drug just took off after 1986,” says judge Bertell-Geffroy, “to the
point where today one French person out of eight or ten needs thyroid hormone
therapy.” A few pages later, a page compares two maps of France: the “official”
one distributed in the 1990s by the the authorities showing “no notable
contamination,” and the other one made by citizens during the same period.
Rather than being
fantastical allegations, these measurements conform with more recent assessments
which constitute a sort of admission on the part of the Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire (IRSN, formerly
the SCPRI). In 2005, the IRSN published a new map showing levels of cesium 137
up to 1,000 times higher, in the same places, than was admitted twenty years
earlier. Chantal L’Hoir, founder of the AFMT, says, “This file exists due to
the determined efforts of judge Bertella-Geffroy.”
Marc Saint-Aman, a volunteer
for the AFMT and administrator for Réseau
Sortir du Nucléaire, adds, “The court record is full of documents like
this.” For over a year he sorted through thousands of pages in the record to
select the ones which would be put on the internet site www.nuagesansfin.info.
Motive
for the Crime
According to the authors, in
the spring of 1986, the state committed at best mistakes, at worst, denial.
Professor Pellerin declared on television, two days after the catastrophe, that
it “presented no threat to public health, … except perhaps in the immediate
vicinity of the power plant, and still it is especially only inside the plant
where the Russians have admitted that people were injured.” A few days later,
on May 6th, the Minister of Agriculture, François Guillaume, confirmed, “The
French territory, because it is so far away, was totally spared from the
successive fallout of radionuclides coming from the power plant in Chernobyl.”
The episode of the spinach contaminated
with 2,600 Bq/kg is instructive. The prefect of Haut-Rhin, Madhi Hacène, wanted
to ban the distribution of spinach. Marc Saint-Aroman, a member of AFMT, said, “Ten
days later, Charles Pasqua, then Minister of the Interior, reacted by saying no
change in eating habits was required. He added that there was no need to follow
the recommendations that the WHO announced on May 6th, and thus
products were clear for export.” Alain Madelin, then Minister of Industry, also
stressed that there was no health risk from the passing clouds:
“I already had the occasion
to say that we could start to worry and go to the doctor, if by chance we found—but
we haven’t found—in the products shipped three tons of irradiated spinach and
we had the intention to not wash them and then ingest them in the coming days.”
While countries neighboring
France began dumping irradiated products (meat, milk, vegetables), France did
not protect its own citizens and it continued to export, putting neighboring
populations equally at risk. The book explains that on May 10th, the European
Commission suspended imports of meat of cattle and pork from the USSR and
neighboring countries. These were simple preventive measures that would be
applied throughout Europe, except in France where only one order was given: do
nothing. Even in the USSR, a civil defense colonel sounded the alarm:
“Inhabitants have absorbed
in one day fifty times the amount of radiation permitted in one year for
nuclear workers. At this rate, a fatal dose would be reached in four days.”
The graphic novel does
historical research to uncover why France acted against the grain. Marc
Saint-Aroman explains ironically, “What must be understood is that in 1986
there were more than fifteen reactors still under construction in France. So
this is the motive for the crime. Thirty years later, France is in second place
in electricity generated by nuclear, behind the United States. France produces
half of the gigawatts on the European continent.
Zone
of No Rights
In spite of the evidence,
the legal case went nowhere. Everyone has an explanation:
“We have to understand that
under the law, one is obliged to prove a link between damage (such as thyroid
cancer) and that which caused it. If the judge cannot establish a causal link
that is direct and certain, it’s a case of ‘move along, nothing to see here.’”
At the office of Benoît
Busson, lawyer for Réseau Sortir du
nucléaire, it is understood that this type of case is difficult to deal
with in the justice system. “The acts of hiding data, misinforming or
underestimating are not in themselves crimes. They are better understood as political
mistakes or mistakes liable to civil action. The people who had thyroid
diseases could have launched a civil trial and seen better results, but first
they would have had to pay for experts, which is extremely costly. Second, such
trials face many delays and take up to ten years to take account of all the
evidence.
The judge (juge d’instruction) Bertella-Geffroy
knew all these constraints. Aware that it would be extremely difficult to
establish a causal link between the passage of the cloud and the rise in
thyroid pathologies, she bet on a charge of “aggravated deception” more than “injury.”
Yet after multiple warrants sent to the Ministry of Health, the Interior, and Agriculture,
and to the national weather agency, all the confidential documents gathered
were not sufficient to establish a solid case. The precautionary principle was
obvious by its absence in the case. She declares regretfully, “Health has no
value in the economy.” And, actually, neither does justice have a value in the
economy. The judge was abruptly taken off the case fifteen days before the
closed-door session which led finally to a dismissal.
