On the Beach (1959)

What's next, Captain?
"On The Beach" is a sobering view of what things may have deteriorated to, had there been a mutual nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War (the likelihood of this scenario has all but disappeared with the end of the Cold War, but there remain belligerent nations that just can't seem to get with the idea).

The last bastion of humanity resides in Australia, the rest of the world having been irradiated into extinction. Enter into this one American Nuclear Submarine, that has attached itself to the Civil Defense Authority in Australia, whose duty it is to search the globe for other locales that may not have been affected by the nuclear fallout. The outlook is decidedly grim, as there is nowhere that hasn't been affected. Just when you think things couldn't get any worse, Australia will itself be blanketed by the radiation that has engulfed the rest of the world.

Aside from the depressive nature of this part of the story, the relationships that develope become the true essence of what it is to be human. How would you act when told of the day and hour of your death? Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Fred Astair and Anthony Perkins give a good account of themselves in this film. The final act is a moving tribute to the spirit of Man.

There is an interesting bit of information about the casting of this film. The Director was reticent to use Ava Gardner, thinking that she was too pretty for this film. He found his concern correct, when before a specific scene, he laid into Ava, telling her to remove her make-up before shooting was to resume. He felt that she was not "haggard looking" enough. Ava simply got a Kleenex, wiped her face with it and showed it to him (she was wearing no make-up)!

"On The Beach" is so much more than a "post-apocalyptic" film. It is testament to the human condition. A very well done film.

Moving, heartwrenching and a bit scary
I read Nevil Shute's book several years ago and thought it amazing. Recently, when culling some books from my bookshelves, I re-read it once again one afternoon. When I read the book the first time, I didn't even know of this classic film. However, I had learned of it since I reading the book the last time, so I ordered this film and, based on others' reviews, the film with Armand Assante and Rachel Ward.

First of all, Gregory Peck and Anthony Perkins were WONDERFUL. Peck had the appeal he had in To Kill A Mockingbird-- strong, sensitive, smart-- all of those good qualities. I've never seen Anthony Perkins like this before. I remember I saw him in one little unmemorable movie (besides Psycho) years ago and liked him, but he was just perfect here. Truly likeable and empathetic and believable. So much so, that I asked my husband why he thought Perkins was typecast after Psycho since he was so talented and appealing. He thought Perkins may have gotten too swishy afterwards and lost his audience appeal (not an indictment or criticism, just a commentary on the times).

The woman who played Perkins wife was also good, as was Ava Gardner. But, herein lies my criticism. I didn't think Ava Gardner was quite as believable as the rest of the cast in her role, although she was definitely adequate. And, I think her role might be the most difficult of all-- she must be a bit brash, bold, regretful, lonely, yet still appealing. Moira is a woman nearing middle age and yearning for a bit of love and comfort before imminent death. I thought Gardner's performance was alright, but I also thought it lacked some depth. Whenever on screen, I found myself studying her performance and critiquing it rather than losing myself in the film.

The story is truly staggering. Taking place in Australia, the citizens are the last known society waiting for imminent death by radioactive fallout which is slowly moving across the earth. Everyone else is dead and they, too, will be dead soon. This film is about how this small group of people spend their last months.

Shute's book is not perfectly written. I remember he calls the baby "it" so many times it was a bit disturbing. Parents don't refer to the baby as "it" too many times after he or she is born! However, certain characters and the story itself are so memorable, despite the book's flaws, that it is a must-read.

The movie, although good and completely recommended, has lost something in the move from book to film. There were certain elements of the book that should have remained in the movie-- not major things, but little details which stayed with the reader long after the book was over. One is how Captain Towers dealt with the memory of his family (who was in America when the bombs hit) and how Capt. Towers spoke of September (the estimated date of radioactive fallout arrival).

Also lost here was how the people dealt with the illnesses of their friends and families and how they planned to deal with their own impending illnesses. Perkins and Anderson dealt with it, since that was the major story line for them in the book. However, while suicide pills were a major factor in the book, it was less so here. And, there is something about a government handing out suicide pills to its citizens that is so awful, and watching the people making their decisions, that I thought it should have been given more focus.

The ending is true to the book, for the most part. The changes made here didn't have to be made and I wonder why the screenwriter or director decided to make them. They are minor changes, but important. I don't want to include a spoiler, but the ending of this film was less emotional than the ending of the book-- and my opinion is based on a certain action that was omitted rather than any performances.

I wound up watching both this movie and the remake of it within the same two weeks. Honestly, the newer remake was better with the exception of Armand Assante's performance (which was OKAY, but not of Peck's caliber.). Both are worth seeing. If you can take two stories about Armageddon, order both these films.

I saw it in 1959
I was 10 years old when I saw this movie. I can't describe how terrifying this movie was to me at that time. It was absolutely not for a child of 10 years old but there was no rating system in place and anyone could view it and we did!!!

I remember watching the sub sail into a port and getting a so-called signal from someone or something and it turned out to be a coke bottle caught in a blind bobbing up and down on the telegraph. That's how, at that time, people thought you'd communicate if all else failed. That's how it was in 1959. No phones so it had to be Morse code. No computers yet or anything else. We could blow ourselves to kingdom come but we still had the Morse code!!!

The fallout slowly drifting across the world and killing everything in its path, that's another thing that chilled me to the bone. There was no escaping it. It was either a slow death by fallout or suicide.

A couple in Australian, with a small baby, had to make the heartbreaking decision to buy suicide pills for themselves and their young child before the fallout reached them. It was really horrible. And this could happen!!!

In 1962 we came so close with the Cuban Missle Crises and President Kennedy decided to blockade insead of invasion. We have him to thank for our survival!!!