REVIEWS Back in 1974, atomic energy worker Karen Silkwood failed to show for an appointment with a representative of her union, the Atomic, Oil and Chemical Workers. Later her body was pulled from the wreckage of her car beside a lonely rural highway. What made the incident a headlines issue was the intended purpose of Silk- wood’s rendezvous, related earlier that day in a telephone conversation she had with the union official. According to Silk- wood, she would hand over evidence that would implicate her employer in a case involving gross violations of safety stand- ards in the manufacture of plutonium rods for nuclear reactors. The Silkwood case subsequently became the subject of several investigative books and articles, heightened her union’s efforts to expose the profit-related hazards in the U.S. atomic industry, and helped fuel a growing anti-nuclear movement. Unfortunately, little of this emerges in Silkwood, a new film from 20th Century Fox that serves as a well-meaning, but unfocused, biography of this working- class woman’s transition from a person- able but uncommitted individual to an engaged union activist. Silkwood’s chief problem is that a script overly intent on showing the humanity of its protagonist and her friends too often gets in the way of the chief subject. Lengthy, and often embarrassingly mun- dane scenes devoted to emotional break- ups or reconciliations would have been far better left on the cutting room floor, and Silkwood: bright but out of focus more cinematic time devoted to the reason that Karen Silkwood’s name remains a byword in the cause to reform the nuclear industry. More disappointing is the brief epilogue that precedes the credits at the end of the film. We’re informed that the documents in question were missing when Silkwood’s car was searched, and that a year follow- ing her death, the plant closed down. The reason for this isn’t given, and none of the other subsequent events — including demands by Silkwood’s parents, the union and others for a full investigation into the highly suspicious circumstances surround- ing her death — are mentioned. With these faults, Silkwood can still be a worthwhile cinematic experience. Meryl Streep, who received accolades for her per- formance as a traumatized survivor of the Nazi death camps in the otherwise flawed film, Sophie’s Choice, is thoroughly con- ° vincing as the impulsive but likeable title character. And the rest of the cast, includ- ing Kurt Russell as Silkwood’s lover, Drew and Cher as close friend Dolly give solid support. Streep’s Silkwood is believable as a plant worker whose concern for her fellow workers turns to anger which in tum triggers a commitment to action as unsafe working conditions result in life-threatening radiation leaks. And the movie scores tell- ing points when it shows how the sup- posed quality control department routinely faked evidence and allowed unsafe rods — which, when installed, could Having gained access to the metallography lab, Karen Silkwood examines X-ray negatives for signs of re-touching in a scene from the new film Silkwood. threaten the populations of entire states — to pass. Silkwood also rings true when it indi- cates the company’s role in attempting to frighten Silkwood into abandoning her efforts, and its long suspected involvement in her tragic death. Even the medical pro- fession, supposedly free of such taints, is revealed as being less than honest about the dangers of radioactive substances. Silkwood has arrived several years after the fact, and after earlier films such as the fictional China Syndrome made many of the same points. But it’s never too late to expose the machinations of corporations whose concern for profit over safety threatens the lives and health of us all. showed the scope of the opposition to unwarranted, and frequently unethical nuclear proliferation, Silkwood could have been a far more effective movie. pay vs eee With tighter editing, and a script that — Dan Keeton : Film spurs peace By WILLIAM POMEROY LONDON — The showing of the nuclear war film, The Day After, on British televi- sion at Saturday evening peak viewing time, has created a furore in Britain as intense, if not greater, than that aroused by the initial screening in the U.S. The reaction has been heightened by the presence of the Tomahawk cruise missiles now deployed at Greenham Common. An estimated 15 million people, about a quarter of the population, watched the film. Reports of the earlier effect on horrifed U.S. and Canadian audiences had drawn atten- tion to it, but an unintended greater interest had been stirred by the near-hysterical antics of the Minister of Defence in the Thatcher government, Michael Heseltine. Appointed to his post at the beginning of 1983 