The secret history of 'Threads'

What's not currently on the box
User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

lovecraft
625 lines
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:39 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by lovecraft »

Thanks for that.

I watched Threads at the time and then picked it up again on DVD in the early 00's. After watching it that second time I have been almost too scared to watch it again. I can think of no TV programme so staggeringly bleak.

Duncan
625 lines
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:45 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Duncan »

I'm always puzzled by such a reaction to Threads, especially by adults watching it 15-20 years or more after the original broadcast. Yes it's bleak and doesnt pull any punches but being "too scared" to watch it again?? How did you cope with "The War Game"? where compassionate coppers shoot radiation victims in the head to put them out of their misery...

I remember watching both during the season of programmes that saw the original tx of Threads, and yes it was shocking I can't say I ever had nightmares about it which seems to be the supposed "correct" response to it.

Would love to see an HD version of it though - so much of the BBCs 16mm output would benefit - just look at the new Miss Marple HD transfers.

marsey
625 lines
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:45 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by marsey »

I think it brings back memories of a time when it seemed like Threads was simply a documentary about what was to come for us all. The even more frightening thing was that we knew that what we were seeing was a fairly optimistic appraisal, that there was still at least some form of order after the event.

ctraynor
D-MAC
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by ctraynor »

If that's the way you see it. It seemed pretty hopeless to me.

Even the famous US TV movie The Day After ended on a bleak note, which as John Brosnan noted made it something more important than just another American made-for-TV movie.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

Really? I would say that The Day After has a lot less bleak an ending than Threads.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by GarethR »

Have you heard the directors' commentary for The Day After? Many fascinating insights into the problems Nicholas Meyer had in making it the way he wanted, and the compromises involved along the way. He goes into some detail about the interpretations people put on the ending; he intended it to be hopeless, with the final scenes really ramming home things like the football stadium crammed with the dying and the shot of the doctor looking out over the wasteland that used to be a city, but says that some on the pro-nuclear arms side insisted on seeing hope in the blocking of the very last shot (and they also had numerous issues with the film, including that it deliberately didn't cast the Russians as the first to use nukes). Nevertheless, the overwhelming emotion audiences took away wasn't hope, it was appalled horror.

marsey
625 lines
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:45 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by marsey »

I think I remember reading a while ago that they hadn't produced a 'worst case' scenario. Certainly by the end of the film there is some semblance of community and order being restored, whereas in reality it's quite possible that (given the number of nuclear bombs available) no people and no buildings above ground in Sheffield at the time of the attack would still have existed afterwards. Then again is it more bleak portraying survivors existing in a world full of horror, or everything and everyone being evaporated?

I know there have been drama-documentaries since portraying modern day catastrophes like 'dirty bombs' and smallpox, but that feeling of watching Threads back in the day, and wondering when (not if) the 4 minute warning would signal the beginning of the end brought on feelings of hopelessness and helplessness that simply can't be compared on anything like a similar basis.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by GarethR »

marsey wrote:Then again is it more bleak portraying survivors existing in a world full of horror, or everything and everyone being evaporated?
The former, clearly. Surviving an all-out nuclear war is infinitely more horrifying a prospect than being vaporised in a millisecond.

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Simon36 »