For Michèle Rivasi, Green
Party representative in the European Parliament since 2009, the influence of
the nuclear lobby is still very powerful today. The “lies of state”
post-Chernobyl, denounced by the AFMT, could be told again if a nuclear
catastrophe happened in France. She says regretfully, “Still today in the
nuclear industry decisions are not made in the ministries or by commissions,
but directly at the executive level. Nuclear is a domain unto itself,
undemocratic, a sort of zone where there are no rights.**
The title Chernobyl, the Endless Cloud designates
a fog that still lingers over this entire affair, thirty years later. It also
refers to the millennial time span of the radiation that escaped from the
nuclear power plant on April 26th, 1986.
Translator’s
Notes
*
In France a juge d’instruction
is responsible for conducting the investigative hearing that precedes a
criminal trial. In order for the judge to recommend a criminal trial, he or she
must find not just probable cause (as in an American grand jury trial) but
sufficient evidence of guilt to warrant a criminal trial.
**
Ms.
Rivasi’s comments apply equally well to any nation that possesses nuclear
weapons or power plants.
The
abolition of nuclear weapons might be the most elusive goal in the world, but it
is the one which most easily gains approval across ideological and national
divides. It is such laudable goal to support that it attracts those who seek
refuge from the more divisive and dirty struggles of the world that are the
root causes of the problem. People might disagree about the means to achieve nuclear
disarmament, but everyone applauds everyone for saying nuclear arms should be
eliminated. Even Henry Kissinger signed on to the Global Zero project. It’s the
easiest way in the world to polish one’s humanitarian credentials.
This
aspect of nuclear disarmament can be seen in the story told by the songwriter Pete
Townshend about how he and his bandmates in The Who were at a loss for things
to write about for their final album, It’s
Hard (1982). He had always tried to write socially relevant music, but he
carried no labels, no banner for hippies or progressives. The Who were wealthy
rock musicians, and they didn’t seem to feel any need to apologize for being
rich. Famous for smashing his guitar on stage, the apparent revolutionary Pete
Townshend was also famous for writing rock’s greatest anti-revolution song, We Won’t Get Fooled Again (meet the new
boss, same as the old boss). In 1981, after surviving the 1960s and 70s, and after
coming out of a deep personal crisis and a near break-up of the band, Townshend
asked them:
What
do you want to sing about? Tell me, and I'll write the songs. Do you want to
sing about race riots? Do you want to sing about the nuclear bomb? Do you want
to sing about soya bean diets? Tell me!' And everyone kind of went, 'Uhhh.' So
I said, 'Shall I tell you what I think we should be singing about?' So I told
them. And it actually turned into a debate...what was it that each one of us
shared, our common ground? Well, after establishing quite quickly that there
was very little common ground, we did find that we all cared very deeply about
the planet, the people on it, about the threat to our children from nuclear
war, of the increasing instability of our own country's politics. [1]
This anecdote
exemplifies how nuclear disarmament is the last refuge (of scoundrels such as Henry Kissinger sometimes, now a signatory of Global Zero),
the issue everyone turns to when there is nothing else they can agree on,
nothing else they can stomach fighting for. And this is exactly why the abolition
movement constantly fails to achieve anything. Barbie said it about math, and
The Who said it in their last album: It’s hard. The road to nuclear disarmament
goes through all those sticky, intractable social and political problems that
anti-nuclear activists thought they could put aside while they devoted
themselves to the highest goal of all.
This fact
was more obvious at the dawn of the nuclear age when WWII was recent enough to help
everyone maintain the proper perspective. Another world war fought only with conventional
weapons could also be enough to finish off civilization. Nuclear weapons were
only a by-product of the underlying problem. In 1955, Albert Einstein and
Bertrand Russell released their famous 1955 statement calling for the
elimination of nuclear weapons, but it actually placed more emphasis on the
abolition of war. They stated, "Although an agreement to renounce nuclear
weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an
ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes." Later, in a
footnote, they called for a "concomitant balanced reduction of all
armaments." [2]
It seems
that even the leadership in disarmament organizations have, ironically, now constructed
silos for themselves within which they study disarmament in isolation from the
underlying problems of inequality, ecological degradation, the abuse of the
United Nations and international law and, especially, the deployment of
conventional military power. This at least seems to be the case in what is
written in English by some disarmament groups and think tanks in the US and the
UK, by writers who are deeply influenced by life inside the bubble of Western groupthink
on international relations.
