ShareThis Page
Review: Smart, scary ‘Countdown’ traces evolution of atomic bomb |

Review: Smart, scary ‘Countdown’ traces evolution of atomic bomb

| Friday, August 6, 2010 12:00 a.m

“Countdown to Zero,” Lucy Walker’s documentary about the evolution of the atomic bomb, is smart, swift and scary as hell.

At its center, frequently repeated throughout the film and serving as its rallying cry, is John F. Kennedy’s 1961 statement to the General Assembly of the United Nations: “Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”

Walker, a British documentarian (“Devil’s Playground,” “Blindsight”), outlines for us the making of a nuclear weapon and explains how many such weapons exist, and in how many countries. (She also reveals, through on-the-street interviews, how very few of us know these figures.) Various witnesses, such as former CIA covert-operations officer Valerie Plame Wilson and former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, give their perspectives.

And Walker includes a graphic, terrifying description of nuclear destruction and its aftereffects, as we watch New Year’s Eve revelers in New York’s Times Square. “Everything,” we’re told calmly, “would be vaporized.”

The film ends on a note of hope that’s welcome but almost jarring, considering the alarming footage that came before. At the close of the film’s parade of grim statistics, we’re given an encouraging one: 183 countries have chosen not to make nuclear weaponry. At the time of the film’s completion in 2009, we’re told, 23,355 nuclear weapons existed — but, thanks to the new Global Zero Initiative (in which world leaders plan a phased elimination of nuclear weapons), the countdown to zero has begun.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.