American Politics & Pop Culture

In the time when everyone was in fear of the possible nuclear war and nerves were running high, I can see how Dr.Strangelove might confuse the audience with its satirical comment on the government and military with its hard headed, bullet minded, but passionate and outrageous characters. It definitely wasn’t a precise portrayal of the government and military however think it was a conscious choice made by the director to do so in order to show the contrast between the human and incompetent qualities of human beings with machines and technologies that serves the purpose it was programmed for. The use of technologies sticks out in this film with constant scenes that just focused on the large mechanism that surrounded these central figures whether it was in the strategy room or cockpit of the air force plane. Ironically, all communicative devices always failed to serve their purpose except to lead all humankind to doomsday. Ie, when the R.A.F officer tried to contact President Mufflin though a public payphone, the destroyed radio on the plane that made it impossible to recall the order. Even if the use of these communicative devices were successful, it often had ridiculous conversation that just strayed the characters from their original purposes (like the conversation between the US President and the Russian Premier). Ultimately technologies can only carry on what they were programmed to, but how they are used, are up to those who are capable of logical thoughts, such as human beings.

Posted by lungx009 at 1:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After seeing Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb I recommended it to other people. I thought the film was fantastic. Without this class I may never have seen or even heard of this movie. But to the point…

Two aspects of the story line stuck out for me. The first was the ridiculous characters (and their names) we got to learn about. It was impossible to not laugh at these authority figures that often had the quote “Peace is our Profession� as a background. From General Jack Ripper’s obsession with bodily fluids to the obscene amounts of gum chewed by General “Buck� Turgidson and the comical conversations, in particular between President Merkin Muffley and Soviet Permier Dmitri Kissoff, the character development never ceased to amaze me! I agreed with Burgess completely when he wrote that “the ones who effectively blow up the world are shown not as incompetents or villains but as lovable lunatics, and when the fireballs unfold in the final frames and the girl begins to sing ‘We’ll Meet Again’ the picture has allied itself with their lunacy, leaving the viewer all by himself with no place to stand.� When the movie ended I was at a loss for words. There was no resolution after these men had tried to overcome their technological “boo-boo.�

This leads into the second aspect of the movie that really got my attention… The role of technology. Although these men were supposed to be our brilliant leaders, even they couldn’t figure out a way to outsmart the very machines and procedures they had created. As Dr. Strangelove put it, they had figured out ways to “rule out human meddling.� In a less amusing way of viewing this aspect of the film, it depicts that our society doesn’t have a firm understanding over the very technologies that we depend on for safety.

Monica Weir

Posted by weir0041 at 12:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In Dr. Strangelove, Gen. Ripper personifies the judgment we are able to make over time. That is, while his assumption that fluoridation--because it began in 1946--was the work of the Soviets seems ludicrous now, at the time it may not have been as crazy. As we went over in class, the Red Scare of the fifties prompted people to be suspicious of their neighbors (in case they were commies), their professors (because all professors were commies), and everyone else. In this type of society, it is easy to see how something as precious as water might be used as a weapon. It is in this mental warfare; this eye of suspicion, that the cold war truly took shape. There were no battles directly between the US and the USSR; rather, the paranoia and constant race ("we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!") to stay above the other side technologically became overwhelming. The erratic behavior and decidedly dangerous decision of Gen. Ripper shows the effect the Cold War had on people-- even if his fear of water was only imagined.

Posted by aretz008 at 1:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My first impression of Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was how well Stanley Kubrick created a film that was lighthearted as well as serious on a subject that was very controversial for its time. The fear of nuclear devastation after World War II created an atmosphere of suspicion, with everyone prepared and waiting for the “bomb� to drop. Kubrick’s film portrays a worst case scenario in which humans fall victim to the machines of destruction they have created. I agree with Jackson Burgess’ assertion that, in the movie, the machines “…are the villains, but in the images of the film there are the repeated juxtapositions of Man-sloppy, incompetent, unreliable, but full of hope and courage-and Machine-beautiful, functional, absolutely reliable. but mindless and heartless� (pg. 9, The "Anti-Militarism" of Stanley Kubrick). A human (General Ripper) was the one who ordered an unfounded attack on Russia as a result of some psychotic disorder (showing the fallibility of the human brain), and the “Doomsday Machine� did exactly as it was created to do, strike fear and release total destruction (showing the reliability of machines).

