Child Actress from 'The Day After 'Breaks Down Sobbing While Rewatching Bombing Scenes in the 1983 Nuclear War TV Movie
The landmark 1983 TV movie The Day After showed viewers the aftermath of a fictional nuclear strike in Middle America
It remains one of the highest-rated TV movies of all time
The new documentary Television Event explores the making of the filmThere's an old saying that goes like this: "If there's a nuclear war, only two species will survive: the cockroaches and Cher." Thankfully, that theory has yet to be tested, although a 1983 ABC television movie called The Day After painted a vivid and terrifying what-if nuclear Armageddon scenario.
The newly released documentary Television Event goes behind-the-scenes of the Cold War-era television classic, which presented an alternate (and to many at the time, seemingly inevitable) reality in which a nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union leaves two cities — Lawrence, Kans., and Kansas City, Mo. — flattened. Both real-life cities were chosen as settings for the telefilm because of their proximity to numerous missile silos.
The Day After was initially intended to be a four-hour miniseries airing over two nights. It was also meant to put the fear of God into viewers... literally. Ed Hume, the film's credited writer, reveals in the documentary that "Silence in Heaven," a phrase he pulled directly from the Bible's Book of Revelation, was the original title of his screenplay.
Television Event, directed by Jeff Daniels (not the Emmy-winning actor, but the maker of activism-minded documentaries like Mother with a Gun) reveals that The Day After filmmakers wanted to make a movie in which big-name performers wouldn't overshadow the message. Stars like Donald Sutherland, Blythe Danner and Roots actor George Stanford Brown were passed over in favor of two-time Oscar winner Jason Robards, John Lithgow and Steve Guttenberg.
Much of the cast of extras and actors in some larger roles were handpicked from among locals in Lawrence. Ellen Anthony, who played Joleen Dahlberg, the youngest daughter in one of the featured families, was one of the chosen. She appears in the documentary and shares her memories of being cast in the movie and filming it.
"We surrendered our innocence," she says. "We surrendered that to this larger goal. We were going to do something very serious."
At one point, Anthony is seen watching the movie's harrowing bombing scenes and breaks down crying.
'That's really hard for me to watch. Because that's… It's really hard for me to watch," she says, as tears fall down her cheeks. "Because that's my town, that's my child..." She stops in the middle of the word and closes her eyes before trying to go on. "I'm sorry, I can't see it right now.'
'Those locations were the locations of my childhood," she continues. "The group of students that you see vaporized was my actual fifth-grade class. That's hard to watch. That's really hard to watch.'
That was the case for many of those who saw the movie, which remains one of the highest-rated TV films of all time. According to the documentary, 67% of the people in the U.S. watching TV that night — some 100 million people total — watched The Day After.
Following the movie, ABC aired a special edition of Viewpoint in which ABC news anchor Ted Koppel comforted viewers by reminding them The Day After was just a movie, but also warning them that what happens in the movie could happen in real life.
'It's sort of necessary to pick up a glass of water and say, 'OK, well, wake up now," Koppel, 85, says in an interview filmed for the documentary. "We're gonna talk about this, but that movie — you know it was a movie, right? It didn't happen. And everything is OK for the time being.' '
That episode of Viewpoint included an appearance by then U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, who assured viewers that the events of the movie would never happen in real life. Thought leaders of the time, including former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley, Carl Sagan and former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, took part in a panel to debate the merit of the film.
The Day After, which was also shown in Russia and in Hiroshima, Japan — where the U.S. dropped an atom bomb on Aug. 6, 1945, hastening the end of World War II — had a lasting effect. In his memoir, Ronald Reagan, who was president when the movie aired, wrote that it left him 'greatly depressed.' Television Event posits that the movie 'led to the biggest decline in nuclear weapons in history.'
"The Day After was an important thing," Nicholas Meyer, who directed the TV movie, says near the end of the documentary. "And people realize, in retrospect, just how important it was — certainly the most valuable thing I've gotten to do with my life to date."
