"Duck and Cover" is something of a mystery to me. Looking back now, over fifty years later, the suggestions seem fairly absurd that one could protect themselves from a nuclear blast with a blanket or stop their neck from being burned by putting their hands over the back of their head.
Now, some folks will say that bombs in the 1950s aren't what they are today and that the radius of a blast wasn't as far, so if you were on the outskirts of the explosion, these rules and suggestions might actually be useful. (Although, one suspects that if you have to wait for a Civil Defense worker to tell you to get up, you'll be waiting a long time.)
But another thing I found interesting is that people seem to get the message backwards on this short -- they think it takes a realistic fear and makes it seem trivial or quaint. But, for me, it seems that it takes something that is rather rare and makes it one more thing to fear. Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis (and Cuba didn't even turn "communist" for another seven years after this film) the risk was small. For those of us in the Midwest, the threat is essentially nil, both then and today. There are many other threats that would be better to warn us about.
Whatever the case, this film stands as a piece of history that will remain rather interesting and grow in the coming years, hopefully being beyond "surreal" or "absurd" at the 100-year mark. We live in an atomic age, but should we go about fearing it? There's little need to fear much of anything if we properly assess the risks involved.
Now, some folks will say that bombs in the 1950s aren't what they are today and that the radius of a blast wasn't as far, so if you were on the outskirts of the explosion, these rules and suggestions might actually be useful. (Although, one suspects that if you have to wait for a Civil Defense worker to tell you to get up, you'll be waiting a long time.)
But another thing I found interesting is that people seem to get the message backwards on this short -- they think it takes a realistic fear and makes it seem trivial or quaint. But, for me, it seems that it takes something that is rather rare and makes it one more thing to fear. Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis (and Cuba didn't even turn "communist" for another seven years after this film) the risk was small. For those of us in the Midwest, the threat is essentially nil, both then and today. There are many other threats that would be better to warn us about.
Whatever the case, this film stands as a piece of history that will remain rather interesting and grow in the coming years, hopefully being beyond "surreal" or "absurd" at the 100-year mark. We live in an atomic age, but should we go about fearing it? There's little need to fear much of anything if we properly assess the risks involved.