I’m not completely sure where to start on this post..so here it goes.. To be completely honest I really did not care for this film, so it is ironic that I’m leading the discussion this week. I’ll try to put my main feelings about the plot behind me to focus on the overall theme and technical aspects of the picture. Maybe the film just went over my head, but I’m going to try to understand how the reading could call Dr. Stangelove “One of the most fascinating and important films of the 1960’s”.
To summarize the film, USAF Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, the commander of Burpelson Air Force Base, initiates a plan to attack the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons in the paranoid belief that there is a Communist conspiracy. The majority of the film then takes place in the war room of the Pentagon where General Buck Turgidson briefs President Merkin Muffley. Turgidson tries to persuade Muffley to seize the moment and eliminate the Soviet Union by launching a full-scale attack on remaining Soviet defensive capabilities. Muffley then rebukes him and summons the Soviet ambassador, Alexei DeSadeski, who calls Soviet Premier Dmitri Kisov on the "Hot Line", and gives the Soviets information to help them shoot down the American planes. He also states that a “doomsday device would initiate should any attck be made on the Soviet Union. That’s when Dr. Strangelove, a former Nazi and weapons expert, makes his entrance. To wrap the plot up, the code that when used would disband the attack is finally retrieved and relayed to all planes but one, whose ingoing and outgoing messaging machine was destroyed in an attack. Ultimately, the plane drops the missile and after a delayed response the dooms day device is activated, leaving the audience with views of exploding bombs and mushroom clouds in the sunset.
What I did like about the film was how it seemed to me to cross many governmental lines. The film portrayed the government and the United States Air force as almost incompetent and to having very little emotional reactions to what was going on. I found it really interesting that in the end, the president of the United states would be taking advice from a former Nazi on how to handle the situation. I think the filmmakers used the fear that still existed in many Americans and played on the idea that we could be thrown into a war by the actions of one mentally ill general and a series of miscommunications.
The reading definitely helped me relate more to the film. The director of the film had strong beliefs on the topics of war and the media. “In his mature work Kubrick has returned constantly to one of the gravest dilemmas of modem industrial society: the gap between man's scientific and technological skill and his social, political, and moral inep-titude”. The idea that there is a gap between the scientific and technological skill and social and moral beliefs is an idea that has always been a part of the war and idea that I think Krubrick was trying to bring to the forefront in this film. I believe he was trying to show how the greatest of technological advancements and war machines are useless in the hands of those not morally ready to use them or handle the outcome. This idea of an “accidental nuclear war” is both scary and possible.
While I may not have been a huge fan after first watching the film, I have a higher appreciation for it after the reading and analysis. The technical work behind the film was great. I could really appreciate the use of angles, lighting, and dramatic effects throughout the piece. What are your reactions to the film? I’m really interested to get other feedback on each of the characters and how they contributed to the film.
I agree with you when you said you initially did not really get the idea of the film. When If I had not watched this movie in a film class about the Cold War, I never would have figured it out. But the points the film were trying to make became clearer as I thought about how it related to class and the reading. I couldn't have put it better when you said, "he was trying to show how the greatest of technological advancements and war machines are useless in the hands of those not morally ready to use them or handle the outcome. This idea of an “accidental nuclear war” is both scary and possible." That right there sums up the entire movie. Accidental Nuclear War, what a scary thing to think about. Because one person decides that his plan is the best, and sets some things in motion, the whole world is at stake and about the experience a dooms day. It makes you think about who you want in control of things like this, if you even want things like this to exist.
ReplyDeleteOh man, this movie and I didn't get along, much like it didn't for you, Michelle. I think a lot of that had to do with 2 things. First, we had to watch it just before Fall Break. I think that one is obvious. Secondly, I think it was way way way way way way too straight forward and preachy about its vision, therefore it made it incredibly dull. I think it would be an overstatement to say that the message, dangerous weapons in the wrong hands can lead to a disaster for a lot of people, is incredibly obvious and this movie smashed it over my head to the point it nearly knocked me out. I had never seen this film before class and I've liked everything Kubrick has done in the past so I was a bit excited to see this one.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this movie, but then again I love Wes Anderson and the Cohen brothers who I cant tell now, are influenced by Kubrik. I love the quirkiness of all the characters, especially the rapport between the US and Russian leaders. I doubt it is how actual political leaders talk to one another, but it exposes them as human beings in the film making them more relatable, and reminding us that they are humans and are not above us, the public, and do not deserve any special treatment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mike, it's fascinating to remind ourselves that authority figures are also regular people with flaws like the rest of us. No one was born knowing exactly how to deal with the threat of a nuclear war. Certain situations require one to just go with the flow...it's how we learn. I think directors consistently portray country leaders and war generals as corrupt or sinister because it's appealing to audiences to have an "us vs. them" mentality. "Us" meaning the viewers and the good guys, "them" being the unreachable authority and the bad guys. I believe this is another way the media pushes conformity.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a good job untangling some of the levels of complexity, Michelle. In order to make sense of some of Kubrick's satirical intent, it might be useful to look back at what we saw in Atomic Cafe, and remember that one of the major ways of managing the Cold War was to convince the population that a) everything was under control b) science, the government and the military knew best and c) the kind of ludicrous scenarios Dr Strangelove proposes for surviving nuclear attack were actually being discussed during the time--as the reading goes into in some depth.
ReplyDelete