There was a screening of Threads in Sheffield just prior to the BBC2 broadcast, which was covered by the local news, and a clip of which was shown on Did You See. It's an astounding bit of footage, one woman in tears and utterly inconsolable, saying words to the effect that if it happens it would be better to die straight away.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:Have you heard the directors' commentary for The Day After? Many fascinating insights into the problems Nicholas Meyer had in making it the way he wanted, and the compromises involved along the way. He goes into some detail about the interpretations people put on the ending; he intended it to be hopeless, with the final scenes really ramming home things like the football stadium crammed with the dying and the shot of the doctor looking out over the wasteland that used to be a city, but says that some on the pro-nuclear arms side insisted on seeing hope in the blocking of the very last shot (and they also had numerous issues with the film, including that it deliberately didn't cast the Russians as the first to use nukes). Nevertheless, the overwhelming emotion audiences took away wasn't hope, it was appalled horror.
Funny how I've seen so many comments from Americans over the years that they thought Threads was far more bleak, then. The end of The Day After is ambiguous, whereas Threads isn't, or at least isn't in the same way. That's the difference:
[Threads'] representation of nuclear winter theory was much more aligned with scientists, ecologists, and even activist academics such as Carl Sagan. He quipped, ―"Threads is everything The Day After promised but didn‘t deliver." In the conclusion of Threads, humans would have to adapt to the new environmental realities, and that devolution of civilization and society would create significant changes in human behavior. The loss of culture, loss of language, a return to a gathering, nomadic culture, and the inability to connect with a maternal instinct all symbolized the transition from a pre-nuclear world to the post-nuclear world. If The Day After offered the optimistic, American, sanitized version of life after nuclear war, then Threads was the pessimistic, BBC, Western European response to The Day After. [source], page 173
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by GarethR »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote: Funny how I've seen so many comments from Americans over the years that they thought Threads was far more bleak, then. The end of The Day After is ambiguous, whereas Threads isn't, or at least isn't in the same way
Where's the ambiguity in the end of The Day After? Specifically?

This isn't meant to be a bleakness pissing contest, but nobody came away from TDA with any sense of optimism, other than those in the pro-nuclear lobby who insisted that the homeless man wordlessly embracing the dying Jason Robards in the ruins of his house as he collapses in despair showed that some vestige of humanity remained. Even Reagan wrote in his diary about how badly it affected him and said it changed his attitudes towards nuclear war. There is absolutely no sense at the end of the film that American civilisation is beginning to rebuild itself or that the war has been anything other than catastrophic.

All you can really say is that if TDA is bleak (and it is), Threads is bleaker, mainly because it takes the story on many years to show just how bad life would be even such a long time after the attack. Meyer did want to push the bleakness even further, but there were numerous constraining factors. He used that caption at the end to underline that the aftermath of a real attack would in all likelihood be even worse than depicted in the film (and Americans found what they saw to be horrifying enough).
If The Day After offered the optimistic, American, sanitized version of life after nuclear war
Which it doesn't. Sagan's a hero of mine, but he was talking unmitigated bollocks there. He makes it sound like the film makes nuclear war seem winnable, which of course it doesn't. Just read the contemporary responses from the American public - it all but put the country into a panic, and in right-wing quarters Meyer ended up being denounced (among much else) as a traitor "doing Andropov's work for him".

ctraynor
D-MAC
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by ctraynor »

Yes, The Day After may have lacked much of the sheer gruesomeness of Threads but in a way that's just a detail. It was no more optimistic than Threads, unless you count Jason Robards' tie remaining intact on him. You still saw the lives of the characters who survived falling apart. The story stopped earlier than that of Threads which carried things on 10 years or whatever into the aftermath of the war but that doesn't make The Day After's ending optimistic.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote: Funny how I've seen so many comments from Americans over the years that they thought Threads was far more bleak, then. The end of The Day After is ambiguous, whereas Threads isn't, or at least isn't in the same way
Where's the ambiguity in the end of The Day After? Specifically?

This isn't meant to be a bleakness pissing contest, but nobody came away from TDA with any sense of optimism, other than those in the pro-nuclear lobby who insisted that the homeless man wordlessly embracing the dying Jason Robards in the ruins of his house as he collapses in despair showed that some vestige of humanity remained.
So, nobody came away with any sense of optimism, apart from the ones that did? Thanks for confirming that.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by GarethR »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote: So, nobody came away with any sense of optimism, apart from the ones that did?
The handful of pro-Armageddon nutjobs, yes. The other 99.9% of America? Not so much.

Are you genuinely unaware of how it was actually received when it was broadcast in the States in 1983? H

And have you even seen the film? Referring to the ending as "ambiguous" (how is it?) and suggesting that it's "sanitised" and "optimistic" does rather suggest that you haven't.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote: So, nobody came away with any sense of optimism, apart from the ones that did?
The handful of pro-Armageddon nutjobs, yes. The other 99.9% of America? Not so much.

