Blog 8. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb. (US, 1964. Director; Stanley Kubrick)
Here is the information for Dr. Strangelove.
The video messed up at the worst time obviously. This is the complete bomb run scene, the most famous scene in the entire movie—and it evokes the laughter of doom. Please watch it. Here is the rest of the film. We'll watch it tomorrow, but go ahead and watch it now here and here. Make sure you watch these before you answer the questions.
Dr. Strangelove is loosely based on a 1958 novel Red Alert by Peter George (who helped with the film script along with Kubrick and Terry Southern). That novel is so similar to a later book Fail-Safe that the authors of the later, Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, were sued by George. The film version of Fail-Safe was released the same year as Kubrick's satire. It was a hyper-serious addressing of the same themes and topics of Kubrick's film; we'll look at a clip or two from it tomorrow. Not surprisingly, Kubrick got no assistance from the Department of Defense when he made his film; he got all his details for the B-52 bomber from public sources, and as he did all his films, he shot the movie in England. The film cost $1.8 million and made $9.4 million.
1. Your reaction to the film? Like? Dislike? Why? And did you find it funny? If so, why? If not, why not? What scene from the film stayed with you these hours later—and why?
2. What's the target—or target(s)—of the film's satire? And to what effect?
3. The world is destroyed at the end (no spoiler: it's in the clips above). Do you care? Do you think Kubrick cares? Explain your answer.
200 words, folks. See you tomorrow.
The video messed up at the worst time obviously. This is the complete bomb run scene, the most famous scene in the entire movie—and it evokes the laughter of doom. Please watch it. Here is the rest of the film. We'll watch it tomorrow, but go ahead and watch it now here and here. Make sure you watch these before you answer the questions.
Dr. Strangelove is loosely based on a 1958 novel Red Alert by Peter George (who helped with the film script along with Kubrick and Terry Southern). That novel is so similar to a later book Fail-Safe that the authors of the later, Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, were sued by George. The film version of Fail-Safe was released the same year as Kubrick's satire. It was a hyper-serious addressing of the same themes and topics of Kubrick's film; we'll look at a clip or two from it tomorrow. Not surprisingly, Kubrick got no assistance from the Department of Defense when he made his film; he got all his details for the B-52 bomber from public sources, and as he did all his films, he shot the movie in England. The film cost $1.8 million and made $9.4 million.
1. Your reaction to the film? Like? Dislike? Why? And did you find it funny? If so, why? If not, why not? What scene from the film stayed with you these hours later—and why?
2. What's the target—or target(s)—of the film's satire? And to what effect?
3. The world is destroyed at the end (no spoiler: it's in the clips above). Do you care? Do you think Kubrick cares? Explain your answer.
200 words, folks. See you tomorrow.
I liked this movie a lot actually. It was quite strange at times, but that is part of the reason why it is hilarious. This movie, like most satires, made fun of many things and people, such as love, communists, women, war, and humans in general (the name tags were hilarious). The thing I like about satires, and this one especially, is that we find things funny that in real life would have pissed us off. We even laugh about death when the man is sitting on the bomb as it explodes. Then even more strangely, we find the destruction of the world comical. I don't even think Kubrick cares about the explosion of the world at the end, because he backed it up with such inappropriately matched soothing music (which was clearly intentional) as we were shown several mushroom clouds. I feel like he used to care about the state of the world, but felt that the rest of society didn't. This film, I believe, aimed to make us laugh in the face of serious topics, especially war, in order to show us how we misuse and simplify it in reality. This movie made war seem trivial, which is how it is often fought-out in real life. After all, it is called Dr. Strangelove..., who I think represents mankind and our strange and primal obsession with destruction.