The matter of nuclear war was and still is a serious one; however, Dr. Strangelove made it a rather blithe one, leaning far away from reality and more towards the outlandish and humorous. I feel that the film was not taken seriously because no one wanted to acknowledge the fact that they could live in such uncertainty and powerlessness, even the politicians, who we as Americans put our trust in, were powerless. Also, in spite of the very tragic end of the movie, there was a sense of optimism with “We’ll Meet Again� playing in the background as the bomb went off. Even though Dr. Strangelove became more of an uncomfortable joke than a potential reality, I feel that its humor was what made it such a success.

Posted by colb0086 at 11:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Stanley Kubrick described that using “black comedy� was the best way to tell “Dr. Strangelove� and the “things you laugh at the most are really the heart of the paradoxical postures that make nuclear war possible,� and I believe that this is the only way his story could have succeeded. If this were a serious film, I believe it would invoke more fear than necessary in US citizens at the time about the possibility of nuclear war, and further raise anti-Communist paranoia. As the Maland article describes, Kubrick’s film “uses nightmare comedy to satirize four dimensions of the Cold War consensus,� which I believe is the only way Americans would still be have been sane after seeing on film examples of “the problem of accidental nuclear war� and what “blind faith modern man places in technological progress.� Kubrick’s satirical strategy lessens the seriousness of the enormity of actual nuclear war, through both the storyline and the “lovable� lunacy of the characters. Yet this effect is advantageous in some respect, as it informally plants an awareness of nuclear war in viewer’s minds.
“Dr. Strangelove� is accused of “making mincemeat of the military mind� in the Burgess article. Such an accusation probably means that certain critics of the film “just didn’t get it,� or they just don’t response to satire well. The film may unfairly portray the military on the surface, but it is all in the satirical sense and adds to Kubrick’s nightmare comedy effect in order to convey his point. In some sense, the serious side of this film is falsely the “buffoons� of the military, possibly for the purpose of adding to the detraction from the seriousness of nuclear war.

Posted by joh02361 at 11:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In my opinion, Dr. Strangelove did portray the military unfailrly. This was clearly seen the the scenes on the ariplane flying to Russia. One of the pilot was reading playboy while controling the plane, the other one was eating and drinking. Then they made it sound like the soldiers were usually "horsing" around on the air. The captain even wasn't wearing his uniform; he had on a cowboy hat instead of his captain hat. When the U.S. military being portrayed as too relaxing and lack of disciplines, I felt that was really unfair for the soldiers of the country. I think at any given times, the one out in the front lines should be respected and honored. When they were portrayed such as lackers and undisciplined group of people, their honored and pride were somehow taken away, more or less. I think Kubrick should had focus all the humor on the government instead, not the military men, making them look not so well trained in the public's eyes.
Except for those humors on the military, I think the humors from the scenes of the meeting room and the rest were good. I believe they did get the points across. Everyone should relax, don't worry too much about the nuclear war. Everything is ok, the bombs are not that big of a deal. One of the best piece in the movie when there was shooting at the office, and right at the scene where the shooting was happening, on the back ground was a giant sign "Peace is Our Profession". I found that funny and significiant. It was like a way of saying the government can do anything to bring peace to the country, they can shoot, fight, kill, or even use the nuclear bomb to keep the peace. I think the movie brought its message across clearly and loudly. Even when a nuclear bomb is dropped, everything would be fine like before. Recall the scene when the men on the plane received code for plan R, which is to attack Russia. They were getting ready to reach there target and drop the nuclear bomb, the captain and every men on board were so relaxed and the captain himself said something like "After this thing is over, you will get some kind of promotion". No one in the movie seemed to take it seriously. Right after the plane received the code for plan R, the captain called the general on land to comfirm, but he didn't bother to take the call and let his secretary lover answer it instead. When he was in the meeting with the president, his secretary even called and they talked informally like the meeting was going on. Moreover, one of the most important pieces in the film is the conversations between the President of the U.S. and the President of Russia. They were always chatting like old time buddies and they knew each other really well. They were portrayed as if they were just having a small little fight and it could be over tommorow. I thought those were halarious scenes, and the points were brought across pretty well.

Posted by truon052 at 11:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the movie Dr. Strangelove there are some flawless technologies and some extremely flawed technologies. The technologies that fail always seem to be the ones that need humans to operate them. Human fallibility is the reason for the failure of many of the machines when they are needed the most: Mandrake doesn't have enough change to place a call to the president, and the men who were sent to get Jack D. Ripper on the phone blew out the phone lines in the gun fire. The technologies that fail are mainly communication based, indicating that the country, or world's inability to communicate is what eventually will cause it's destruction, along with nuclear weapons. While these technologies fail, others succeed flawlessly. The doomsday device is set off. This device was created by humans but functions completely on it's own, removing the possibility of human error. No hero can come to the rescue and disarm the bomb because it was created to be completely independent of humans. The one technology that requires humans to use it and does work is the hydrogen bomb. Even with this example there is a lack of communication as Major King Kong is dropped with the bomb. He while not very quick, is well trained and able to open the doors without communication or help from anyone else. The use of technology in these movie gets to the point that technology and a lack of communication in war, or war in general leads to unnecessary deaths and mass destruction.

