NOTE IMDb
7,4/10
33 k
MA NOTE
Un journaliste découvre ce qui semble être une tentative de dissimulation de risques dans une centrale nucléaire.Un journaliste découvre ce qui semble être une tentative de dissimulation de risques dans une centrale nucléaire.Un journaliste découvre ce qui semble être une tentative de dissimulation de risques dans une centrale nucléaire.
- Nommé pour 4 Oscars
- 9 victoires et 16 nominations au total
Khalilah Camacho Ali
- Marge
- (as Khalilah Ali)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWhen the film was first released on 16 March 1979, nuclear power executives soon lambasted the picture as being "sheer fiction" and a "character assassination of an entire industry". Then twelve days after its launch, the Three Mile Island nuclear accident occurred near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
- GaffesWhen a reactor is "SCRAM"ed, it does not initiate the use of massive cooling systems. The SCRAM process is the rapid (4 second or less) insertion of the control rods into the core which shuts the reactor down by absorbing the neutrons. If the SCRAM fails, then the reactor can be shut down by using a neutron-absorbing liquid injected into the core from pressurized tanks (no pumps). Also, in addition to the cooling pumps, there is an Emergency Core Cooling System which injects a large amount of cooling water into the core if the primary cooling system fails.
- Citations
Jack Godell: What makes you think they're looking for a scapegoat?
Ted Spindler: Tradition.
- Crédits fousThe end credits run in total silence.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Making of 'The China Syndrome' (1979)
- Bandes originalesSomewhere In Between
by Stephen Bishop
Commentaire à la une
Still Relevant After (Nearly) 25 Years
This is *not* a great film about nuclear power. It plays too fast and loose with reality for that--especially in a cringe-inducing scene where two scientists describe the consequences of a reactor accident. The catastrophic damage they describe is (even opponents of nuclear power would agree) a worst-case scenario, not the inevitable result of a breakdown in the reactor cooling system. Three-Mile Island suffered such a breakdown, and the surrounding "area the size of Pennsylvania" remained habitable.
That said, this *is* a great (and surprisingly subtle) film about complex technological systems, how they fail, and how the organizations that manage them go awry. Subtle? Well: 1) Jack Godell, the whiste-blowing hero, is a flawed and self-doubting normal human being rather than a crusader in shining armor; 2) His co-workers at the plant (as opposed to the "suits" they work for) are sympathetic working-class guys who gripe (as does everybody now and then) about burdensome government regulations and the clueless public; 3) The flaws in the plant are subtle, not glaring. The film, in other words, plays a lot fairer than you'd expect given its reputation (and pedigree).
Does this film have a definite whiff of late-70s, post-Watergate America about it? Sure. Does it have a political edge? Yes. For all that, though, it's still (sadly) relevant--our technology, and the people who are supposed to make it work, still fail us. See the movie, then skim the recent (August 2003) report on the Columbia disaster; the more things change. . .
That said, this *is* a great (and surprisingly subtle) film about complex technological systems, how they fail, and how the organizations that manage them go awry. Subtle? Well: 1) Jack Godell, the whiste-blowing hero, is a flawed and self-doubting normal human being rather than a crusader in shining armor; 2) His co-workers at the plant (as opposed to the "suits" they work for) are sympathetic working-class guys who gripe (as does everybody now and then) about burdensome government regulations and the clueless public; 3) The flaws in the plant are subtle, not glaring. The film, in other words, plays a lot fairer than you'd expect given its reputation (and pedigree).
Does this film have a definite whiff of late-70s, post-Watergate America about it? Sure. Does it have a political edge? Yes. For all that, though, it's still (sadly) relevant--our technology, and the people who are supposed to make it work, still fail us. See the movie, then skim the recent (August 2003) report on the Columbia disaster; the more things change. . .
utile•6720
- abvr
- 2 sept. 2003
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et regarder afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- The China Syndrome
- Lieux de tournage
- Sewage Disposal Plant, El Segundo, Californie, États-Unis(plant exteriors)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 6 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 51 718 367 $US
- Montant brut mondial
- 51 718 367 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Le syndrome chinois (1979) officially released in India in English?
Répondre