The late 1970s saw three well-remembered extended public information films warning children of the dangers of playing in hazardous places such as railway lines ("The Finishing Line"), farms ("Apaches") and in this instance building sites. All three used graphic imagery of shocking fatal accidents. This one doesn't quite have the reputation and notoriety of its predecessors but it still makes a lot of impact.
The film centres on three children - brother and sister Paul and Jane and their cousin Ronald. Ronald has dreams of becoming a surveyor or architect but they feel he is too big for his boots and doesn't understand the risks of being on building sites. In fantasy sequences they are scientists in a futuristic control centre and they conjure up imaginary scenarios to expose Ronald's recklessness, each of which sees him fall victim to some terrible accident such as being buried by rubble, crushed by falling bricks, hit by a building vehicle and being electrocuted.
Unlike the earlier films it is made clear that these are just imaginings and Ronald in reality hasn't come to any harm. Even if the viewer has been in any doubt the fact that he reappears to fall victim to another catastrophic incident would leave no doubt. These accidents are certainly realistically depicted and have the potential to shock. Suspense is also created by the amplified sound of his heartbeat before each fatal event. As the end credits make clear these were based on real events of children who had lost their lives on building sites.
Compared to the other films the harrowing impact is softened by the mode of presentation. Not only does the viewer know that these are just imaginings but the sequences in the control centre and the somewhat flippant, light-hearted tone of the children reduce the level of unease. This can be viewed both as a drawback or as an asset, The film has less capacity to really unsettle or even upset the viewer but on the other hand that made it easier viewing. Viewed many years later through adult eyes this makes the film not quite as effective or memorable but of course that was not the target audience. None of these films were intended as quasi-horror and instead were intended to deter children from playing in unsafe places. It doesn't always follow that the more shocking a film the more effective it is in deterring risky behaviour - indeed the horror may end up as a distraction from the overall message. It's hard to know how effective this and other films were but it would be surprising if they didn't have a positive effect in improving safety as well as still provoking middle-aged memories almost fifty years later and fascination from those of all ages who didn't see them at the time.
The film centres on three children - brother and sister Paul and Jane and their cousin Ronald. Ronald has dreams of becoming a surveyor or architect but they feel he is too big for his boots and doesn't understand the risks of being on building sites. In fantasy sequences they are scientists in a futuristic control centre and they conjure up imaginary scenarios to expose Ronald's recklessness, each of which sees him fall victim to some terrible accident such as being buried by rubble, crushed by falling bricks, hit by a building vehicle and being electrocuted.
Unlike the earlier films it is made clear that these are just imaginings and Ronald in reality hasn't come to any harm. Even if the viewer has been in any doubt the fact that he reappears to fall victim to another catastrophic incident would leave no doubt. These accidents are certainly realistically depicted and have the potential to shock. Suspense is also created by the amplified sound of his heartbeat before each fatal event. As the end credits make clear these were based on real events of children who had lost their lives on building sites.
Compared to the other films the harrowing impact is softened by the mode of presentation. Not only does the viewer know that these are just imaginings but the sequences in the control centre and the somewhat flippant, light-hearted tone of the children reduce the level of unease. This can be viewed both as a drawback or as an asset, The film has less capacity to really unsettle or even upset the viewer but on the other hand that made it easier viewing. Viewed many years later through adult eyes this makes the film not quite as effective or memorable but of course that was not the target audience. None of these films were intended as quasi-horror and instead were intended to deter children from playing in unsafe places. It doesn't always follow that the more shocking a film the more effective it is in deterring risky behaviour - indeed the horror may end up as a distraction from the overall message. It's hard to know how effective this and other films were but it would be surprising if they didn't have a positive effect in improving safety as well as still provoking middle-aged memories almost fifty years later and fascination from those of all ages who didn't see them at the time.