This bias
was on full display this week in an article by Rachel Bronson, executive director
and publisher of TheBulletin
of the Atomic Scientists in which
she condemned Russia for having boycotted the recent Nuclear Security Summit:
Deteriorated
relations between the United States and Russia make for a terribly risky world
security situation. As badly as the Russians are behaving in Ukraine and Syria,
Washington simply must continue to reach out. “We have an existential stake in
each other’s competency,” stated Nunn, and he’s right. The two countries with
the most nuclear weapons under their control need to engage—for their sake, and
for the world's. Examined in this light, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
decision to boycott the Nuclear Security Summit is more than inconvenient; it
was a diplomatic travesty and an abdication of responsibility to his own
people. [3]
One might have thought that people who work on nuclear disarmament are
experts in peace studies and conflict resolution, always going the extra mile to
understand the context, psychology and feelings of everyone involved in the
problem, but in this quotation we see a stunning display of willful ignorance
of the Russian point of view. There is also the moral judgment that the
Russians have behaved badly in Ukraine and Syria, implying, laughably, that
America and its accomplices have behaved well in those places. No effort is
made to find out why the Russians boycotted the summit, even though the Russian
frustration with the West has been fully explained by various Russian
government representatives, Russian media, and even, most thoroughly, by
American historian Stephen F. Cohen [4]. In this American perspective in The Bulletin, there is no
self-criticism, and no awareness that the Russians might feel they have
justified reasons for not attending. In this view, they are behaving badly, but we
are inherently good, so we must take the high road and bear with those who sin
against us, “we must continue to reach out,” but it is an eternal mystery to us
that they fail to see our beneficence.
By this point it has been well-established that the 2014 coup in Ukraine
was instigated by the US State department and that the results have been a
disaster. It was a continuation of the broken American promise made to
Gorbachev to not expand NATO eastward, a desperate attempt to open up a market
for Western goods and weaponry in a nation that is historically, culturally,
linguistically and geographically connected to Russia. It was a bridge too far for the expansion of Western power, as Russia pushed back and the coup failed to deliver on its promises. Now Ukraine has a load of IMF debt and an austerity package that forces the selloff of national assets. Meanwhile, the natural trade ties with Russia have been severed.
Lawrence Wilkerson (national security adviser to the Reagan administration, chief
of staff to Colin Powell during the Bush administration), said of the debacle,
…about a third, 20% I’ll say, to 30 percent of Russia’s
heavy armaments industry is in Ukraine. What do they do for tanks? What do they
do for their heavy armaments in their military if Ukraine goes? The idea that
we could do something in Ukraine, covert or otherwise, and have Putin not
respond is just laughable. [5]
Americans can debate whether Russia acted outside of international law to
provide assistance to ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine, thereby averting a
prolonged, bloody civil war, or again when they conducted a referendum in
Crimea, averting a civil war there as well, but the world doesn’t have much
patience left to be lectured in international law by the United States. America
declared itself above international law at the start of the Cold War, and has
abused it numerous times since then. The suggestion that it was the Russians
who “behaved badly” in Syria is just laughable at this point, as America’s
record of disastrous and illegal regime change operations in the Middle East is
so well documented by this time. [6]
The main impediment to nuclear arms reduction has nothing to do with
nuclear arms. Former president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, spoke of how
Russia and all other nations see the problem when he asked plainly,
Can we really imagine a
world without nuclear weapons if a single country amasses so many conventional
weapons that its military budget nearly tops that of all other countries
combined? Demilitarization should be put back on the agenda of international
politics. This includes a reduction of military budgets, a moratorium on the
development of new types of weapons and a prohibition on militarizing space. Many
are already talking about a new cold war. Talks between both powers over
important global problems have practically been put on ice. That includes the
question of nuclear disarmament. Trust, the very capital we worked so hard to
build, has been destroyed. [7]
Gorbachev mentioned here precisely three items
that Americans did not want on the agenda of the Nuclear Security Summit: the reduction
of military budgets, a moratorium on the development of new types of weapons,
and a prohibition on militarizing space. Instead, the summit was mostly
concerned with the sham of “securing” (always a relative term) nuclear
materials and decreasing the chances of a terrorist attack on nuclear
facilities. So if the Americans don’t want to talk about these things, why
should the Russians, or anyone else, show up to lend legitimacy to process
which consciously avoids these critical issues? Russia has been trying to get
the Americans to stop militarizing space since the Reagan years, but still
America persists. So Russia did the right thing by sitting this one out because
doing so creates an opportunity for other nations to question the status quo
and create a new one for a future security summit, hopefully one at which the
agenda will not be set by the self-proclaimed “indispensable” nation in the
whole process.