ReplyDelete1) Dr. Strangelove is a really subtly funny movie. You have to pay a lot of attention to detail to understand the humor and also the significance of some of the little things throughout the film. I really love the name, Jack D Ripper, of the general who started this whole war in the first place by having sex (“losing his essence.”) They are comparing him to a serial killer, which is actually pretty accurate because he is the cause of numerous deaths due to his psychotic beliefs. I also love the sign in the background of the war going on at the army base saying, “Peace Is Our Profession.” Death (in war) is not peace, although this is the way that (some) people try to create peace. The scene that has stuck with me is that of Dr. Strangelove saying that the nuclear bomb will help people (greenhouses, etc.), and that to account for the loss of population, each man will be given 10 women to repopulate with. He said that it is not very moral, but it is a sacrifice he is willing to make for the preservation of the human species. What sacrifice? He is not sacrificing anything (poor women…). Also, why is the movie named after Dr. Strangelove? He only appears a few times in the movie.
ReplyDelete2) The target audience is us, humans, but more specifically the army/military. It is making fun of the military’s goal that they aim to accomplish during war and by dropping a nuclear bomb. It shows how humans are just hell-bent on destroying the world. Even when the airplane had been hit by a missile, was running out of fuel, and was malfunctioning, the soldiers still found a way to drop their bombs and blow Russia up with one of their own men on board the missile. The world blowing up is crucial to the satire because it is inevitable when combined with human behavior.
3) Do I care if the world gets destroyed? Of course I do, but I did not expect anything different (better) to happen, so it didn't surprise me at all. I think Kubrick used to care, which I'm guessing is part of the reason he made the film, but I think he is making fun of the fact that nobody (including himself) cares anymore. The world is blown up with “We’ll Meet Again” playing in the background. It makes it funnier and almost serene as the mushroom cloud expands in the distance. “We’ll Meet Again” being the background music for such a dramatic scene kind of implies that humans and destruction (bombs) will most definitely meet again even if we don't know where or when.
1) This movie defied my expectations, I actually thoroughly enjoyed it. What changed my opinion on the movie so quickly was the humorous scenes they added to such a serious situation. I took so much of the tension away from the movie. In any other film with this plot, it would be easy to get stressed out about what was going to happen in the end but the comical relief was so abundant that it was an easy watch. The plot was quite interesting as well. It felt all so real like this situation could easily happen. I also like the small part where the code and the bill messed up the entire thing because the bill kept contradicting the president.
ReplyDelete2) I think one of the main points of the movie is to show how messed up our chain in command can be. It sort of reflects how one of our powers can contradict the other and in the end we can't get anything done. The fighting at the base represents the fighting between our political parties because we all want to prevail we just don't have the same values or information.
3) I'm not gonna say I do not care that the world is ending ancient that everyone is dying, but I do feel that the comical part of this movie really does take away some of the sympathy that I have. I feel as if the director intended to make the movie this way. It's much easier to laugh at these people than be sad for them. Can you really blame me? The captain rode the bomb like a bull in the end.
I definitely liked this film. It was a little slow at times but never did I feel bored. The pace of the piece wasn't a drawback just a noticeable difference from most movies nowadays. The characters in this movie are great. The acting was way over the top yet again in a stylistically appropriate way that enhanced the movie. I thought it was hilarious. The timing and absurdity was perfect. Obviously riding the bomb sticks with me. The last scene with dr strange love talking about his new underground Society with the 10 to 1 ratio. And of course no fighting in the war room.
ReplyDeleteI think this satire, like most, doesn't have one specific target but just points out the shortcomings of many aspects of society. The bureaucracy and chain of command that dictate the whole country and end up cluttering and killing everyone. It makes fun of conspiracy theories arguably religious zealots and war nuts. It points out how we think we're participating in war in a civilized manner but we're still killing people. And the thing with the doomsday machine and the eugenics program are criticisms of the computer era. I think it's all these targets quite well.
I believe in the satire we're not supposed to be upset the world ended we're supposed to be annoyed at the people who let it end. The movie is supposed to make us laugh not leave shattering but we are supposed to see how close we are to a trivial end of the world.