Are you genuinely unaware of how it was actually received when it was broadcast in the States in 1983? H

And have you even seen the film? Referring to the ending as "ambiguous" (how is it?) and suggesting that it's "sanitised" and "optimistic" does rather suggest that you haven't.
Thanks for the patronising tone, but I saw the ITV transmission in the UK in 1983 (and own it on DVD now). I was also active in CND at the time, and can clearly recollect how it received at the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from "the handful of pro-Armageddon nutjobs" of which you speak, which presumably doesn't include Sagan, either.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

Clive
625 lines
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Clive »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
So, nobody came away with any sense of optimism, apart from the ones that did? Thanks for confirming that.
Really ? You came away with a sense of optimism after watching that ?? If you did then the production must have failed miserably... There was never any brief to make the outcome of a nuclear war optimistic.

Going back to Threads, there is nothing more desperate than that group of kids in the post apocalyptic wasteland watching a screen-rolling, badly tracked episode of 'Words and Pictures' on the TV. More than anything that scene just highlighted the pre-versus-post world after the bombs had dropped.

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Simon36 »

That scene is excellent and the close up of the tape makes it look like it will snap at any moment.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by GarethR »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote: Thanks for the patronising tone
And you *weren't* being patronising?
but I saw the ITV transmission in the UK in 1983 (and own it on DVD now)
Me too. I had it on LD as well.
I was also active in CND at the time, and can clearly recollect how it received at the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from "the handful of pro-Armageddon nutjobs" of which you speak
So you're saying it *wasn't* generally received with horror? That the 100,000,000 viewers in America mostly came away from it thinking "Hey, y'know, a nuclear war wouldn't be so bad"?

If it was so "sanitised" and "optimistic", how come the pro-nuclear American Right were so incandescent with rage about it?

And again, how exactly is the ending "ambiguous"? Jason Robards, dying of radiation sickness, finally makes it back to the rubble of his house, where some homeless (and also clearly dying) people have made a makeshift shelter. He collapses in despair. As voiceover we hear John Lithgow's character still trying to make radio contact with any other survivors - "Hello? Is there anybody there? Anybody at all?" And finally the caption making the point that the consequences of a real nuclear attack would likely be much worse.

Is that *really* as ambiguous as you're insisting?

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

Clive wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
So, nobody came away with any sense of optimism, apart from the ones that did? Thanks for confirming that.
Really ? You came away with a sense of optimism after watching that ??
No, but I didn't come away with the same impression that you so adamantly believe everyone else should have had. As with so many issues discussed on this forum previously, you really seem to have difficulty dealing with the fact that not everyone reacts to things in exactly the same way that you do.
Going back to Threads, there is nothing more desperate than that group of kids in the post apocalyptic wasteland watching a screen-rolling, badly tracked episode of 'Words and Pictures' on the TV. More than anything that scene just highlighted the pre-versus-post world after the bombs had dropped.
Sure. It's also a scene that nothing in The Day After comes close to matching.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote: Thanks for the patronising tone
And you *weren't* being patronising?
but I saw the ITV transmission in the UK in 1983 (and own it on DVD now)
Me too. I had it on LD as well.
I was also active in CND at the time, and can clearly recollect how it received at the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from "the handful of pro-Armageddon nutjobs" of which you speak
So you're saying it *wasn't* generally received with horror? That the 100,000,000 viewers in America mostly came away from it thinking "Hey, y'know, a nuclear war wouldn't be so bad"?

If it was so "sanitised" and "optimistic", how come the pro-nuclear American Right were so incandescent with rage about it?

And again, how exactly is the ending "ambiguous"? Jason Robards, dying of radiation sickness, finally makes it back to the rubble of his house, where some homeless (and also clearly dying) people have made a makeshift shelter. He collapses in despair. As voiceover we hear John Lithgow's character still trying to make radio contact with any other survivors - "Hello? Is there anybody there? Anybody at all?" And finally the caption making the point that the consequences of a real nuclear attack would likely be much worse.