The really interesting question, however, is
to ask why all this needs to be explained to the executive director and publisher of TheBulletin of Atomic Scientists. I’m not
suggesting that America is entirely responsible for the lack of progress in
nuclear disarmament, but it is disheartening to see that an institution as well
respected as The Bulletin has become so blind to critical views of the exercise
of American power, and such a dupe for the anti-Russia propaganda that has
circulated in the Western media for the last ten years. When nuclear
disarmament groups become concealed platforms for nationalist agendas, they are
part of the problem, not the solution.
Notes
[1] The Hypertext
Who: It's Hard. See the appendix below for a discussion of song on the
album about the nuclear arms race.
Pete
Townshend: "I don't know how it is over in the States, but over here if
you try to get in a conversation about arms buildup or nuclear weapons, people
turn away and order another pint of Guinness, and they want to talk about
bloody Arsenal! [the football club] They're
going to be dead tomorrow if they don't start thinking about it... but they're
embarrassed; 'It's annoying...oh, don't talk about that! We're impotent, we're
neutered.' Now that is what's happened to rock 'n' roll."
The line
"Four minutes to midnight on a sunny day" refers to the Clock on the
front cover of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Much
publicized in the early 1980's, this clock represented by minutes to midnight
how close the scientists felt the world was to nuclear war. In January 1981 the
worsening political situation led them to move the hands to four minutes to
midnight. The Clash made a similar reference to the Clock on their song The Call Up from Sandinista!("It's
55 minutes past 11"). Pete on the line "It never rains under my
umbrella": "we've just sat back under the nuclear umbrella and lived
our lives, taken our drugs, listened to our blues. I don't want to sound like
fucking Pravda or anything, but we have been a pretty
impotent, unthinking [generation]."
Six months
after the release of It's Hard, President Reagan would
announce the SDI initiative, popularly known as "star wars"; an
attempt to build a nuclear missile defense system Reagan characterized as an
"umbrella" against nuclear attack.
The
streets of the future littered with remains
Of both the fools and all the so-called brains
The whole prediction is enough to kill
But only God knows if it won't or it will
Nobody knows why we fell so flat
Some silly creature said we'd never crack
Most would just survive and then bounce back
But the rest are crying "Why'd I fall for that crap?"
Why did I fall for that?
So many
rash promises sincerely made
By people who believed that we were being saved
They made us all believe that we were acting white
But the truth is we've forgotten how we used to fight
Nobody knows why we fell so flat
We're impotent and neutered like whining cats
We've found the piper but we've lost the rats
But the kids are crying "Why'd I fall for that, dad?"
Why did you fall?
It never
rains under my umbrella
Four
minutes to midnight on a sunny day
Maybe if we smile the clock'll fade away
Maybe we can force the hands to just reverse
Maybe is a word, maybe maybe is a curse
Nobody knows why we fell so flat
We've never been taught to fight or to face up to facts
We simply believe that we'd remain intact
But history is asking why did you fall for that?
Why did you fall?
Why did I
fall for that?
Why did I fall for that?
Why did I fall for that?
The Day the Earth
Stood Still (20th Century-Fox, 1951)
directed by Robert Wise, produced by Julian Blaustein, written
by Edmund H. North
based on the shorty story Farewell to the Master, by Harry Bates
Synopsis of The Day the Earth Stood Still (spoiler
alert)
An alien (Klaatu) (who is identical in physiology to humans) with his mighty robot (Gort) land their
spacecraft on Cold War-era Earth just after the end of World War II when
planetary survival is threatened by the nuclear arms race. They bring an
important message to the planet that Klaatu wishes to tell to representatives
of all nations. However, conveying that message to all of the world’s political
leaders proves to be impossible, so, after learning something about the
natives, Klaatu decides on an alternative approach. The aliens have understood
that earthlings will soon be able to use atomic power for inter-planetary
travel, and because they are still warlike, the federation of planets decided
that earth must be destroyed if it cannot be convinced to submit to the pact of
non-violence that all other planets live by.
Interestingly, Klaatu explains to humans that he has traveled to Earth by an advanced form of atomic power, and this story element reveals that in 1951 even among extreme peaceniks there was a firm belief that nuclear energy had uncomplicated potential for peaceful applications. There was no consideration of the dangers of radioactive fallout, and little thought given to the hazards of uranium mining and nuclear waste disposal, nor to the risks of reactor meltdowns. To the extent that there were any concerns about these, the hazards were deemed to be manageable. This started to change only in the late 1950s.
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Klaatu and Helen, Gort in the background
About the director
For over fifty years Robert Wise has made great movies.
