the struggle of marginalized individuals

The China Syndrome, directed by 詹姆士 Bridges, is an intriguing thriller that raises a question of how safe the nuclear power plants really are, one of the most unsettling questions of the 20th Century. While condemning the transparency and lack of responsibility of the authority, the movie pictures the struggle of marginalized individuals who just trying to do their jobs.

The movie unfolds the story about a journalist (Jane Fonda) and a camera man (Michael Douglass) try to unveil the truth behind an unsafe nuclear power plant in California after witnessing an accident which could have destroyed half of the California. The nuclear related safety issues, is a great advertisement for the movie despite the incredible cast. At a time when the public was still discovering the 「mysterious」 facts behind the nuclear power and was still making personal judgment towards whether government should use nuclear power plants to generate electricity, this movie undoubtedly drew large attentions.

On the other hand, Hollywood, as one of the most powerful image makers in the world, also gave rise to the discussion and debates concerning whether the nuclear power plants are really safe. The movie not only reveals our fear of what might happen, but also predicts how authorities and individuals might handle the consequences, which in part, sadly, was later proven to be true. In Too Hot To Touch, Alley and Alley mention the exact same fact. In October 1995, Frank Clifford of the LA Times wrote that scientists at the US Geological Survey secretly knew that the nuclear waste at Beatty was leaking, but had kept that critical information from the NAS Ward Valley Committee.Daniel Hirsch, of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, was quoted as saying, 「This appears to be an astonishing cover-up of a matter that could affect the safety of millions of people.」 And Japanese government’s lack of transparency and efficiency after the Fukushima disaster also explains that the attempts to cover up the nuclear related accidents by authorities are not unusual.

And yet the movie works so well not only because its factual basis, but more importantly, its representation of the continuing struggle between individuals and authorities. Both of the three protagonists are marginalized individuals powerlessly fighting with the 「system」, and yet when looking carefully, they are just trying to be who they really are. Kimberly (Jane Fonda), the reporter, is trying to get the story on the air after witnessing the accident, but her supervisor refuses, influenced by the power industry’s public relations people. Richard (Michael Douglass), the camera man, stole the film and starts his own investigation, after his supervisor refuses to reveal the story to the public and prohibits his own access to the film. Jack, a shift supervisor of the nuclear power plant company, had to take over the main control room with a gun to make public statement about the unsafe power plant, and was later killed by the SWAT ordered by the authority. They are all individuals who are suppressed by the authority while just trying to do their jobs.

Although they all seem almost powerless when it comes to the authorities, their attempts still lead to partial victory in the end. Kimberly does a terrific job when she insists to interview one of the company’s employee to tell the truth; Richard successfully digs into the truth behind the accident by himself; Jack, although died in the end, finally reveals the truth to the public and completes his responsibility as a supervisor for the control room-make sure the power plant be shut down when it is not safe. The challenges might be daunting, but individuals should take responsibility.

The ending is my favorite part of the movie: three characters all have their own partial victory to some extent, while the struggle between marginalized individuals and bureaucracy continues. The open text is more powerful and realistic-the truth is out there, you just need to work hard to find it. Instead of an anti-nuclear movie, its 「anti-bureaucracy」 message is stronger. And the nuclear issue subtext happens to be a perfect platform to present the anti-bureaucracy advocacy.