Coming into this film, I honestly thought I was going to hate it--I couldn't get through a minute of the preview. However, I was pleasantly surprised; it made for an interesting film. But in all honestly, this isn't a movie I would watch on my own. Once was enough! I did believe that some aspects of the movie made light of the situation at hand, but at the same time, it objectified war (i understand that this is the point of a satire, but war regardless of the portrayal is tragic.) Throughout the movie, i was struck by the repeated displays of the ‘Peace is our Profession’ poster. The irony is just hilarious--it takes absurdity to the next level. Watching the film, I also took issue with Major King Kong’s attitude. Much like the characters in Dawn of the Dead, he approached death as if it was a game. By laughing at the portrayal of death in the film, we are inherently giving power to this objectification.
ReplyDeleteThe film targets humanity at its core. If this were to happen, we would all be affected, whether it be directly or indirectly. As with The War Game, this film showcases the effects of the actions of an individual and the repercussions that follow. Essentially, that the fate of the world is subject to an individual’s choices. This film dispels the notion that the ramifications of war are reserved for a certain subset of individuals and instead that nuclear warfare affects all.
This is a complex question but definitely one that needs to be asked. While i care about the fate of our future, I no longer hold hope in much of humanity. At this point, death and destruction are inevitable, and each day as humanity progresses, we are traveling closer to reaching this precipice. In my opinion, Kubrick cares and his choice to use a satire was cunning. I believe that he wanted to make the film as preposterous as possible so that it would appeal to the general population. As we've discussed in class, apoplastic movies are enthralling, even though in the end, they chronicle the death of our soles. Kubrick’s satirical film parallels this societal mindset.
1. I liked the film more than I thought I would. After viewing the preview, I was really confused, and honestly, not looking forward to having to watch it this morning. I have different opinions about the movie though. I understand that it shows how ridiculous people can act in war, but at the same time, it just breezes over that topic of war. The movie definitely shows how stupid and disgusting people act during wartime. When they were discussing the situation in the War Room, they were literally comparing how many people would be murdered by the nuclear warfare. This came up as a result of Plan R (or whatever it's called). This military order was implemented to be a result of a attack on the US and revenge on the country that did this. However, Russia hadn't targeted the United States, which meant that there wasn't any good that was going to come out of it. This shows that General Ripper didn't have any point or reason to destruct the innocent people in Russia that were murdered by the atomic bomb. I did not support how they wrote a satirist movie about such a terrible thing as war, but by doing this, they were able to show how ridiculous war is. By the end of the movie, they destroyed the world. I found the movie funny, because the characters were just completely oblivious to how stupid they were. The President was engaging in a "pissing match" with Demetri. They each kept trying to prove to each other who was better, or who was more upset about their situation. Honestly, that was the least of their worries. And the scene where they opened the packages that contained the mini Bible and common Soviet expressions, lipstick, chewing gum, and other ridiculous and unnecessary objects showed how much people forgot what they were doing. Though it's upsetting that they made a movie about war that is funny, they did get a point across.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the movie is aimed at those who believe in "honor at all costs." The characters thought that it was their honor and duty to protect the United States, even if that meant murdering all of the Russians that would have been impacted by the atomic bomb. It's not honorable to murder millions of civilians or people in the army. The effect of this is that people in the film were caught up in the idea that they were keeping every American safe, so they didn't pay attention when they were shooting at other US army soldiers.
3. It's hard to care about the end of the world, because that's not the point of the movie. The world ended because the characters made really stupid decisions. The characters didn't listen to the Russian ambassador when he was explaining the Doomsday Machine to them. I don't believe that Kubrick cares either. He just threw in the ending at the very end as a "p.s." I am upset that innocent people were murdered. However, that wasn't the point of the movie. If the characters hadn't been so self-absorbed and plain stupid, then the Doomsday Machine wouldn't have been enabled.