He won the Academy Award for West Side
Story and for The Sound of Music.
But his movies have done more than just entertain us. Working in all genres, he
has helped us think about the human condition. Racism, capital punishment,
power and purpose in the corporate boardroom, questions of war and peace, the
dangers of nuclear and biological weapons—all have been addressed at one time
or another in his films, and often ahead of his time. After watching a Robert
Wise film, we leave the theater not only entertained but also enlightened by a
director who uses his mastery of cinema not so much to leave us conscious of
his style as to tell us a story so that we might better understand the world
around us.
The Day the Earth Stood Still seemed
on the surface to be one of the many typical, low-grade science fiction films cranked
out by Hollywood, but critics, historians and the public quickly noted there
was more to it. It became a classic, recognized for the brilliant way it
managed be very human and realistic, and for the way it managed to criticize
both sides in the Cold War at the height of the anti-communist witch hunts that
had silenced the American entertainment industry and intelligentsia. Though the
film focuses on an alien threat, this device was a veil over the real threat
that the audience could understand implicitly. Now that both the Soviets and
Americans had large arsenals of nuclear weapons, everyone knew that total destruction
could be achieved without the help of aliens.
After being shot in the arm and captured, Klaatu is under
guard at a hospital in Washington. He reveals to the President's secretary, Mr.
Harley (Frank Conroy), that he bears a message so momentous and urgent that it
must be revealed to all the world's leaders simultaneously. However, Harley
tells him that it would be impossible to get the world leaders to agree to
meet. This scene is carefully crafted so as to not come off as explicitly anti-American
or accusing of the USSR. Mr. Harley says only ambiguously that Klaatu must be
aware of “evil forces that have produced the trouble in our world.” Those forces might be the atom bomb itself or the enemy against which we, "the good guys" must fight against.
Klaatu escapes from the hospital and lodges at a boarding house, assuming
the alias John Carpenter. Among the residents are Helen Benson
(Patricia Neal), a World War II widow, and her son Bobby (Billy Gray). While staying at the boarding house, Klaatu visits the famous physicist Jacob Barnhardt (Sam
Jaffe), hoping to convince him of the need to convene the world’s top
scientists and politicians to hear his message.
Klaatu eventually finds that it is time to tell Helen who
he is so he can enlist her help. He finds her at her workplace where she leads him to
an unoccupied elevator which mysteriously stops at noon, trapping them
together. A montage sequence shows that, as a demonstration to capture the
attention of the world, Klaatu has neutralized all electric power everywhere
around the planet, except in situations that would compromise human safety, such
as hospitals and airplanes in flight.
After the thirty-minute blackout ends, the manhunt for Klaatu
intensifies as Tom, Helen’s fiancé, informs authorities of his suspicions.
Helen is upset that Tom placed importance on his jealousy and ambition to be the hero who catches the alien. She breaks off their relationship and
helps Klaatu complete his mission.
During the chase, Klaatu is mortally wounded by army
soldiers, but he has instructed Helen that should anything happen to him, she
must tell Gort "Klaatu barada nikto". Helen heads to the spaceship
and gives Gort the message. Gort leaves her in the spaceship, then goes to retrieve
Klaatu's corpse. Gort then revives Klaatu while Helen watches. Astute observers
of the film noted that John Carpenter has the same initials as Christ, and in
the final scene he rises from the dead, but industry watchdogs forced the
writer of the story to make Klaatu explain that his revival is only temporary.
Even with advanced medical technology, they cannot overcome death. Like
other mortals, he does not know how long he will live. This fix actually helped
to make the story more human and "down to earth."
Klaatu steps out of the spaceship and addresses the
assembled scientists, explaining that humanity's penchant for violence,
combined with its discovery of nuclear energy and first steps into space, have
caused concern among other inhabitants of the universe. On other planets,
intelligent creatures have created, empowered, and submitted themselves to robot
enforcers who deter such aggression. He warns that if the people of Earth voyage
into space with their violent tendencies unreformed, the robots will destroy
Earth. He finishes by saying, "The decision rests with you." He
enters the spaceship and departs.
DVD Extras:
Interviews and 1952 Newsreel
The texts below come from the supplementary videos on the
2003 DVD release. The interviews were conducted in 1995, and they reveal how
the director and producer were determined to find a way around the censorship
and the negative political atmosphere of the era. They also discuss the
ambiguous intentions of the film around the question of surrendering national sovereignty
to an international entity.
