You can talk about this tape in two ways. In the first place, there must be a social overtones. The film anticipated a major accident in the United States and raised a very important topic. In less than ten years, this problem will reverberate in another country - the Soviet Union.
Another thing is the discussion of the cinematographic work itself. The film “Chinese Syndrome” is too straightforward. A lot is decided by the characters. Jack Lemmon, taking a secondary position, pulls the film, showing a range of life positions - from indifference to moral rejection of the current state of affairs. Another is Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas. They play justice fighters. It is thanks to them that the conflict with the administration of the nuclear power plant becomes known to the public.
And their roles are the most blurred. If the hero of Michael Douglas can still be suspected of the personal irrepressible rebelliousness of a person whose career did not work out, then the heroine Fonda is a mystery at all. We have not been given the answer to the question of why she went on such a clear confrontation.
And it turns out to be a failure. Without revealing the characters, the tape looks nothing more than a campaign sketch about the severity of the threat from nuclear power plants.
So, the topic is significant, but the film itself was mediocre. And if it were not for the play of Lemmon, then the picture did slide into a boring protest polemic.
7 out of 10
When the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant occurred 12 days after the premiere of the #39; China Syndrome; in 1979, the theme of the film became explosive, leaving the audience with an impressive idea of what could happen, even if the results of the emergency at the nuclear power plant according to the plot were somewhat fantastic, thereby differing from real events, because of which rallies and votes were held everywhere to stop existing nuclear power plants and prevent the construction of new ones.
The excitement around the film revived seven years later, when the Chernobyl accident occurred, more or less just as the powerful plot suggested that such a catastrophe could happen. Now the film is also of particular interest to viewers interested in the consequences of man-made disasters and in particular the problems that can create corium. However, don’t take too much into your head a wonderful study of the so-called “Chinese Syndrome” ' in fact, this film is about people – about good people!
For me, it’s primarily Jack Lemmon as Jack Godell’s shift boss. He is a man who always does the right thing. He loves his job, his nuclear power plant, like his pet's nuclear reactor. He inspires hope that all the people working in positions of responsibility - 'Jack Godell' but unfortunately, this is not the case. He seems to be the only one of its kind, a worthy representative of humanity in the modern Shakespearean tragedy.
The fusion of the talents of Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda took the emotional richness of the film beyond the narrative. Michael Douglas is good as a support cameraman for a flamboyant TV star who wants to go beyond soft public TV stories. This role does not require much from him, but first of all he deserves praise for producing a rare Hollywood film in its real social significance, encouraging the viewer not only to think, but also to act.
Featuring a stellar cast, this intense political thriller works both as entertainment and as a powerful incentive to worry about the quality of nuclear power projects. Notable for its stylistic simplicity and power, the film also explores sexism in the workplace, the manipulation of news in the media, and without direct evaluation from the characters. The tension is created by reactor noises, crackling dosimeters, screeching alarms and even silence while the characters wait to see what happens, which is a bold and very effective strategy for progressive cinema.
Thinking about the profession of reporters and journalists, immediately there are some shocking investigations and disclosure of incredible secrets that would allow you to look at familiar things with a completely different look. But alas, in real life, this from newspapers, television news and other media industries is almost impossible. Unlike the world of cinema, which willingly explores such a topic and gives lessons in official ethics to all representatives of the media. Letting you remember such wonderful paintings as “Your Man”, “Silkwood”, “In the spotlight” and a number of other paintings. This film directed by James Bridges can be safely singled out as the brightest representative of this kind of paintings.
Even during its release on wide screens, this film directed by James Bridges made a lot of noise and became a very commercial investment for its creators. However, being forgotten after many decades, this film directed by James Bridges did not lose in quality or in anything else. Since everything shown on the screen by Bridges , has not lost its relevance even after so many years.
After all, telling the fictitious story of a certain accident at a nuclear power plant, this film directed by James Bridges not only raised the topic of radiation threat from various wastes, but also much more. Including how brutal the world of capitalism is. Where everything is done solely for money, income and profit. When, like, ordinary human life is worth far less than a couple of crisp bills depicting dead American presidents in the pockets of the owners of mega-corporations.
The director of the picture James Bridges managed to create a truly exciting spectacle on the screen, which kept in continuous tension throughout the screen time. No visual effects or other means of achieving dynamism. How much emotional power, a socially important theme and just a very strong production, which repeatedly touched the living while watching the tape. It celebrates the sacrifice of individuals who are willing to sacrifice so much in their lives. To do the right thing when others simply do not want it or it does not benefit them. Not only changing the moral appearance of the main characters of the tape, but also along the way the viewer himself. What is already worthy of all kinds of praise to the creators of the tape.
The film would have turned out very different if not for the wonderful acting of the entire cast. Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas did a great job with their roles on the screen. Not only perfectly revealing their characters on the screen, but also noticeably touching how they change during all screen events. However, the main gem of the picture is certainly Jack Lemmon, who created the strongest character of the tape and managed to eclipse even more star duo Foundation-Dougla with his wonderful game. His Jack Godell believe fully, empathize with all your heart and imbued with sincere respect. Because Lemmon created on the screen a sample of the person to whom each of us should be equal and who many have ceased to be.
10 out of 10
Chinese syndrome is a truly rare example of an art film, which you watch with a real fading heart and empathy for the main characters. A very emotionally powerful human drama that not only raised a very relevant socially important topic, but also the topic of morality, morality and humanity. Asking the audience a valuable lesson that many pictures cannot give.