1. Overall I liked this movie to a certain degree. It definitely wasn’t my favorite movie ever, but it was entertaining and enjoyable enough. I thought most of the jokes were funny, but none struck me as remarkable and quotable. Obviously the special effects were awful (the scenes of the airplane flying) but that’s what you can expect from a 60s movie. Honestly the most striking scenes were the ones in the airplane because of how realistic it looked and how the this realisticness was combined with an underrated sense of comedy, especially with the cowboy pilot.
ReplyDelete2. I think the main point of this film was to make us laugh, but besides that I think Stanley Kubrick wanted to show us how humans respond in times of crisis, from the members of the war room, to those on the base, and the pilots, and then just exaggerates the ridiculousness of it all. We see how the president becomes very deferential to Dimitri and is meant to look weak, while the pilots look smart yet loyal to their mission. So many character traits are exaggerated that it creates a comedic side to a serious narrative. I think the film does accomplish showing each human’s response to crisis well.
3. I think the world ending is an appropriate ending considering that the American’s actually dropped a nuke on a place other than the area they said they were going, prompting the Russians to counterattack with all their might, leading to the US countercounterattecking till everything is destroyed. However, I didn’t like how the film suddenly cut off from the war room into the videos of nukes exploding. I felt we were missing an explanation as to what happened. But honestly I don’t think Cubrick cares, because he got his message across of how dangerous and volatile nuclear warfare is.
I actually liked this movie quite a bit even though it was a little slow at times. I though most of it was very funny, as most satires are, and made me think after the fact without being serious or making me sad. I'm still not quite clear on why the movie is named after Dr. Strangelove when he really just shows up twice. Even though his second appearance wraps up the movie he didn't seem to have a huge role. The scene that stuck with me the most was probably the one of Buck riding the bomb and having a hoot. He wasn't even thinking twice really about how he was going to die.
ReplyDeleteI think this satire is supposed to show us how sometimes the people we trust such as the government are not really helping in a crisis. They are instead wasting time. In my opinion it was all about making fun of the amount of trust we put in those with power when some of them don't know what they are talking about.
In the sense of the movie, I don't care that the just destroyed the world at the end. If this was real life I wouldn't be okay with the world ending and being destroyed especially with bombs. I thought Kubrick was going to make the ending not really happier but not have the world end. Even though the whole movie was about the world ending it still came as a bit of a surprise
I'm not even 100% sure how i feel about this film. I didn't hate it, so that's saying something, considering how I was almost certain I would. The plot was easy to follow but there were certain things here and there that just didn't make sense to me. Many people were laughing at different parts of the movie. For the most part I didn't see the humour in those parts of the movie, however some parts were rather ridiculous than funny. It's definitely not a movie I'd watch on my own accord but by no means is this an awful movie. Any scene with Dr. Strange Love in it stuck with me. Why? Because his character absolutely baffles me and seems to be just an extra, unnecessary character. What is his back story? Why is he in a wheelchair and then is suddenly able to walk? He at some point chokes himself randomly. The audience is given almost no backstory to him. I can't be expected to take such a character at face value and not be skeptical of the unrealistic nature of the character.
ReplyDeleteI am honestly unfamiliar with the concept of a satire. But after researching the definition of it, if I had to guess, I'd say it is targeted the governments, and in turn, human nature, of the world. The governments around the world's necessity to win the "race to arms" is ridiculous and this movie is meant to show that any small slip up can lead the world to utter annihilation. Unfortunately, the people of this world always want to be the best in every aspect so showing the effects of such nuclear warfare will do nothing in terms of stopping this race to arms.
I would definitely care if the world was at threat of being destroyed. If it was destroyed I wouldn't care because I'd most likely be dead. But if the world was in grave threat of being destroyed I would. And I hope others world care too, enough so that maybe our stupid leaders could get it in their mind that they should stop acting so tough and think about what's best for the world we live in. Nuclear warfare isn't it. I'm not entirely sure Kubrick cares as much as one would if the world was at serious risk. The last scene of the movie is the literally destruction of the world, and for whatever reason I was given a calm vibe from the scene. The music in combination with the way the explosions were shown depicted the scene as almost being, beautiful. This gives me the idea that Kubrick is making light of the subject of total annihilation of are planet. But I don't criticize his doing so because humanity's behavior is a joke as it is.
