The House in the Middle

Atomic tests at the Nevada Proving Grounds (later the Nevada Test Site) show effects on well-kept homes, homes filled with trash and combustibles, and homes painted with reflective white paint. Asserts that cleanliness is an essential part of civil defense preparedness and that it increased survivability.

Alright, so this was not supposed to be funny but was a real film created by the government to help prepare people for nuclear war. We know now (2016) that nuclear war never happened, and seems less likely now that it ever will (keeping in mind that America is protected by two large oceans). This film in unintentionally funny, because who could really believe a clean house was less likely to be destroyed? That makes even less sense than "duck and cover".

OMFG. Like one of the other reviewers I too recorded this from TCM (9/4/2010) and expected to see mushroom clouds and damage to different types of objects, but never expected it to be saying the a clean house and yard will be protected from an atomic blast.

It seems like the US govt. would have been a little more realistic in their messages to the public by telling them to kiss their asses goodbye if an atomic bomb was detonated in their town, rather than wasting money on a film telling them their property would be spared if it was clean and well maintained. Of course this from a government who would later develop the neutron bomb which preserves property but kills everyone more quickly.

Good for a few chuckles with horrible production values and (as mentioned by another reviewer) the same narrator (seemingly) as some other classic government propaganda films. Enjoy!

In the 1950s, nuclear attack by the Soviet Union was on every American's mind. Shorts like this might seem ridiculous in hindsight now that the Cold War is a thing of the past, but things like this are still important today, as the Earth is still home to thousands of nuclear weapons. This short attempts to prove to the US public that cleaning the inside of your house (and the area around it) might not only save your home in case of atomic war, but your life as well. The film shows a vast and empty test range in the Nevada desert which is where many nuclear tests are carried out. On the range are two houses. Both are made of wood, but one has a tidy interior while the other house is the opposite. A nuke explodes some miles away, and within seconds, a huge shockwave destroys parts of both roofs, but the left house is still standing. The one on the right burns to a crisp. Next, we see three houses. The one on the right is composed mostly of old wood that's never been painted before, and has a large amount of garbage and clutter around the outside. The house on the left is much of the same, and is built of old, rotten wood that's practically falling apart. Finally, the middle house is painted pure white to reflect the intense flash of an atomic explosion, has no clutter in its vicinity, and has been recently painted, which helps alleviate moisture. The excruciating heat generated by the bomb is noticeably less effective at damaging this house, and it's shown to be remarkably intact after the other two go up in flames. Ironically, the house on the right starts burning because a fire ignited on the garbage and then spread to the house. We're then told how important it is to keep the inside and outside of your house clean because it can save you from the end of the world. In general, I thought this short was pretty ridiculous, which seems to be the general consensus among the 50 or so people who took time out of their day to watch it. In reality, following the nonsense guidelines shown in this short wouldn't actually mean anything in case a nuke explodes in your city, as anyone relatively close to ground zero would be disintegrated and people for miles around would suffer intense burns and exposure to cancerous radiation. Back then, I suppose films like this had to be made to reassure the population, even if the notion of surviving such a huge explosion is absurd. At the very least, the short encourages you to make sure you don't leave things lying around your house.

In retrospect, this is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Having lived through this time (as a child at the time), government agencies had us believing that if a nuclear weapon were exploded, all we had to do is get out of the way. We all know the "duck and cover" bit. The idea that a coat of paint and a clean up of your yard would do the least bit of good when a fireball hits your property is ludicrous. My rating was strictly on the basis of its entertainment value. The dramatic music and the intensity of the narrator are quite amusing. Let's hope with our current cozying up with Russia that we don't ever have to face such an attack. That's the serious side.

This short subject starts off with a picture of a mushroom cloud arising from a nuclear explosion. It is produced by "The National Clean Up - Paint Up - Fix Up Bureau" -- with of course, the cooperation of the Federal Civil Defense Administration. This was an era when they exposed soldiers to atom bombs to study effects. Indeed, it was a couple of years before Howard Hughes imported sand from atomic testing sites for studio retakes of THE CONQUEROR. This eventually resulted in the death by cancer of Dick Powell and the removal of one of co-star John Wayne's lungs. So, at the time, this seemed a sensible question.

In retrospect this industrial film looks like a parody of itself -- will a semi-gloss or a latex best resist the end of the world and should I use a white undercoating? Or would wallpaper do a better job? Maybe one of the Morris prints which uses lots of green arsenic for the nursery. In the meantime, you'd better throw out those old newspapers because when they drop the Bomb next door, they will burst into flames and lower real estate values.

Yet, in many ways, B movies and industrial films provide us with the best view of contemporary thought from an era. For a major picture, you have many bright people laboring intensively to make every choice. For something like this, it's a matter of getting it today, not right, and so the casual, easy choice that reveals the habits of the era is the one taken.

So while you're busy laughing your head off at the stupidity of people more than half a century ago -- and trying hard not to think of what people will think about us in another half century -- consider this from a sociological viewpoint, if you would.