as a kind of government palladin to joust against the peace movement, Hesel- tine has had a bizarre time of it in that task. He started by setting up an anti-CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) unit in the defence ministry and by covering the country with its red-baiting propaganda. Then in mid-year he dramatically dissolved the unit, announcing that CND was Cartoonists Mike Constabie(|) and Cy Morris whose work is familiar to Tribune readers sign copies of Best Canadian Political Cartoons, 1983 foll- owing its release by McClel- land and Stewart last month. The two artists, whose Union Art Service distributes car- toons to the Tribune as well as several labor publications, are among 34 cartoonists fea- tured in the new book. Their contributions add a different dimension to the collection — made up mainly of cartoonists whose targets are Liberals or Tories — and include the much publicized work by Morris showing a youth pass- ing several locked doors marked ‘Trades Training’ or ‘Productive Employment’ before coming to the door marked ‘There’s no life like it’ which is thrown wide open to reveal scenes of battle and mayhem. The book retails for $12.95. 10 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 11, 1984 movement in U.K. “defeated” and in decline despite the fact that it was organizing what would be the biggest peace demonstration in British history. Heseltine had desperately gone back to an even wilder anti-CND drive, claiming that it was heightening international tension and endangering arms control negotiations. This, too, has been the theme of the Heseltine assault on The Day After. Taking his cue from the Reagan administration’s attitude to the film and its thrusting of Secretary Schultz into an immediate TV answer to the film’s anti-nuclear war mes- sage, the British defence minister demanded TV time to reply even before he had seen the film. The television channels denied him special time, calling it ludicrous for a government spokesman of his level to “answer” a work of fiction. Offered participation in a post-screening debate, Heseltine huffily refused. He also refused to appear in an early morning pro- gram because CND secretary-general Bruce Kent, had a pre-recorded part in it. Throughout the debate Hesletine had doggedly insisted that nuclear weapons “keep the peace”. The 15 million British viewers saw nothing of the kind in The Day After. There has been widespread acceptance of the film in Britain as a terrifying account of the menace hanging over the nation that has been immeasurably increased by the instal- ling of U.S. cruise missiles. In TV panels, radio discussions, newspaper readers’ letter columns, and in press stories and editorials, the film was seen as a strong argument for peace, disarmament and the need for serious arms negotiations, Joan Ruddock, chairperson of the CND, found The Day After to be “ta profound emotional experience” and said: “If people do agree with having nuclear weapons, it is extremely important that they face up to the reality of what those weapons do.” Denis Healy, Labor Party foreign affairs spokes- man, declared that the film made a power- ful case for Britain to get rid of the cruise missiles. The most frequent comment, however, was that The Day After fell far short of portraying the actual horrific consequences of a nuclear war. Dr. John Dawson of the British Medical Association, who helped compile the BMA’s grim report of such a war’s catastrophic effect, said: “‘The film underestimated the degree of suffering and the number of casualties in a nuclear explo- sion.” Admiral of the Fleet Lord Lewin concurred, saying: “The real thing will be much more horrible.” It is anticipated that The Day After will contribute to a further increase in the rapidly growing membership of the CND > and other peace groups. On the day after the film was shown another tremendous demonstration by women against the pres- ence of cruise missiles took place around the perimeter of the U.S. Greenham Common > base where the first 16 of the missiles have been installed. Over 30,000 women ringed the base in a. “silence and sound” demonstration, holding up hundreds of mirrors to reflect the evil of the missiles inside and the beauty of the countryside outside and challenging police and soldiers to peace debates. A poll taken the day before the screening of The Day After showed the trend. A 2 to | majority wanted a halt to deployment, 64 per cent called for concessions by NATO to get arms talks started, 58 per cent disagreed with Heseltine’s claim that the peace movement endangers arms control, 61 per cent thought the danger of nuclear war was increasing, 52 per cent opposed the Thatcher govern- ment’s handling of the missiles question.