Example research essay topic: Analysis Of The Atomic Cafe Documentary 1982 - 1,226 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Analysis of The Atomic Cafe Documentary (1982) Atomic Cafe can be thought of as the example of a new genre in the field of documentaries. Some critics refer to it as observational grotesque. It is clear that producers strived to expose the sheer futility of duck and cover tactics, when it comes to protecting people from the effects of nuclear explosion. However, Atomic Cafe would never be able to become critically acclaimed, if it was only providing viewers with the historical insight on how did it feel to live under the constant threat of nuclear obliteration.

Jayne Loader and Pierce Rafferty managed to produce a documentary that has implications in todays socio-political reality. Just as fifty years ago, our government continues to misinform citizens, in order to maintain social order, during the times when our nation faces the threat from abroad. This is exactly the reason why the socio-political stance of a narrator in documentary is not being clearly defined. In fact, it is being often referred to as such that is missing altogether. The reason is simple producers wanted the viewers to come up to their own conclusions, in regards to the methods our politicians use, when it comes to ideological brainwashing. It appears that Loader and Rafferty wanted to ridicule governments attempts to encourage ordinary citizens to think of security as their existential priority.

Apparently, the idea that people need to give up on some of their constitutional rights, in order to be able to enjoy them in the long run, is not new. Throughout Atomic Cafe, we get to see images of people that are both hopelessly ignorant and filled with patriotic spirit. One does not need to be a genius to be able to draw parallels between documentary and the current situation in America, when citizens are often being withheld a crucial information (to prevent the spread of panic), while they are also required to manifest their patriotism with the mean of waving little American flags. Basically, there is no much difference between aproned housewife in fifties, who seriously believes that hiding under the table constitutes a very effective protection against nuclear explosion, and todays soccer mom, who is convinced that the real reason why Islamic terrorists target America is because they cannot stand a sight of American women wearing short skirts, as our President want us to think. John Nesbit, in his review Duck and Cover Survivors, is making very good point when he suggests that Atomic Cafe poses an ideological threat to self-proclaimed guardians of public morality in this country: No doubt that many conservatives who stand firmly behind the U. S.

government and support the military strongly will absolutely hate this documentary for its political slant (Nesbit). Thus, even though Atomic Cafe does not contain any clear statements, in regards to how nuclear paranoia needs to be evaluated, from contemporary perspective, it is nevertheless a politically suggestive film. In Atomic Cafe, producers intentionally mix black and white footage with fragments in color. This is because it establishes a link between the events of fifties and the realities of nowadays. The initial stages of Gold War, the Caribbean crisis of 1962 and the years between 1980 and 1983 are now being referred to as times when humanity stood on the brink of nuclear holocaust. Apparently, Loader and Rafferty wanted viewers to come to realization that the progress in civil defense tactics, which we now associate with Reagan's era, had illusionary essence.

It appears that the whole idea that is possible to win in nuclear war, was being considered as counterproductive by the makers of documentary, which is explainable, given the fact that in eighties, there was enough nuclear weapons in the world to destroy Earth 10 - 15 times over. In time when Atomic Cafe was produced, the majority of Americans thought that it was only the matter of time, before America and Soviet Union would be in the state of war. It was also the case at the beginning of fifties, which is why it cannot escape viewers attention that documentary, is filled with fatalistic motives. While watching Atomic Cafe, one cannot get rid of the feeling that the film was meant to appeal more to post-war generations than to producers contemporaries. This is because Atomic Cafe is nothing but documented history of human futility achieving the status of self-efficiency, with nuclear war coming as logical consequence of this process.

The more logical the arguments of interviewed people sound, when it comes to discussing issues related to nuclear defense, the better we get to understand the metaphysical foundation of producers worldview. In their documentary, Loader and Rafferty suggest that arms race, as socio-political phenomenon, has absurdist nature. We can say that the makers of Atomic Cafe promote Freud's idea of people being subjected to the instinct of death. This is why both, Americans and Russians are shown as being able to talk about the issues related to nuclear war with a sense of humor. It is documentary's most striking feature. Apparently, people are quite capable of accepting the idea that it is perfectly natural to die in nuclear war, on their part, because their instinct of self-destruction has social implications.

It seems that Loader and Rafferty were also subjected to this instinct, while producing their documentary, because the numerous shots of nuclear explosions in it, have esthetic appeal. When they were asked why was it so necessary to apply so much effort, during the course of making documentary, in order to restore the quality of archive films that contain images of nuclear tests, Loader and Rafferty could rarely come up with a comprehensive answer. It is most likely that they were simply drawn to the images of rising mushroom clouds, on subconscious level. Although many people consider Atomic Cafe as such, that only has a historic value; it will not be an exaggeration to suggest that it also exposes the murky depths of our collective unconsciousness. Documentary exploits peoples sense of black humor, as something that enables them to understand the point producers wanted to make, which is also the reason why the role of narrator in the film is being intentionally diminished.

Atomic Cafe can serve as intellectual monument to the era, when humanity came very close to extinction, as dominant specie, because of possessing the power that could hardly be mastered. If nuclear war did occur in eighties, as it was being anticipated by great many people, Atomic Cafe could help the survivors to understand that it was not the greedy Capitalists or bloodthirsty Communists that caused the end of civilization, as we know it, but the biological essence of humankind, as only the specie that can ideologically motivate the necessity of nuclear apocalypse. Bibliography: Glass, Fred, The Atomic Cafe. Film Quarterly 34. 3, Spring 1983, p. 54. Smith, Derek Atomic Cafe. 2002. Apollo Guide. 20 Nov. 2007.

web Olubunmi, John The Atomic Cafe. 2004. Senses of Cinema. 20 Nov. 2007. web Nesbit, John Duck and Cover Survivors. 2001. Culture Cartel. Com. 20 Nov. 2007. web Wiener, Jon.

The Omniscient Narrator and the Unreliable Narrator: the Case of Atomic Cafe (Special Film Review Essay) (Video recording review) Film & History 37. 1 (Jan 2007): 73 (4). Academic One File. Gale. Hartness Library System. 11 Nov. 2007. Outline: Political aspects p. 1 Psychological aspects Pp. 2 - 3

Research essay sample on Analysis Of The Atomic Cafe Documentary 1982