Aside from the bold structure - multifaceted docudrama, vox pop, satire, statistics, etc. - what strikes one is the scathing questioning of how, and why, the state would respond in such an eventuality. The horrific imagery of human suffering is made worse by challenging the very society we'd expect to respond in our apparent best interests. It's as much an indictment of 'peacetime' assumptions as it is apocalypse.
Antecedentes, sucesos y consecuencias de un posible ataque nuclear en una ciudad inglesa. Similar a Culloden, Watkins promueve una dura crítica a la Corona y a las políticas nucleares de los entonces países protagonistas de la Guerra Fría.Una reflexión a la conciencia social y el acto negligente del gobierno respecto a sus normativas antes las catástrofes. Lo que no me gustó:ocasionalmente un dramatismo sobreexpuesto
Very well done. So well done, in fact, that BBC commissioned it, then decided that it was too frightening to show. Watkins is one of the greatest innovators in documentary cinema, (along with Chris Marker). A very real documentary using a fictional premise, as he did in "Privilege", and "Punishment Park".
With its vast array of terrors visited upon the population of Kent (especially its children, suggesting Watkins may have been targeting his film to the nightmares of little children), the film mongers fear with the best of them. But it's hard not to see this as the product of a very different time. The pseudo-sobriety of the "documentary" format belies Watkins' near-hysterical approach to the subject matter.