Posted by Alicia Bjork at 11:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think the portrayal of the soldiers was a bit over the top but I think it was necessary to be so extreme to add to the overall satire of the piece. I think the many different military characters in the movie helped to show some of the ridiculous ideas about the war. Of course I do not think anyone who has not been a part of the battlefield would not get it but this was the director’s way of showing that we were waiting for nothing. The way the soldiers acted when they were patrolling around in the airplanes shows that there was nothing for them to do. They were waiting around for nothing to happen. These soldiers were fine people just doing their duty but the base commander and the General were nuts. Now I also do not think that is what the military is like but these characters were there to show how outrageously stupid this war was.
As far as General Ripper and Cornel Kong are concerned, I do not believe they were loveable characters. General Ripper was a nut case. The fact that he sent the United States into war just shows how crazy he was. Then when the other base came to get the code, he told his men to fight. He pinned American against American. He thought that the few lives that would be lost there would benefit the greater good of American. I thought his character was disgusting. Even his name suggests that of Jack the Ripper, a murder and lunatic (Dr. Strangelove (1964): Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of Liberal Consensus). As for Cornel Kong, he was not loveable but at least he added some comic relief. He did a good job of at least portraying some reality to the military. He was a smart leader who did a great job on his mission. He may have been somewhat crazy but he loved his country and was willing to have fun defending it. I think these to characters show important ideas within our society at the time. General Ripper represents the people who think that communists are everywhere and that they are taking us over any way they can. As for Cornel Kong, he represents those in our society that are willing to die for our country and place trust in our duty as Americans. Grant Flatgard

Posted by flat0101 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As a comedy film lover I thought that Stanley Kubrick’s, Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and The Love Bomb, was a genius idea. I found this film to be as loved as Knocked Up, because it is quite hysterical in its own way. As known back then, many people thought that world was coming to an end during the time of the Cold War. This is what created such a vigorous plot of for Kubrick to work from. I find that only back in the time of the Cold War could this movie have been made. If a director such as Kubrick tried to recreate it in present day he would have missed the sarcasm that lies within the Cold War era. It would have lost its black and white filming to color and many over used technological effects. Yes, this movie may not appeal to our generation today, but this is why it is used as a historical part of our pop culture era. It’s important for us to see these kind of films, so we know every once an awhile that our movies today aren’t anywhere near the affect that past films have left.

One scene that got a laugh out of me was the part where the Texan (Slim Pickens) and the Colonel (Kenan Wynn) behaved outrageously funny when the Alert Force ordered to drop the bomb. Kubrick was a genius to cast these two actors in these roles. He also masterminds the ability of using human to see themselves with many flawed characteristics as the society emerges with technological advances. This is shown throughout the movies as the technological advances of the missiles cannot be stopped, because they are stupified as to how they turn them around. This can be related to our technological advances today as well. We are found that as we gain more knowledge on technology, we also get ignorant as to what can happen. For example, internet bullying, fake profiling, murders through websites that are "selling" products, stalking, and much more.

Posted by carr0445 at 11:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick uses satire to portray a society who has “delivered their environment into the hands of totally amoral technological Science and their decisions…to gamesmen aspiring through amorality to Science� (Burgess 8). Kubrick uses character portrayals to reference the idea that mankind’s hearts, brains and souls have been completely mechanized. For example, Kubrick’s portrayal of General Jack Ripper is that of a man who has stopped all rational (human) thinking and begun thinking like a machine. General Ripper’s theory that the communists of Russia are attempting to contaminate the “precious bodily fluids� of the American people through water, ice cream (“children’s ice cream�), etc. is nearly void of logical human thinking. Kubrick’s portrayal of Dr. Strangelove himself also follows the belief that mankind has become too mechanized. Dr. Strangelove is in a mechanized wheelchair and the function of his right arm is completely dependent upon machines. His right arm continuously gives the Nazi solute, not because Strangelove was or is a Nazi, but rather because that is what the machine is programmed to give. Dr. Strangelove uses satire and wit to portray the idea that mankind has ceased to reason with their hearts and minds, and started to reason with machines.