Is that *really* as ambiguous as you're insisting?
Your problem, Gareth, is that you're fervently arguing against an interpretation of your own making. As usual.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Tim D
405 lines
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:04 am

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Tim D »

marsey wrote: I know there have been drama-documentaries since portraying modern day catastrophes like 'dirty bombs' and smallpox, but that feeling of watching Threads back in the day, and wondering when (not if) the 4 minute warning would signal the beginning of the end brought on feelings of hopelessness and helplessness that simply can't be compared on anything like a similar basis.
Quite. Like all things from the past, you have to have lived in that climate of fear that's relevant to the piece to understand the true psychological impact of Threads. I remember the discussion when the local council installed a big grey civil defence siren on top of our school. We used to sit during break looking at this thing and discussing what we'd do if it ever went off.
clive wrote: Going back to Threads, there is nothing more desperate than that group of kids in the post apocalyptic wasteland watching a screen-rolling, badly tracked episode of 'Words and Pictures' on the TV. More than anything that scene just highlighted the pre-versus-post world after the bombs had dropped.
Pre-versus-post world really sums the mood of that scene up well.

Thanks to Threads, I can no longer hear Johnny B Goode, the 80s Radio 1 news jingle, Tomorrow's World or BBC Nine O'Clock News theme (circa 1984) or to some extent, see an 80s BBC 1 symbol without feeling a sense of impending doom! I always thought the 80s BBC Video fanfare had a tinge of Protect and Survive about it too, with that hideous swelling electronic note appearing somewhere in the mix of horror.

marsey
625 lines
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:45 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by marsey »

After reading this thread, I rewatched 'The Day After' (I didn't need to re-watch Threads as I recall that all too well.

I can't say that either Threads or TDA had much positiveness about them. As I mentioned previously things are better than they could be (the worst case being that everyone dies). The positive thing from TDA is that the President has survived and is broadcasting a promise that things will get sorted out; and there seem to be lots of soldiers keeping order who don't appear to have been injured. The negative side is that all of the civilians are dying or dead, and that the area portrayed seems to have been 'lightly' hit (there is talk of loads of mushroom clouds being seen in other areas). For 'Threads, it shows that many civilians have survived many years later and are able to grow crops; the worst is over and there is some prospect of life ahead. The negative side is that no-one has come to their rescue, so presumably the whole of the country (and possibly much of the rest of the world) is in a similar state.

People say (and I agree) that it is probably better to die in the initial blast than to have to live in the aftermath. But if the 4 minute warning sounded, and there was a shelter offering protection, how many would not use it? Even given the grim prospects of living in a post-nuclear wasteland I'm betting that most people would use the shelter; I know I would.

ctraynor
D-MAC
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by ctraynor »

Fair enough in a way but the "positive" sides of things you mention are positive in a very general long-term sense. It's clear from both The Day After and Threads that things are going to be very grim for survivors.

I still haven't seen that other American nuclear film Testament which is apparently very impressive. I saw The War Game in 1980 (when it was still not permitted to be shown on TV) at our local Quakers' hall.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by GarethR »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote: Your problem, Gareth, is that you're fervently arguing against an interpretation of your own making. As usual.
Do you actually have any answers to the specific questions I posed? Or are you, as I'm beginning to suspect, simply trolling?

Because I really don't understand how anybody who actually knows how The Day After was received in America could quote words like "sanitised" and "optimistic" with a straight face. It really did scare an awful lot of people, it really did make the American Right incandescent with rage, the director Nick Meyer really was denounced as "unpatriotic" and a "traitor". I can't really see a way of reconciling those reactions with an "optimistic" film.

Or, when you talk about it being "optimistic", are you referring to Meyer's own statement in the director's commentary to the effect that the pessimist's view is that the film should really end after the attack, and that only an optimist would assume that anybody at all would be left alive?

