A reporter finds what appears to be a cover-up of safety hazards at a nuclear power plant.A reporter finds what appears to be a cover-up of safety hazards at a nuclear power plant.A reporter finds what appears to be a cover-up of safety hazards at a nuclear power plant.
- Nominated for 4 Oscars
- 9 wins & 16 nominations total
Khalilah Camacho Ali
- Marge
- (as Khalilah Ali)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaWhen 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.
- GoofsWhen 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.
- Quotes
Jack Godell: What makes you think they're looking for a scapegoat?
Ted Spindler: Tradition.
- Crazy creditsThe end credits run in total silence.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Making of 'the China Syndrome' (1979)
- SoundtracksSomewhere In Between
by Stephen Bishop
Featured review
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. . .
helpful•6720
- abvr
- Sep 2, 2003
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- An Element Of Risk
- Filming locations
- Sewage Disposal Plant, El Segundo, California, USA(plant exteriors)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $6,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $51,718,367
- Gross worldwide
- $51,718,367
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content