I liked this film a lot, even though I thought that it was incredibly slow at the beginning. There are so many things that I like about this film, such as the over-the-top acting, the use of satire, the characters, and the opening/closing scenes. It's impressive how Stanley Kubrick took such a serious topic during this specific time period and made it a comedy, and I do think that this movie succeeded in its goal. Most of the comedy, if not all of it, is satirical. The ridiculous acting from Buck Turgidson and his eagerness to sacrifice 20 million lives "tops" comes off as humorous because it is critical of the military today. One scene that stuck out to me was when the General told the president to stop trying to look good in the history books, and instead to work for the American people. I think that the president was right in trying to not bomb Russia, but this quote by itself is extremely relevent when talking about current American politics.
ReplyDeleteThere is no one target for the satire in this film. One of the obvious targets are the people eager for military conflict. These people are represented in this movie by Buck Turgidson, and portrayed as over-the-top, and willing to sacrifice millions of people to win a conflict. I think that the government and military are satirized the most throughout the film, and the message of the satire is directed towards average people.
No, I don't care. Everybody is satirized to the point where they don't seem real, and because of this I do not feel any emotional connection to any of the characters. I don't think that Kubrick cared, and I honestly don't think that anybody should care. I don't think that making people feel bad because the world was destroyed was the intention, since the main focus of the movie was to commentate on our government and military. One indication of this was the soundtrack choice for the final scene, which is very similar to the song during the opening credits. You would think that if it was supposed to be a dark ending, that Kubrick would have chosen a darker song. I think that the soundtrack is supposed to follow the feel of the scene, so there is no reason for me to think that this scene was supposed to be dark.
I think the reason that we are supposed to stop caring about the bomb is because everyone is just really stupid. Every single person is just so much to handle oh lord i.e. The guy who takes the call from his lover/secretary in the pentagon, the crazed general, the good ole boy who rides the bomb to his demise, and the ridiculous dr. Strange love. I don't think anyone really cares that this world ended, because stupidity really makes you detach empathy from people. It's why we have Americas funniest home videos where we literally just watch and laugh as people injur themselves. Honestly I didn't think this movie was funny until I started writing this because for some reason I really don't care at all the pat the world ended and that's super funny to me in a twisted kinda way. I laughed at certain things that were just so ridiculous but it wasn't true laughter as much as "oh my god what is this" laughter. I really would not recommend this movie to a friend, but I'm glad I watched it because this class has made me worry so much about the apocalypse and this movie taught me that it doesn't matter. At this point our whole world is in the hands of hypocritical idiots who Can just press the trigger at any moment and there's nothing we can do about we are just gonna die. That statement sounds like a really depressing one, but Honestly i feel fine saying it! I wouldn't want the world to end, but I guess this movie taught me it doesn't matter what I want because human incompetence will destroy us all.
ReplyDeleteI loved it - I thought it was hilarious. I’ve actually heard a few of the funny lines before from family members (“You can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!”) and I’m glad I finally got to watch the film! I did find it funny. I got stuck on pretty much every scene in which the general discussed his theory about the corruption of “precious bodily fluids,” partly because it was funny and partly because conspiracy was more than a little rampant at the time, and this does a good job at mocking it. Another was the final scene in which the men instantaneously flip from dread of the end of the world to nationalistic pride - they have to start planning for the future, after all. What will America do in a hundred years, if the Russians outnumber us? What if they have another bomb stashed away? Even the FIRST apocalypse hasn’t happened yet, and they’ve already skipped over it and started planning for the next one!
