I'm sure this purportedly educational film seems foolish and funny from the 21st century viewpoint. Aimed at children, "Duck and Cover" was apropos for its time, when the public was mostly ignorant of the real risks of nuclear warfare, but very afraid of its implications--the way it changed one's view of the world and personal safety, in general.
It would be difficult to ascertain if the film accomplished what it set out to do--to give children (and their parents) a sense of security in a more dangerous world. Or did it actually make life seem scarier and more uncertain with its warning about "the bright flash" that might interrupt a beautiful day, without prior alarm, from some unseen, ominous and omnipresent source?
Having been a child during that era--and the Cuban missile crisis--I can verify that there was a toll exacted by the constant barrage of warnings about the unspeakable horrors that might befall American citizens at the hands of an evil, godless entity. Thanks, government, for demonizing an entire population and producing such ridiculous garbage as "Duck and Cover".
The film clearly has another agenda--one that pervades almost all government-produced films: legitimizing those in authority. The children who view the film are told "We must obey the civil defense worker". And more than once, it tells kids to ask "older people" in the event of an atomic emergency. Images remind the student viewer that teachers are in charge in the classroom, a message I am sure all educators appreciated.
This film is an interesting artifact from a "simpler" time--simpler in the sense that the average American citizen rarely questioned authority. I think the average congressman in 1952 knew little more than his constituents about the effects of nuclear weapons. The naivete that pervades the film is authentic.
It would be difficult to ascertain if the film accomplished what it set out to do--to give children (and their parents) a sense of security in a more dangerous world. Or did it actually make life seem scarier and more uncertain with its warning about "the bright flash" that might interrupt a beautiful day, without prior alarm, from some unseen, ominous and omnipresent source?
Having been a child during that era--and the Cuban missile crisis--I can verify that there was a toll exacted by the constant barrage of warnings about the unspeakable horrors that might befall American citizens at the hands of an evil, godless entity. Thanks, government, for demonizing an entire population and producing such ridiculous garbage as "Duck and Cover".
The film clearly has another agenda--one that pervades almost all government-produced films: legitimizing those in authority. The children who view the film are told "We must obey the civil defense worker". And more than once, it tells kids to ask "older people" in the event of an atomic emergency. Images remind the student viewer that teachers are in charge in the classroom, a message I am sure all educators appreciated.
This film is an interesting artifact from a "simpler" time--simpler in the sense that the average American citizen rarely questioned authority. I think the average congressman in 1952 knew little more than his constituents about the effects of nuclear weapons. The naivete that pervades the film is authentic.