MovieChat Forums > The China Syndrome (1979) Discussion > Jack's testimony at the first hearing

Jack's testimony at the first hearing

posted 9 years ago by mdgross50
13 replies | jump to latest

I saw this when I was very young, and I had this distinct impression that he sold his staff out, to a degree, when asked about the discrepancy between the water level indicators in the core. Maybe I thought that because of how seemingly-cold the relationship was with Wilford Brimley's character after the hearing, as well as the fact that Jack was making calls against the advice of his men during this first emergency. I get that Brimley's character was scared of being blamed because he wasn't part of the good-old-boy-Navy-club, but was there any factual basis for his concern that he was being blamed aside from the fact that his character had to testify for 9 hours?

TLDR: Did Jack sell out his men, and Brimley in particular, in the first hearing into the near-disaster at the plant?

[–] ncdwbmk6 9 years ago

In the portion of the hearing that we see in the film, Jack admits he was present and didn't think to look at the other indicator. So he's not blaming Ted (Brimley's character).

And toward the end of the film, Ted is in charge of the control room, so the management must have continued to trust him.

---
You got your mind right, Luke?

[–] mdgross50 9 years ago

Yes, I remember Jack saying something like "I was standing right there and I didn't look at [the indicator] either." However, I still got the distinct impression that he was downplaying his own role in the first crisis. Remember when everyone in the control room gets the report of that first investigation? Brimley's character reads it aloud and it mentions that some policies/procedures were not followed as a preliminary to saying that, overall, they did a good job diffusing the crisis. Everyone is happy except Jack, who has a very stressed look on his face, as if he is imagining what was said in that hearing room after his own testimony. I still think that after grilling Brimley's character for so many hours that he had to admit to the investigating board that Jack was taking seemingly-risky actions before the crisis that may have exacerbated the situation. Thus, they gave Brimley more responsibility?

[–] ncdwbmk6 9 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean.

Throughout the film, Jack and Ted appear to be friends, and co-workers who respect each other. (Except when Ted thinks Jack is acting irrationally just before and during Jack's takeover of the control room near the end.)

Jack was nominally the supervisor during the first "event", and was giving the orders, so I don't see how he could blame anyone else for that. Jack was disturbed when he noticed a vibration during that event, which led him to examine the x-rays in the files to uncover the deeper issue, which was separate from the malfunction of the water level indicator.

---
You got your mind right, Luke?

[–] mdgross50 9 years ago

"Throughout the film, Jack and Ted appear to be friends, and co-workers who respect each other. (Except when Ted thinks Jack is acting irrationally just before and during Jack's takeover of the control room near the end.)"

And except when they are discussing the hearing into the first accident. Ted asks Jack about his testimony immediately after Jack leaves the hearing room, with Jack saying he cannot comment on his testimony. Ted reciprocates this sentiment to Jack later after being grilled for several hours (Ted being the technician who was grilled the longest, apparently). Ted is suspicious of Jack, at this point, but why?

If none of this is making sense to you, I have to ask when you last saw the film.

[–] ncdwbmk6 9 years ago

I remember the incidents you described.

I agree that Ted has justification to be paranoid. As he said, unlike Jack, Ted had no extensive training or experience in nuclear power, and was only involved with nuclear power after that plant was opened. His comment about "scapegoats and tradition" is true.

But there's no indication that Jack is trying to put blame on Ted. When he says he can't talk about the testimony, he's probably just following the rules.

For that matter, no one else seems to be trying to blame Ted. The managers simply wanted to put the incident behind them, and get the plant operational again as quickly as possible, since it was costly to keep it shut down.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

---
You got your mind right, Luke?

[–] mdgross50 9 years ago

So, maybe they just didn't show the part of the hearing where Jack mentioned contradicting the advice of his technicians preceding the very first turbine trip in the movie. Or maybe those got mentioned when Ted said them in his X-hour grilling?

[–] bg_mog 9 years ago

I agree with ncdwbmk6. I see no evidence that Jack was blaming Ted or selling out his crew or that he and Ted were clashing over the incident. Jack even defends the crew at the hearing ("I didn't look at the other indicator either"). It's only towards the end when Ted wants to keep following orders while Jack cannot reconcile this with his conscience (and of course he knows more about the tampering than Ted).

Also, keep in mind that Ted warns de Young against SCRAMming the plant, implying that he takes Jack's concerns seriously, to which de Young accuses him of being on Jack's side, and he finally defends Jack on live camera at the very end of the movie, certainly risking his job in doing so. Ah, it's one of these great, tear-jerking, idealistic only-in-a-movie endings. I certainly would have kept my mouth shut because

1. everyone believed Jack was a nutcase anyway, the moment he took the gun, nothing could save him.
2. the company and the plant would survive the next investigation anyway and go back on line.
3. I would probably be promoted to Jack's position after his "misadventure", especially after proving myself a loyal employee. "Start 'er up, Ted!" LOL

[–] mdgross50 9 years ago

I'll try to make this easier for both of you. The first incident required Jack to disregard the advice of his technicians, especially Ted! Watch it again if you have forgotten. None of this is mentioned in what we see of Jack's testimony. In fact, they ask Jack about an indicator that his technician should have looked at and Jack says he's not sure why he didn't (adding he, himself didn't look at it either). However, his technicians were looking at their indicators and contradicting his orders, verbally, as Jack ultimately overrode them by command or performing the tasks himself.