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by GarethR »

marsey wrote:The positive thing from TDA is that the President has survived and is broadcasting a promise that things will get sorted out; and there seem to be lots of soldiers keeping order who don't appear to have been injured. The negative side is that all of the civilians are dying or dead, and that the area portrayed seems to have been 'lightly' hit (there is talk of loads of mushroom clouds being seen in other areas)
The whole point of the Presidential broadcast is to underline the futility of the situation and ram home that this really was mutually assured destruction in action. His words are intended to be stirring, but everybody knows that they're empty - there's no help coming, and who cares if there was "no surrender" when civilisation has been destroyed and everybody's dying of radiation sickness? It ties in with the scene where the farmers are being told how to deal with their irradiated topsoil, and they angrily respond by asking how the hell are each of them going to move hundreds of acres of topsoil to a depth of 5 or 6 inches, and where are they going to put it, and did this advice come from "some government pamphlet?"

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote: Your problem, Gareth, is that you're fervently arguing against an interpretation of your own making. As usual.
Do you actually have any answers to the specific questions I posed? Or are you, as I'm beginning to suspect, simply trolling?
Ah, the eternal refuge of those who cannot accept differing opinions - the accusation of trolling. I mean, obviously your interpretation must be the only logical one possible, so anyone disagreeing with you must be doing so solely to wind you up, right?
Because I really don't understand how anybody who actually knows how The Day After was received in America could quote words like "sanitised" and "optimistic" with a straight face. It really did scare an awful lot of people, it really did make the American Right incandescent with rage, the director Nick Meyer really was denounced as "unpatriotic" and a "traitor". I can't really see a way of reconciling those reactions with an "optimistic" film.

Or, when you talk about it being "optimistic", are you referring to Meyer's own statement in the director's commentary to the effect that the pessimist's view is that the film should really end after the attack, and that only an optimist would assume that anybody at all would be left alive?
To be boringly pedantic, the only time I have used the word "optimistic" (or indeed any variation on it) was in a single post in response to you, pointing out that - clearly - not everyone has the same view of how TDA can be interpreted as you have. I have never used the word "santisied" or any variation on it. This is just the latest in a long line of you violently arguing against your own straw men.

If this forum had a block function, I'd be using it right now. But then I wouldn't, because I would actually have used it on you long ago, because you
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

ctraynor
D-MAC
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by ctraynor »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote: The end of The Day After is ambiguous, whereas Threads isn't, or at least isn't in the same way. That's the difference:
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean either.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

ctraynor wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote: The end of The Day After is ambiguous, whereas Threads isn't, or at least isn't in the same way. That's the difference:
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean either.
With Threads, although we don't get specifically statment things are going to be bad a very long time, it's pretty obvious that's mankind is facing a lot of regression - social and technological - before any sort of recovery begins, because that process had already started. In contrast, as Marsey noted, TDA has a number of indicators that there is more coherent remaining government control to effect a recovery. Some viewers could take them as hollow (in-narrative) propaganda, but others might take them on face value. One could make the observation that more recent films like Deep Impact and The Day After Tomorrow as presenting endings that similarly suggest the first steps on the road to recovery, rather than teetering on the edge of the precipice of barbarism.

The reconcilliatory nature of the final scene is also significantly more positive than just about anything in the final act of Threads (although there is a parallel with the man giving the rat to the pregnant Ruth earlier on). Ultimately Threads is far more effective because its narrative continues to some fourteen years after the attack, rather than ending in the immediate aftermath as TDA does, and thus is able to show that any aspirations or attempts to rebuild aren't going anywhere fast.

One other major credibility issue with TDA is that it gives no hint of a nuclear winter, but that's just down to bad timing, given that Sagan et al didn't release the results of their initial computer modelling until a month after it was screened, wheras Barry Hines was able to incorporate it into Threads (he acknowledged at the time it wasn't in the early drafts). In that sense, TDA was outdated almost immediately.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Juswuh
D-MAC
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:04 pm

Re: The secret history of 'Threads'

Post by Juswuh »

The reconcilliatory nature of the final scene is also significantly more positive than just about anything in the final act of Threads (although there is a parallel with the man giving the rat to the pregnant Ruth earlier on).
I thought the guy was selling the rats and Ruth bought one by agreeing to have sex with him....

Post Reply