Television Event is now playing in select theaters, including Film Forum in New York City.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: The Secret Smoking Gun in Trump's ‘Big Beautiful' Budget
Among the multitude of horrors tucked into Trump's 'big beautiful bill' is a measure that lifts a $200 tax on gun silencers, while ending background checks and registration requirements for their purchase. If enacted, the impact of the SHUSH (Silencers Help Us Save Hearing) Act is more sociological than financial—the government might as well hand them out like candy. After all, RFK Jr.'s HHS has an eye on banning real candy soon enough. This follows on the heels of Trump's DOJ reaching a settlement with Rare Breed Triggers, a Texas-based company, to overturn a Biden-era ban on 'forced reset triggers' (FRTs) that turn semiautomatic weapons into rapid-fire machine guns. Unlike President Reagan, whose views on guns evolved after he was the victim of an assassin's bullet—he later supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—Donald Trump's brush with death has seemingly spurred him to make it easier and cheaper for the bad guys to operate. 'Anything that makes guns more lethal or easier to conceal, either visually or audibly, helps criminals,' said Jim Kessler, Executive Vice President for Policy at Third Way, a progressive group founded in 2000 as Americans for Gun Safety to reframe the gun issue around reform. The $200 tax stamp on gun suppressors has been in place since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Ninety years ago, that was a decent chunk of change, and one that served to keep potentially lethal devices in check. Now these accessories are commonplace and gun rights groups jockeying for influence in the marketplace have made easier and cheaper access a cause. Republicans in the House and Senate this year introduced the Hearing Protection Act, arguing it would reduce 'overly burdensome' barriers for law-abiding citizens simply trying to obtain auditory protection they need when firing away at the gun range, on the deer hunt or during the getaway chase after a bank robbery. Wait, not the last one. If it were that innocent, if it were solely for people shooting target practice for recreation, the SHUSH Act would likely get some Democratic votes. But nobody believes that's what this is about. As a stand-alone bill, it could not get 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster—critics argue the legislation makes it too easy for people with malign intent to carry out gun crimes and even mass shootings without alerting others to the danger. And that's why now it's tucked into a massive piece of legislation that requires only a simple majority, where it can get a free ride. 'I don't think I've ever seen a weaker argument in my life—so that people with hearing issues could still fire weapons,' Gil Kerlikowske, a former commissioner of border control and protection under President Obama, told the Daily Beast. 'That's just not believable.' Kerlikowske is today on the board of the Giffords Center, the gun safety group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords after she was shot in the head at an outdoor rally in 2013. Of the measure, he added, 'The thing that troubles me the most is that it puts law enforcement in the crosshairs.' A more apt description than Hearing Protection Act would be Criminal Protection Act because silencers give them cover to evade detection. Law enforcement officers will be much more easily outmatched. 'And this is a president and group of Republicans who say they support law enforcement,' Kerlikowske said. (Police unions are so intertwined with the Trump administration and with the gun lobby, however, that they are largely silent in their acquiescence to such dangerous legislation.) Gun murders declined historically across the U.S. in 2023 and 2024. 2025 could have the lowest murder rate ever recorded. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 was the most significant piece of gun violence legislation in 30 years. It closed loopholes in federal law to increase the number of background checks, enhanced checks for buyers under 21, and allocated billions of dollars for mental-health support in schools. Now these gains are at risk. 'Trump has cut those grants… we're expecting schools to lay off social workers and school counselors by the end of the year,' said Nick Wilson, senior director of Gun Violence Prevention at liberal think-tank The Center for American Progress (CAP). Rare Breed Triggers sold at least 103,000 forced reset triggers—a product favored by mass shooters—in two years before Biden's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ruled them illegal in 2022. The company challenged the ban in court; following the settlement reached with Trump's DOJ, it's now back to business as usual. The Trump administration has even established a process for owners to retrieve any seized devices, which cost a few hundred bucks each. 'Second Amendment absolutists have been gaining ground for the last 10 years,' Kessler added. 