Follow us on social

 Live in Fear (1955)  Akira Kurosawa

Dr. Kurosawa (and how we can learn to fear the bomb again)

When did they stop making movies about nuclear armageddon?

Analysis | Media

When did people stop fearing nuclear armageddon?

That’s what it can feel like, watching the movies of the last 25 years or so. When is the last time you saw a trailer for something even close to a Dr. Strangelove or even WarGames? (For all its acclamation, Oppenheimer was an intellectualized biographical drama focused on the man behind the bomb.)

Sure, apocalyptic disaster movies are still all the rage, but today they focus almost exclusively on pandemics, artificial intelligence, or natural catastrophes set off by global warming. At best, nuclear weapons may play a bit role in some terrorist scheme in a Mission Impossible or Jack Reacher plot, but in doomsday itself, like The Day After? Not in a very long time.

When a film “captures the zeitgeist” it means it is reflecting back society’s impulses and anxieties at any given moment, and sometimes, not always, offering a better understanding of where these culturally shared feelings come from and how, if necessary, to get past them. The fact is, 21st Century Hollywood no longer portrays the horrors of nuclear war because too many people feel removed from the fear of it.

So what about a movie in which the entire focus is that fear? For that, we have to go even further back.

One of the most successful films in this genre was made outside of Hollywood, produced by the only society in the world that has actually been a victim of nuclear war: Japan.

No, not Godzilla, the original metaphor for the violent birth of the atomic age. This one has no no generals, politicians, geopolitics, countdowns, or international crises.

I Live in Fear (1955) comes from the mind of director Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998), whose body of work would later inspire western luminaries like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. I Live in Fear, now being featured in the Criterion Collection, was intended to express Kurosawa’s own anxieties over the nuclear moment.

In it, a 35-year old Toshiro Mifuneplays an elderly, cantankerous factory owner named Kiichi Nakajima (complete with old-age makeup) who is convinced he must sell the foundry and move to South America in order to avoid the inevitable fallout from a looming atomic war.

His family is so distressed by his behavior that they take the issue of his competency to court. During the legal proceedings, one of the sons says that everyone has to die sometime, why does it matter how? To which Nakajima growls, “everybody has to die, but I won’t be murdered!”

His logic does not fall on deaf ears. “His only fault is going too far. But his anxiety about the bomb is something we all share…We just don’t feel it quite as strongly,” affirms one of the arbitrators, Doctor Harada, played by Kurosawa regular Takashi Shimura.

“We don’t build underground shelters or plan to move to Brazil,” says Harada. “But can we claim that the feeling is beyond comprehension? The Japanese all share it, to greater or lesser degrees. We can’t dispense with it so easily by just saying he went too far.”

Nuclear anxiety proves contagious, as Harada buys a book titled The Ashes of Death and becomes increasingly melancholic. “If the birds and beasts could read it, they’d all leave Japan,” he tells his own son.

Now placed in a conservatorship by his bickering family, Nakajima becomes increasingly desperate. During a chance encounter on the street, he berates Harada: “I keep thinking about the H-bomb, but all I can do is think! And the more I think, the more restless I become. But there’s nothing I can do! It’s a living hell!”

Gathering one last family meeting, Nakajima pleads with his children. “You say I’m paranoid, and maybe I am. But H-bombs really exist. War could break out at any time. If it does, it’ll be too late to get away.”

“I can’t let him die,” he wells up, pointing at his youngest, infant son. “I can’t let an H-bomb kill him before he’s even had a chance to live! I don’t care about myself, and I thought I’d have to give up on you. I thought at one point if I could at least save this baby — but you’re all my flesh and blood! I can’t leave you here! Please come with me, I’m begging you.”

But his family remains unmoved by his pleas, more worried by their father’s erratic financial decisions than any wayward bomb.

(Spoilers ahead).

Physically sick with stress, and now monomaniacally focused on forcing his family to move, Nakajima burns down his own foundry. Confessing to this act of arson, he’s overwhelmed by the pain and despair expressed by his family and his many (now former) employees. This confrontation is his mind’s final break, as he crawls through a mudpatch promising to bring everyone to Brazil with him.

Committed to a sanitarium, Nakajima is visited by a still depressed Harada. His madness has left him convinced that he’s been transported to another planet, the only place truly safe from the danger of nuclear weapons. “By the way, what happened to the earth? Are many people still left behind there?” he asks Harada. Then, glancing out the window, he becomes frantic looking at the fiery sun in the sky. “It’s burning! The Earth has finally gone up in flames,” he exclaims, waving his arms and shuffling around the room.

I Live in Fear is considered one of Kurosawa’s minor works, lost in the shadow of his masterpieces, Seven Samurai, High and Low, and Yojimbo. But its street-level view of nuclear anxiety has made I Live in Fear timeless, and its premise much more relevant today than most of the Cold War thrillers which would follow in the decades since.

A viewer’s takeaway might be the same as one of Nakajima’s psychiatrists: “Is he crazy? Or are we, who can remain unperturbed in an insane world, the crazy ones?” We need not be paranoid or obsessed, but neither should we be apathetic to the real threat that nuclear weapons pose to us today. Perhaps we do not need a “Day After” to show us what World War III would look like, but a healthy dose of fear, and what it looks like wouldn’t hurt either.


Top photo credit Live in Fear (1955) original movie poster (public domain); mushroom cloud (Shutterstock/Alones)
Analysis | Media
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.