Patricia Neal, who played the role of Helen, said that
she couldn’t take the story seriously during filming, and kept laughing during
rehearsals. However, she felt differently when she saw the film. It’s just a
sci-fi flick, but it had a lasting impact on world culture and on history. The
idea of a meeting of world scientists was taken by the writer from Einstein’s
1949 Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace, but then perhaps the
film had an influence on the Russell-Einstein manifesto of 1956, on the Pugwash
conferences that followed from it, and on the entire counter-cultural and
anti-nuclear movement that emerged later in the decade. According to President
Reagan’s biographer, Reagan liked the notion that extraterrestrial invasion
would trump national differences, and he mentioned the scenario upon
meeting Mikhail Gorbachev for the first time at Geneva in 1985. [1]
The Movietone
Newsreel transcript reveals exactly what US Secretary Harley’s words in the
film refer to in the real world. The report on the San Francisco Peace Treaty
shows Western leaders speaking with an utter disregard for diplomatic civility
toward the Soviet Union. The former WWII ally is here mocked as if by crude, adolescent
bullies, and this report from the free Western press makes no attempt to tone
down the rhetoric with more objective language. It speaks for government
agencies with enthusiasm for vilification, as if it were the product of a wartime
propaganda machine, which it was essentially. Ironically, the newsreel includes
a report on the film The Day the Earth
Stood Still winning a science fiction award. At the end of the newsreel, the
male adolescent mentality or the time comes through again in the language used
to describe the Miss America and Mrs. America pageants of 1952. Irony upon ironies:
the newsreel was distributed by 20th Century-Fox, the same company that
produced The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Interviews on the
making of The Day the Earth Stood Still,
from the 2003 DVD, interviews conducted in 1995
Robert Wise
(director) 00:01:16
It was a marvelous way to tell a science fiction film. I
liked so much about what it had to say, particularly at this time. This was the
early 50s after WWII. We had had the atomic bombs on Japan which caused such a
furor, rightly so, around the world, so it was very, very hot subject matter.
It's grown hotter over the years of course with all the threat of nuclear war
that has gone on up until recent times and maybe still. So, I went back to see
Julian and I said, "Listen, I love the film. I think it's a marvelous
script and a marvelous way to tell a science fiction film and a marvelous way
to get a message over to this world that says, "Let's stop fooling around
with this atomic bomb that we've invented... and start being sane about this
whole matter."
Robert Wise
(director) 01:04:10
The fact that the story of The Day the Earth Stood Still had something important to say was
very meaningful to me. I've been anti-militarist my whole life... I made a
number of films that say we should stop wars, stop fighting and somehow get
along... I made a film called The Sand Pebbles about a gunboat on the Yangtze
River in China with Steve McQueen playing the lead in it. It had a message to
America saying, "Stop showing your military might all around the world,"
as we've been doing since the early part of the [20th] century... It's been
important for me to have something vital to be said in my films, but never,
hopefully, to get up on a soap box and talk about what the message is, or the
theme, but to have brought it out and dramatized it through the story itself...
except, interestingly enough, in The Day the Earth Stood Still... where Klaatu
gets up and delivers [his message] to the scientists and important people there
what it is about: stop fooling around with your primitive atomic bombs and
warfare or we may have to do away with you.
Julian Blaustein
(producer) 00:01:57
The idea for the picture came from a series of newspaper
headlines which referred to the phrase "peace offensive." At the time
the Soviet Union was trying to talk peace and all the people, obviously, who
were enemies of the Soviet Union didn't trust them and it became a "peace
offensive" and it seemed like such a contradiction in terms that
characterized that whole period that we were living in. The atmosphere and
political ambience was so negative, and I wondered if we could do something to
say that peace is a five-letter word, not a dirty word. The screen [motion
picture industry] has maybe a responsibility. It started that way and then I
said I'm never going to find a story that will carry that idea without becoming
a tract, without becoming a non-entertainment piece of work that Darryl Zanuck
[head of Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation] would never approve. He had
the approval of what we did. And it suddenly hit me the science fiction story
might be the way to go.
What turns out to be a man steps off the space ship,
brings an offering as a gift, but because it's strange and certainly unusual,
he's immediately shot at by our military and seriously wounded. That appealed
to me. The way that we deal with strange things is with weapons, guns, no
effort at finding out how the other person thinks, feels, works. Different from
us? Kill him.
And the main idea in that story that was appealing was
the fact that peace in the universe had been achieved by sacrificing some
sovereignty to a central agency, but irrevocably, so that the United Nations,
for us, became the focal point of the way to go to world peace. Give the United
Nations full authority to step in, to put down violence wherever they saw it—give
them the equipment, the manpower, which we knew was unrealistic. To give up
sovereignty is something that is very tough to ask heavily nationalistic
entities to do, but it was an idea that was very appealing.
