On The Beach [DVD]

Nightmares are very personal things. Probably because I was in the military at a time when nuclear war seemed more probable than it does now I occasionally had nightmares involving nuclear weapons - the end of all things I hold dear. Regardless of what that says about me, it is a problem that has not been resolved with the end of the Cold War.

I had read some negative reviews about Showtime's remake of the classic picture, so I wasn't sure it was worth watching. That was a mistake as large as the one that frames "On the Beach." This version far surpasses the original in presentation, depth of character, and, of course, effects.

Quite simply, "On the Beach" is the story of the crew of the last surviving American submarine, an Australian Naval officer, and that officer's wife and friends. A nuclear holocaust has created a cloud of radioactive dust that destroyed all life in the Northern hemisphere and is gradually making its way south. Worse, the Australian survivors have a good idea of when the radioactivity will arrive and kill them. When it does, humanity, and presumably most other life, will vanish from the planet. We may as well not have existed.

I've felt up until now that the 1959 classic with Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner was the most depressing film ever made. However, director Russell Mulcahy and an excellent cast including Armande Assante, Rachel Ward, and Grant Bowler make the 1959 version seem stilted and pale by comparison. This remake - perhaps reinterpretation is a better word - gives the characters a depth that now seems missing in the original film. Commander Towers displays an increasing disorientation as the film progresses. Moira has more to her character than that of a lush. And Lt. Holmes is clearly not happy about the time spent away from his wife who, in this version, better illuminates her increasing disconnection from the real world.

Still, I find one thing missing from both films. Dylan Thomas exhorted us not to go gently into that good night. Yet Australians and Americans - at least those in Alaska - seem to have no trouble taking suicide pills (with injections for pets and children - seems like it should have been the other way around.) There is a great ethical issue in taking the pills and injections that is not explored in either version, and yet what deserves more ethical and moral debate than whether it is human, in the best sense of the term, to slip silently and uncomplainingly from life? Aside from the insanity of humanity eliminating all higher life on the planet, this lack of exploration of ethical issues is the point that most bothered me about "On the Beach."

I've not read the book so I can't comment on which picture is closer to it. I will say that I think the ending of the newer version seemed at odds with Towers' character - perhaps it was merely a fantasy of Moira while she was dying, or perhaps a critical scene was deleted for timing. I hope it was not just the tendency of modern film makers to sweeten the ending! The earlier movie is much more consistent with Dwight Power's character.

So. This is a movie well worth three hours of your life. Aside from occasional histrionics from Julian Osborne in both versions, it presents people going about their lives as best they can. You are left to decide the meaning behind it, as we always are as individuals. There are no simple answers here, and even the questions the movie raises aren't simple.

The movie will leave you depressed. That shows you're thinking. Perhaps there's no solution to the conundrum of stellar forces, chemicals, and biologics available as weapons. Some serious thinkers have postulated that the reason we don't receive any radio signals from others in the galaxy is that civilizations reach a certain level, and then, when they have learned to unleash powers far above what evolution trained them to comprehend, destroy themselves.

This re-interpretation of the Shute story is worth watching. Given that it is more than twice as long as the first movie one might be forgiven for suspecting that it indulges in sentimental padding out of the relationships amongst the doomed; not so, it is true to the miserable point of the story. It has been updated a little and the quest for the submarine crew is slightly different but equally of no avail. Ultimately death comes to all; that's what I like about this tale: no happy ending. Regrettably, this version disgraces itself in the final scene by giving a little twist of evanescent joy.

SPOILERS AHEAD BEWARE As a end of the world fan i watched this film when it first came out and purchaced a copy as soon as i could. The film follows the lives of a submarine captain (Armand Assante) and his crew as they make their way to Melbourne after nuclear war had destroyed the rest of the world. We follow the lives of the people they meet as they reach Melbourne, to a hostile reception from the locals. The radiation that has killed the rest of the world is on the way , and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Chaos is on the streets as refugees from further up the coast line are trying to flee the inevitable. The submarine is sent on a mission , a signal is coming from the Northern Territory , where all life is known to have died, is the signal from a living person? Is there hope? Will they find evidence of survival before the radiation arrives in Melbourne?
The family that the captain meets in Melbourne feature in this film dramatically , from the husband accompying the submarine crew on their trip and wondering if he will ever get back in time to see his wife and child, to the scientist that from the start predicted there was no hope, to the sister in law , who used to be a travel agent, but found her travel agency was no longer needed when the rest of the world died.
The government are distributing the "pills" suicide pills for those who wish to take them, and a syringe for "animals and children" , the queue at the end of the film says it all. Do you wait for the radiation sickness to kill you , or do you take your pills? The question asked here is if you don't take the pills, what if the child outlives you? The scenes with Peter and his wife and toddler Jennifer will leave you shaken... be warned.
People who like a happy ending should not watch this film, it leaves you thinking about it for ages afterwards, probably this is the reason that it was not a blockbuster in it's day , people like happy endings. If this had hit the big screen there would have been more priests/nuns/psycologists and samaritans outside the cinema than there was for the Exorcist film. If though you are like me and expect reality in a film that is thought provoking the entire way through , then i would urge you to watch this. It is a pity that it is not shown in every school in the country , it would certainly make the next generation think. With the politically correct brigade out in force these days i suppose showing the next generation what man is capable of would amount to abuse!
The options that the cast take when the radiation levels reach critical are well thought out , and you will spend many a hour thinking about what you would do. The song "mony mony" is brilliant, and you will never sing the origional words again after watching this.
Ive had this film for years and no i'm not manic depressive/greenpeace/ suicidal, just into this type of film.

A film that is touching, heart wrenching, agonizing, like it or not , addictive, you have to watch it to see the ending. Do not wait for any miracles in this film, keep the tissues by your side, you will spend the last half hour crying.I have lent this dvd to many friends and all have said that the final half hour was addictive.. but agony. Perhaps i am just weird, but i could have this film on a loop and watch it over and over again, if you are into the end of the world... then you have found the ultimate film.