I think there are two points of reference in the cinematic life of this film in our country. Until May 1986. And after.
When he first appeared on screens at the end of 70 moves, a lot was written about him. This is the cruel world of capital. All for money, for profit... Still, a day of downtime at the Ventan nuclear power plant costs the owner of the energy complex, Mr. Mac Cornick, half a million dollars. What kind of people! And the fact that as a result of the accident of the station could die half of the population of Southern California — do not care. Of course, we were all in solidarity at the time. Yes, the beastly rock of imperialism.
And then the Chernobyl events. This movie disappeared from the screens. Right, why cut on the living, people in vain, excite. It's hard for everyone. And it was kind of like this: they warned us all nine years ago. We told them, “That’s right, only you damn bourgeois can do that.” And then they did the same thing.
The “Chinese Syndrome” was recently mentioned. When the town of Neman in the Kaliningrad region decided to build another nuclear power plant. The whole of Europe is on its own. And in the Kaliningrad region there was a wave of protest demonstrations. Especially when it became known that one of the contractors who won the competition for the construction of a nuclear power plant has an authorized capital of 10 thousand rubles, and earlier somewhere in the suburbs was engaged in ... baking cakes. The situation is steeper than in the “Chinese syndrome” – there the contractor “only” forged X-rays of defect detection of the welds of the reactor. But people interested in this nuclear power plant began to hold competitions of children's drawings "Peaceful Atom" throughout the Kaliningrad region. And tell them how good it is. And the waste from the activities of nuclear power plants - so they are completely harmless to the population. How did this story end? Under pressure from the public and the refusal of European countries to buy “nuclear” electricity, the construction of the hazardous facility was stopped in early 2014. I keep asking myself, have the initiators of the construction of the Baltic nuclear power plant, their families, wives, children and grandchildren seen this beautiful film by James Bridges “China Syndrome”?
Now about the movie itself... Bright acting trio - Lemmon - Fonda - Douglas. It was shot in the form of a report. Without typical for the action movie shootouts, fights, mind-blowing chase. Here - typical for the middle of the last century manner of installation - with long 20-30 seconds completed plans. There is no such fashionable now "clip" minting with a plan length of 1.5 seconds. But it doesn’t make the film any less intense and interesting. Notice that the closing credits go under voice-over coffin silence. And the very first and last plan of the film is a television color screensaver.
What's this movie about? Not only about the dangers of using nuclear power plants (especially now for America and, especially, Europe, this topic is not so relevant – wind turbines, solar panels and other alternative sources of electricity are everywhere). It's a film about citizenship. And the ability to sacrifice for others. And the real journalists. Although maybe it all sounds a little grandiose. But for all the documentary nature of China Syndrome, it’s also a very emotionally powerful movie. And having even the strongest nerves, it is difficult not to give free rein to your feelings. Especially in the final scenes of the film. When in the eyes of the main characters - tears. And who goes to the throat... Great movie!
- When you turn on the lights at home, please give me ten percent of your thoughts!
- Sorry I didn't get it.
- This is the percentage of electricity you get from our company!
Films about television, TV companies, TV reporters, in general about what is related to the media, invariably excite the audience’s imagination. They can reveal this topic from the most unsightly side, resolutely pointing out the corruption of this area of human reality, how cynicism, acquisitiveness, glossyness, ostentatiousness, unscrupulousness are firmly entrenched there. The powerful film "Telenet" showed this bulge to the limit. It offers an even more depressing version of what the shenanigans of media freedom lead to. It is not worth explaining about nuclear energy, since recently there have been such sad events that do not allow disputes to cool down, to stall various points of view on this topic. It’s a good thing if these topics aren’t hushed up, that people will actually be safer for themselves and the planet, given their different opinions.
When the charming beauty Kimberly Wells starts working on one third channel, the popularity of the programs increases significantly. But the ether can’t always be limited to music telegraphs and whale migration, so nuclear reactors can also be used. However, the reporter confuses the word “provision” with the word “defamation”, which, when applied to nuclear energy, can be a little embarrassing. But most importantly, she will not forget to ask the operator whether he managed to remove that thing there and there, and whether it turned out well in the frame. In general, if they explain, she is quite capable of understanding that the steam turns the turbine, that is the generator, and the hair dryer can already work on electricity, which is clearly desirable for the fluffy, lush hair of an attractive journalist.
But for some reason Kimberly Wells feels something is wrong when the first alarm bells appear. It is a pity that sometimes journalists are not enough to save the world (which is an incredible fact about reality). The result was a good anthem for press freedom. In a broader sense, the film can generally be interpreted as a call to become more cautious and circumspect in all areas of your life, and not to reject the alarm signals, even if they violate the serenity of watching another glamorous advertisement about a supermodern microwave.
At a nuclear power plant, an accident occurs, where journalists accidentally find themselves filming it on their camera. And although the accident was eliminated, the employee of the nuclear power plant and those same TV people have doubts about the safety of the station and the danger of the Chinese syndrome associated with radiation leakage.
The plot and the title, and the plot, affecting the neglect of business on people, strongly resembles “Chinatown” by Roman Polanski, however, with a greater share of conspiracy theory and sentimentality at the same time. The film looks easy and with interest, thanks, first of all, to the actors, among whom Jack Lemmon shines - the same rebel-worker, conscientious nuclear enthusiast. Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas didn’t get too much. However, it is difficult to cope with the pathos of the story told - so you do not believe it too much. But the relevance of the tape is clearly not lost, especially after Chernobyl and mainly Fukushima.
7 out of 10