n an urban society, everything connects …” It begins exactly like a documentary, with a voiceover narrator explaining how so many lives are dependent on others, while footage of a spider weaving a web draws a visual comparison to humankind. A more traditional, fictional narrative kicks in when Ruth Beckett (Karen Meagher) and Jimmy Kemp (Reece Dinsdale) sit in a car on a cliff overlooking the town of Sheffield (the fourth largest city in Britain) on March 5th, relaxing and attempting to get in the mood to be a little handsy. A month later, Ruth is pregnant and Jimmy tells his parents that they’re going to get married; an abortion is out of the question, leaving the two with few options. But it’s not a great time to start a family, considering the country is in the middle of a recession. And neither family is all that supportive.

Adding to the general sense of anxiety is the fact that geopolitics and related tensions are at an all time high; reporters from the BBC intermittently butt in to give details about Russian troops in northern Iran (presumably for oil interests), the disappearance of a United States warship, U.S. troops parachuting into western Iran, and other escalating confrontations between the Soviet Union and its opponents. It’s in the background, but it still makes it difficult for Ruth and Jimmy to focus completely on building a new life together. After all, the world hasn’t been this close to widespread armed conflict in some time.

“Britain has emergency plans for war …” As dates flash onscreen (and various facts scroll as if typed by a typewriter), essentially ticking down the days until an inevitable catastrophe, the unseen narrator jumps back in, explaining how the government will operate should wartime procedures need to be implemented. The Kemp household continues to go about their routines – from gardening to visiting the pub – but they’re presented as if reenactments of activities conducted by ordinary folks who are about to experience something extraordinary. “Threads” is designed like a how-to guide for apocalyptic events; and, indeed, once the television reports include information about nuclear weapons being moved about in the Middle East, it becomes obvious that atomic woes will surely unfold. “You cannot win a nuclear war!”

Originally released in 1984 during a period of specific societal unrest related to nuclear dissension, “Threads” remains endlessly relevant and perpetually timeless; the possibility of a world power unleashing a nuclear missile has never disappeared. As the concerns transform into governmental posturing then into ultimatums then into attacks, the citizenry of Sheffield undergoes the predictable stages of confusion and fear and panic. Protestors spill into the streets, prices skyrocket, looting ensues, store shelves empty, and a mass exodus begins – though travel becomes restricted. Riots break out overseas as battling militaries suffer casualties. Step by step, the film chronicles the extremely likely milestones of nuclear war (how it comes about and how to buckle under the pressures of returning to a medieval existence), going so far as to show the removal of pieces from a museum to law enforcement’s attempts to suppress unruly crowds to the methods of segregating a corpse while hiding in one’s fallout shelter.

It’s the mother of all cautionary tales – but to the detriment of all else. In its efforts to depict the utmost realism in societal degradation and disintegration when it comes to an atomic assault, “Threads” ignores most attempts at entertainment value. It’s basically for instructional purposes only. Nevertheless, it’s quite exhilarating when the strike finally occurs, brutally showcasing the horrors of a blast, the mushroom cloud, and the petrified onlookers reacting. And then there are explosions, vehicles and people set alight, constant screams, objects melting, and writhing figures turning to ash. “I’m not sure whether it’s night or day anymore.”

A woman urinating on herself in immeasurable fear is one of the most indelible shots – and this is before personas contend with radiation burns (and sickness) and fallout dust, or wrap grime-covered bodies in trash bags, or trek through rubble filled with mangled skeletons. Though it charts the paths of a handful of characters, many are simply abandoned in favor of the larger picture, which is detailed through stock footage, countless news reports and factoids, and the narrator chiming back in to explain how radioactive materials will continue to cause harm. The aftermath offers minimal optimism; since “Threads” wasn’t really interested in individuals anyway, the characters become mere subjects to be examined for the ways in which they will painfully perish. It’s so morbid that as the populace succumbs to desperation and hopelessness, officials trapped in a makeshift, underground command center argue over bureaucratic red tape, fussing over the futility of feeding survivors who will soon die from radiation poisoning anyway.

By the end (spanning an unexpectedly long period), it only gets bleaker and bleaker, with utilities and electricity cut off, health services overrun (doctors no longer have bandages, drugs, or water), epidemics running rampant, food and other supplies diminishing, and British soldiers resorting to shooting at starving survivors (some of whom threaten to attack government stores, while others rummage through crumbling houses searching for canned goods). Plus, 10-20 million corpses litter the streets as food becomes the only currency of value, rationed for workers and all but withheld from the infirm. It’s an absolute nightmare, faithfully envisioning an incomparably hellish scenario (concluding on an outrageously grisly note); and though it’s far from an engaging film (it’s ghastly and soul-crushing, however), it ought to be required viewing for the sake of convincing humankind not to toy with the idea of using nuclear weapons. There are certainly no winners; and, like in modern zombie flicks, the ones who died right away are the lucky ones. “Back to survival of the fittest, I suppose.”

– Mike Massie