ReplyDeleteIt exaggerated the idea of conspiracy, dug at the hope that sane, reasonable politicians wouldn’t let nuclear war happen, and mocked the gung-ho outlook some people had on nuclear warfare. To top it all off, the moment a survival strategy was proposed (especially one where the men are assigned ten women each) they were back at it, insisting that the Russians must be stopped even as the apocalypse just begins. It mocked some of the more prominent extreme sentiments surrounding the bomb, including blind hope that it wouldn’t happen and violent insistence that we must win at any cost. It made fun of the government and of paranoia, and even took the bomb itself to a new, dramatic level - a single, literal doomsday device to overshadow even the hydrogen bomb (“we were to reveal it at the meeting next Monday….”). It was a wonderful satire.
This film didn’t build any sympathy. Honestly, I’d say that the most sympathetic characters were the people in the plane who dropped the bomb - watching them work together, trying to get their job done for “the folks back home” nearly made me root for them. I didn’t particularly care because, while in some far-away theoretical way I understood that this was Earth and that the bombs were killing people, Dr. Strangelove doesn’t have or reference any of the terrifying imagery of movies like The War Game, with bleeding eyes and burning bodies. It didn’t need to, given the time period - I think that much of that was understood, since people’s lives were really on the line. Coming at this from a 2017 perspective, where atomic bombs are conceptually understood but not considered a pressing threat (I’ve never had to duck and cover, nor have I ever been warned to build a bunker or buy sandbags to reinforce my home), this was much funnier to me than it was terrifying or heart-wrenching.
There are two scenes that stuck with me the most. First, the "no fighting in the war room" quip from the president, and second, the instance where the soldiers were having a shootout in front of a sign "Peace is Our Mission." These were just so shockingly absurd that yes, it made me laugh. But I think that's what the ultimate point of this film is; it juxtaposes the sheer technological progress of mankind to his absolute "primitive," if you will, idiocy -- watching a missile get ridden like a horse, or seeing an important general discuss bodily fluids reminds the audience just how fare we have to go. Yes, we have these weapons ,but not only are we too primitive to fully comprehend them but we can't even control them -- the machines have minds of their owns. Yes, we can destroy the world, but the president still has to calm Dimitri down in the face of a life threat, and Dr. Strangelove's primary mission is to get himself into a sort of Valhalla with a thousand virgins, if you will. Its absolutely ridiculous -- and hilarious. That's why when the world ended, I literally felt no sympathy for humanity. We suck -- did you see a single redeeming quality in any character? The president attempts to stop the war, but he's just a figurehead. The general in the war room (I forgot his name) seems to be a hero, but he is so overwhelmed with bloodlust its hard to identify with him. Mandrake is meek and laughable. I literally was happy watching everyone die, and I think that's the ultimate point of the film: it gets us to stop worrying and love the bomb.
ReplyDelete1) I didn't like the much, but I didn't necessarily dislike it either. I'm mostly indifferent. I didn't find it as funny as some others did, as I mostly only laughed at the outlandish names. I did laugh at a few scenes (like the one leading up to the general’s suicide), but most of it just seemed corny to me. While I didn't find it funny, the ending scene was extremely interesting. We noticed some things naturally occur in the other movies, it those same things seem like they will be enforced by those people at the end before the apocalypse even begins. The people in the scene are asking questions about things that we asked after we saw the other movies, like the reestablishment of society, the loss of the will to live, and continued societal norms in post apocalyptic world (the world is ending but they're still worried about the beauty of the women).
ReplyDelete2) I think this movie is specifically targeting the citizens of the U.S., or the citizens of other nuclear powers. I don't think it's addressing the military, as they are the subject of the satire. I think it's supposed to make us normal citizens aware of the mindset of our military leaders, and the danger they pose.
3) Hell yeah I care. I care very much. I, for one, like humans, and I'd like to see our race go on. I don't think I can say the same for Kubrick. The movie is even titled “How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.” I think it's safe to say he’s stopped caring. Matter of fact, I think what he loved about the bomb is the fact that it's ending humans. I think he showed a very ugly side of humans throughout the movie (especially at the end), and he appreciates the bomb for getting rid of us. That’s my interpretation at least, ill most likely ask what others think he loves about the bomb in class.