Ted comes out of his meeting with the investigators shocked that he had to testify for as long as he did. It's not a stretch for him to have wanted Jack to state everything that happened up to and during the incident. Instead, he has to be grilled, at length, because there are gaps in Jack's story. Ted isn't fluent in this technology, so he's unnerved that the committee is relying on him to bear the brunt of the questioning. He's unnerved as to WHY he is the brunt of the questioning, because he did everything by the book. Ted's testimony should have lasted minutes.

If none of this makes sense, I challenge you to watch the movie again before you comment further. Otherwise, let the thread die a noble death. Please no more comments about what happened at the end, as they are completely irrelevent to the purpose of this thread.

[–] bg_mog 9 years ago

his technicians were looking at their indicators

The (crucial) instrument that was NOT monitored was the second water level indicator. They were not watching it, hence they failed to discover that the hand in the indicator they were watching was stuck until it was almost too late to prevent a meltdown.

Q: WHY DIDN'T YOUR OPERATOR (TED) LOOK AT THE OTHER INDICATORS?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I WAS STANDING RIGHT BESIDE HIM (TED), I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT EITHER.

Why are you so suprised at Ted being grilled longer than the others? He was the responsible operator at the control desk during the whole shift, and he failed to look at the other indicators.

contradicting his orders, verbally, as Jack ultimately overrode them by command or performing the tasks himself

Yes, but so what? The guys urge him to go by the book and he doesn't. He's the supervisor and makes tough decisions that ultimately save the plant, as becomes quite evident from the report:

SOME OPERATOR ERROR (TED'S ERROR) EVIDENT / PROCEDURES VIOLATED TO SOME DEGREE (JACK'S NOT GOING BY THE BOOK) / HOWEVER: SWIFT CONTAINMENT OF A POTENTIALLY COSTLY EVENT

It's not a stretch for [Ted] to have wanted Jack to state everything that happened up to...

But Ted was at the desk up to the incident, not Jack. Maybe you should rewatch the movie yourself. Jack was lounging in his office. It's just the way it always is: The boss sits in his office and his underlings have to do all the work. When the plant goes south, the underlings get the blame. Perfectly natural. OF COURSE Ted is worried about the hearing. He's just a 25-year company man without credentials. It's about POLITICS, not about the precise details of who did what and who didn't. The movie perfectly reflects this. When the report comes down, they are all cleared because the industry wants to move on:

THE NRC HAS HELD 60 LICENSING HEARINGS TO DATE, AND NOT ONCE HAS A LICENSE BEEN REFUSED.

As far as I can tell, they are all happy about the report except Jack because Jack suspects something else is wrong with the plant. Again, the movie does not imply tension between Jack and Ted because of their behavior DURING the accident, but because of Jack's digging deeper AFTER the accident. You can see this when Ted leaves the bar after the reporter comes in and starts asking "tough questions".

But since you are more intent on discussing things we DON'T see in the movie than things we do see, it's probably no wonder the movie makes no sense to you while nothing you say makes sense to everyone else. LOL.

I mean, in your first post you ask: "was there any factual basis for his concern that he was being blamed?" Well how about he was the goddamn operator and didn't look at the indicators, plus he's an older company guy while the others have nuke and navy credentials? Would that be relevant enough?

[–] mdgross50 8 years ago

Let's try to keep this civil.

This statement by you is blatantly wrong:

"Again, the movie does not imply tension between Jack and Ted because of their behavior DURING the accident, but because of Jack's digging deeper AFTER the accident."

There is palpable tension between the two as Jack walks out of the hearing room, and immediately before Ted is to walk in for his, as Jack gives Ted absolutely no reassurance, which Ted appears to be seeking by asking how it went in there during Jack's testimony. Remember Jack's reply?

And you have obviously not watched this movie recently enough, or given my posts much thought at all to say:

"I mean, in your first post you ask: "was there any factual basis for his concern that he was being blamed?" Well how about he was the goddamn operator and didn't look at the indicators, plus he's an older company guy while the others have nuke and navy credentials?."

At the 16:07 mark, Jack ignores Ted's advice (and his other operators' advice) on whether to open relief valves 13 and 14 (as Ted points out that Jack cannot do that, by the book), leaving them with precious little water to deal with the real problems Jack creates. It is between the 17:10 and 17:20 mark you get one operator saying that one core level water indicator is low while Ted points out that the one Jack was relying on was high. How much of this did Jack admit in his testimony, again?

Maybe you don't think much of "going by the book" or something? Maybe you haven't read much about Chernobyl, or how the highly-experienced cowboy in the control room running it caused the worst nuclear disaster in history over the objections of his much less-experienced but book-read underlings?

[–] bg_mog 8 years ago

I'm sorry but you're just repeating yourself. I don't see "palpable tension" between them at the hearing, all I see is an impatient NRC guy releasing Jack and immediately calling up Ted, so there is no time to discuss anything, not to mention they are NOT ALLOWED to discuss their testimony during the investigation anyway.

I don't think I can refute your points any clearer than in my previous post. Your quotations from the movie timeline are irrelevant because by 16:07, Jack operates under the false belief that the water level is too high, and this, according to the hearing, was caused by "the operator who didn't look at the other indicator", and that was Ted. However, Jack backs up Ted by sharing the blame ("I didn't watch the other indicator either"), so for the last time...

Was there a factual basis for Ted's concern that he might get blamed? Yes.

Did Jack sell out his crew? No.

[–] mdgross50 8 years ago

You aren't seeing it because you aren't looking:)

Anyone else available to contribute besides this blowhard?

[–] solomandawn 9 years ago

Make peace with China by giving them a few nuclear weapons.

Haag convention was a trade agreement where we bartered Haagen daze ice cream.