Billy Gray (child
actor in the film) 1:06:15
The message is incredibly powerful and it is just as
important today, if not more so than then. I don't think the Soviet Union
really had ideas of world conquest. That was started by our industrial military
complex to fatten everybody's purse primarily... and I think this picture
addressed that dilemma and it probably wasn't very popular. It was right around
the "red scare" time. This was 1951. The McCarthy hearings were
happening. It took a lot of courage to put this movie together.
Julian Blaustein
(producer) 01:07:18
The political landscape was scarred by this political
attitude in Washington, picked up by that portion of the press and the public
that agreed that there were communists under everybody's bed, and if you
belonged to this kind of organization or made that kind of comment, you were a
danger. And it hurt a lot of people. It was not an atmosphere in which
political positions that were unpopular might well have been financed by motion
picture companies, but we never had any trouble, as I remember it, except for
Sam Jaffe. He was attacked after the picture was made. The picture was attacked
because of him, but not because of the subject matter, which is interesting.
Robert Wise
(director) 1:09:58
In spite of the fact that it's science fiction, it's very
credible... credible situations, credible characters, even though the key
character is from outer space.
Narration from:
49 Nations Sign
Japanese Peace Treaty, Movietone News Inc.,
1952, distributed by 20th Century-Fox
Story 1
In spite of Soviet Russia's attempt to wreck it, the San
Francisco Japanese Peace Treaty Conference attended by 52 nations moves to a
successful conclusion, [with the] final hours highlighted by John Dulles
exposing Soviet plans to make the Japan Sea a Russian lake.
Congressman Armstrong's presentation to Gromyko of a map
showing all the slave camps in the USSR, [is] quickly discarded by his aide.
The New Zealand delegate, Sir Carl Berenson [makes
a] dramatic statement of a fact the Russians overlook. "The United States, with the
full cooperation of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and other
members of the British Commonwealth, fought the Japanese for four years! And
the Soviet Union fought them for six days!"
A bit of blatant hypocrisy by the Polish delegate getting
the treatment it deserves: “A great English man once said, that to preach
freedom of discussion is not enough, you have to practice it. If you don't
practice it... [laughter erupts in the hall].
The treaty sponsored by Britain and the United States succeeds
as the signing begins, a triumph for Mr. Acheson the Russians couldn't bear to
witness. They deserted the party. [Signing] for the Argentine, the Commonwealth
of Australia, the Dominion of Canada, la belle France, communist defeater
Greece, the Philippine Islands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and
finally Japan. Mr. Dulles and Secretary Acheson deserve the plaudits of their
country and the free world.
Five hours later at San Francisco's Presidio, Secretary
Acheson and his loyal bipartisan spokesman Mr. Dulles, with premier Yoshida of
Japan, compound the diplomatic victory scored at the peace treaty conference.
In the hall of the headquarters of the Sixth Army, they assemble to conclude a
mutual defense pact between the United States and Japan. Mr. Acheson signs for
the United States while his prototype from across the Pacific, Premier Yoshida,
signs for his empire, former enemies becoming allies in a security pact against
communist aggression in the Far East.
Story 2
Accepting the city's salute in Cleveland, Ohio, General
MacArthur makes this observation on Japan: "In this post-war period of
general failure to attain real peace, one of the bright spots has been
conquered Japan. It is a Japan which may now assume the burden of preparing its
own ground defense against predatory attack and thus in short time release our
own beloved divisions for a return home.
Story 3
Flash floods that accompany torrential rains make life
rugged for this Greek contingent of United Nations forces fighting communist
aggression in Korea. Waist deep in water, these veteran red-fighters
who've never fled from communist attacks find it strategically wise to pull up
stakes now. Nature's a real tough foe. Over northern Korea, rain-filled clouds
failed to impede a bombing mission of US Air Force B-29s. A marshalling area at
Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, being plastered in spite of occasional flak
from red enemy aircraft guns. An emergency truck wheels to the runway to meet a
returning sky giant that was slightly damaged by the fire from the ground. The
hits were superficial, however, and although the tail of the big ship is pretty
well riddled, not even the tail gunner was hit. Just a laugh for these
dauntless airmen.
Story 4
Klaatu, the weird Earth visitor in the 20th Century-Fox
film The Day the Earth Stood Still,
learns a quaint Earth custom. He receives a certificate of merit from the
Science Fiction Convention at New Orleans. He is presented by Chairman Moore
for the faithfulness of the film to the best science fiction traditions.