'It's happening particularly (at) the state level, with a proliferation of laws to make it easier to discharge a firearm if someone feels threatened.' Open carry, concealed carry and stand your ground laws are in place in 25 to 30 mostly red states, where people believe that more guns mean less crime and a safer society. Statistics don't back such claims up, but for gun safety advocates, it's even harder to change perceptions than to change reality. In this broader context, the gun silencer giveaway is just another dangerous piece in an already deadly puzzle. There are other things in the budget reconciliation bill that will have a greater, systemic influence on gun violence, explained CAP's Nick Wilson: People losing employment, losing their insurance, losing their food assistance and feeling angry and disaffected more broadly. 'When people lose their jobs and they're hungry, we know what happens,' he cautioned, leaving the rest to imagine. But you don't want to 'just' imagine—a better approach would be to prepare for the likely negative impacts ahead.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) -- A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Where the Wild Children's Museums Are During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. Presidential Exception The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. Ideological Split So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' --With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? AI Is Helping Executives Tackle the Dreaded Post-Vacation Inbox ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Politico questions Trump's 'messianic rhetoric,' wonders if he sees himself as God
A Politico writer said President Donald Trump is using "messianic rhetoric" and questioned if the 47th president thinks he's like God. "Trump's outlook has shifted in essence from stuff happens and nothing much matters to something happened and it couldn't matter more," the Friday piece authored by Michael Kruse, a senior staff writer at Politico and Politico Magazine, said. "His rhetoric has gone from borderline nihilistic to messianic." The piece gave examples of Trump invoking God, especially following the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. Inside Donald Trump's Relationship With God, In His Own Words: 'I Was Saved' During his November victory speech at Mar-a-Lago, Trump said, "God spared my life for a reason," and during his inaugural speech at the Capitol in January, he said that he "was saved by God to make America great again." "For a while now, a roster of religious believers and leaders, grateful for the political victories Trump has bestowed in exchange for their votes, have suggested and sometimes outright said that Trump is 'chosen,' or 'anointed,' or a 'savior,' or 'the second coming' or 'the Christ for this age,'" Kruse wrote. "Now, though, Trump does it, too." Read On The Fox News App The headline asked, "Does Trump Actually Think He's God?" The piece also mentioned Trump joking that he would like to be pope, as well as the AI depiction of himself as pope that he posted on social media that was also shared by the White House. "It's worth asking. Does Trump… think he's God," Kruse asked. "OK, he almost certainly doesn't think he's God — but does he think he's… God-like? Divinely sanctioned or inspired or empowered? Does he think he's somehow imbued with some special, sacred purpose for some special, sacred reason? Or did he just see and seize an opportunity to stamp his world-upending agenda with the ultimate justification — a mandate from God?" Kruse said Alan Marcus, a former Trump consultant and publicist, told him that he has "no reason to doubt that he would… prefer to believe he was saved by a supreme being because he himself is special rather than the would-be assassin was a lousy shot or he got lucky." Trump Says Life Was Spared To 'Restore America To Greatness' During Victory Speech Marie Griffith, the director of the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University in St. Louis, told Kruse that she thinks Trump sees himself as a "chosen one." "Perhaps opportunism and genuine belief in his own chosenness aren't mutually exclusive," Griffith said. "But whether he truly believes it or not, it is plainly in his interest to keep talking as if everything he does is sanctioned by God," she said. "And I think just looking at the rhetoric, you have to wonder if Butler really shook him up and he thought, 'Maybe they are right. Maybe I really am the 'chosen one.'" Stephen Mansfield, author of "Choosing Donald Trump: God, Anger, Hope, and Why Christian Conservatives Supported Him," told Kruse that he thinks Trump believes he is a "tool of God." Molly Worthen, a history professor at the University of North Carolina who specifically focuses on history and religion, told Kruse that Trump is a "nihilist for whom the only source of meaning is the amassing of personal power, turning his will into personal, political, financial and territorial domination." She added, "That's totally compatible with a messiah complex." She added that she doesn't "see the recent turn in his language as a deviation from past patterns, but the fuller realization of those patterns." Kruse's piece also highlighted a meme Trump posted on his TruthSocial account on Wednesday night that depicts Trump walking down a dark street with the words, "He's on a mission from God, nothing can stop what is coming." Kruse said he asked White House communications director Steven Cheung in a text message if the president "literally" believes those words. "As people of faith, we are all on missions from God," Cheung said. "The president has the biggest mission — to Make America Great Again and to help bring peace across the world. And he's doing just that."Original article source: Politico questions Trump's 'messianic rhetoric,' wonders if he sees himself as God