Story 5
Pomp and pulchritude on parade in Atlantic City and Miss
South Dakota bids for Miss America. Same girl in a bathing suit. Miss Indiana
poses a pretty problem for the judges as she seeks the laurels of loveliness.
Miss North Carolina, a bright-eyed belle of the South, sir. Right fetchin', I'd
say. And here's Miss Utah, five foot 10, eyes of blue, a blonde enchantress
whose blooming talent places her in the charmed circle. Colleen Kay Hutchins of
Salt Lake City crowned by last year's winner Yolande Betbeze, Miss America of
1952, America's reigning beauty, Queen Colleen.
Story 6
In Asbury Park, New Jersey, more bathing beauties vie for
the title of Mrs. America. These
wedded wonders are cheered on by happy husbands. Mrs. Virginia. Hmm. And Mrs.
Philadelphia. "Atta a girl, mommy." Mrs. California, and another
stunning bride, Mrs. New York City, an eye-catcher who catches the eye of the
judges. Easy, buster. Mrs. Penny Duncan is Mrs. America, a 5'7" strawberry
blonde, 126 pounds of heavenly homemaker, 22-year-old mother of a two-year-old
son. Hmm. How about that?
Selected dialog
from The Day the Earth Stood Still
Klaatu explains
the purpose of his visit to the president’s secretary
MR. HARLEY: Our world at the moment is full of tensions
and suspicions. In the present international situation, such a meeting would be
quite impossible.
KLAATU: What about your United Nations?
MR. HARLEY: You know about the United Nations?
KLAATU: We've been monitoring your radio broadcasts for a
good many years. That's how we learned your languages.
MR. HARLEY: I'm sure you recognize from our broadcasts
the evil forces that have produced the trouble in our world.Suely...
KLAATU: I'm not concerned with the internal
affairs of your planet. My mission here is not to solve your petty squabbles.
It concerns the existence of every last creature on Earth.
MR. HARLEY: Perhaps if you could explain a little...
KLAATU: I intend to explain… to all the nations, at the
same time. How do we proceed, Mr. Harley?
MR. HARLEY: Well, we could call a special meeting of the
General Assembly. But the UN doesn't represent all the nations.
KLAATU: Then I suggest a meeting of all the chiefs of
state.
MR. HARLEY: Believe me, you don't understand. They
wouldn't sit down to the same table.
KLAATU: I don't want to resort to threats, Mr. Harley. I
merely tell you that the future of your planet is at stake. I urge that you
transmit that message to the nations of the Earth.
MR. HARLEY: I will make that recommendation to the
president. But I must tell you in all honesty, I'm extremely dubious about the
results.
KLAATU: Apparently I'm not as cynical about Earth's
people as you are.
MR. HARLEY: I have been dealing in Earth's politics a good
deal longer than you have.
Klaatu explains that
he doesn’t have power over life and death
HELEN: I thought you were...
KLAATU: I was.
HELEN: You mean... he has the power of life and death?
KLAATU: No. That power is reserved to the Almighty
Spirit. This technique, in some cases, can restore life for a limited period.
HELEN: But... how long?
KLAATU: You mean, how long will I live? That, no one can
tell.
Klaatu’s final
statement to humanity
KLAATU: I am leaving soon, and you will forgive me if I
speak bluntly. The universe grows smaller every day, and the threat of
aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be
security for all, or no one is secure. This does not mean giving up any
freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your ancestors knew this when
they made laws to govern themselves, and hired policemen to enforce them. We of
the other planets have long accepted this principle. We have an organization
for the mutual protection of all planets, and for the complete elimination of
aggression. The test of any such higher authority is, of course, the police
force that supports it. For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their
function is to patrol the planets in spaceships like this one, and preserve the
peace. In matters of aggression we have given them absolute power over us. This
power cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they act automatically
against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible
to risk. The result is, we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the
knowledge that we are free from aggression and war, free to pursue more profitable
enterprises. We do not pretend to have achieved perfection, but we do have a
system, and it works. I came here to give you these facts. It is no concern of
ours how you run your own planet. But if you threaten to extend your violence,
this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder. Your choice is
simple. Join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face
obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you.
Note
[1] J. Hoberman, “The
Cold War Sci-Fi Parable That Fell to Earth,” New York Times, October 31, 2008. This article gives a detailed discussion of the film’s cultural legacy, and was
written just before the 2008 remake was released. A subsequent reviewer
for The Guardian wrote it was “a
stupendously dull remake of Robert Wise's 1951 sci-fi classic.” The remake,
heavily laden with special effects and a complicated plot, lacked the
simplicity and humanity of the original and is a footnote in film history, just like
it is in this essay.