Ian R. Bell

Posted by bellx236 at 11:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The opinion that Dr. Strangelove unfairly portrays the military and those who might be strong on national defense as "buffoons," undoubtedly fails to realize the true message of this film. First and foremost, it is a dark, satirical comedy, and the incompetency of the high up military officials is designed to be humorous and to satire the sometimes outlandish statements made by advocates of the nuclear arms race who feared the "missile gap."

In my opinion, the real focus of the film is to contrast the "inadequacies" of humans with the lack of morals in machines. In Burgess' article, he states that "War, whatever else it may be, is still the area in which public morality is most terribly and most dramatically tested." Kubrik uses the war setting to effectively portray what happens when a strictly "rational" and "logical" approach to war is taken while disregarding human morality. Through the comedy and the satire, Kubrik established how he saw the world heading towards an almost comical reality. As Burgess also stated, the film portrays men who claim to be moral that are leaving their environment in "the hands of totally amoral Science and their decisions (the very stuff of morality) to gamesmen aspiring through amorality to Science." It represents a vicious circle that leads to a less moral world dominated by "inhuman and passionless machines." Thus, in contrast to those who think that Dr. Strangelove is meant to mock militarists, it expresses the superiority of human fallibility over amoral machines.

Posted by marsh401 at 11:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, is a clever satirical piece about nuclear war and the absurd circumstances surrounding it. Much technology seems to pervade the films action, from the “big screen� depicting the locations of the planes which are attacking Russia, to the B-52 bombers delivering the atomic bombs to their final destinations to the bombs themselves. This movie tends to portray technology as a thing which can be used for either good or evil, but it shows the way it can be used for evil being much more successful than the attempts to stop those evil acts. I think it shows this dichotomy to show that no matter how far we have come as a society technologically, nothing is as foolproof as it seems. The methods of delivering evil, such as the B-52’s ability to still function after being hit by an anti-aircraft missile serves as an example of really turning what we think of as “good� and “evil� things on their head. I believe the portrayal of the military by this movie is a fair one, albeit a bit too humorous for my taste. The character of “Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson� played by George C. Scott I thought stole the show. He showed an amazing acting ability and very witty comic timing. The character he portrayed however, I felt was a bit unfair to the military as a whole. He was ready to throw away the lives of many people based on just a hunch that it might save some American lives when I don’t believe the actual people in command would act so hastily. I do agree that many of the villains in this movie are portrayed more as a “lovable lunatic� than villains, but I think that serves the purpose of trying to really humanize them. It is far easier to hate a villain who is out and out evil, while you have to at least attempt to rationalize the behavior of a man who is acting for his country, as in the example of General Ripper. I think that Kubrick’s use of a “Black Comedy� to portray nuclear war as a thinking point to the world is an effective and enjoyable one.

Posted by nemme003 at 11:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Strangelove shows how a series of outrageous events managed by renegade and inept leaders can lead to the destruction of the world. I do not think the movie unfairly portrays the military. Dr. Strangelove uses over the top and outrageous characters and scenarios to convey its message - that the arms race and nuclear war will destroy our society.

General Ripper is shown as a psychotic renegade that majorly oversteps his authority when he orders the attacks on Russia. He brings his entire unit into his own paranoia by telling them to attack anyone who tries to enter the base, saying "shoot first and ask questions later." The president was the most rational character but was completely ineffective in implementing a solution. He was making useless small talk with the Russian Premier while nuclear war was under way.

The point of Dr. Strangelove is to show the ridiculous path our society was following during the cold war. The characters were intentionally exaggerated. Those who felt the military was unfairly portrayed did not see the movie for what it was - a satiric commentary on the state of our nation.

Posted by fran0723 at 10:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The movie Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop worrying and Love the Bomb was an ok movie. I didn't find it as entertaing as the other movies we watch thus far. Reflecting on the movie and how technology plays a huge role in our society is depicted through this movie. During the cold war era and up until now, technology has affected society. The possiblity of using technology to gain power still exudes in countries today. Using technology as a form of threat. Think of all those the innocent people who were afraid of dying because of bombs dropping in. At the time of the cold war the same kind of fear is felt. At the same time technolgy to our society means advancement. We are able to save lives because of new advances in technology in the healthcare/surgical field. The point is, technology, good or bad seems to be it has the same effect. Technology to society is depenedent to humans, animals, technolgy gives us hope and at the same time causes us fear. Technology makes us happy or sad/regretful. Advances in technology will continue for us to have these kind of feelings.

Posted by tuazo001 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The satirical nature of the film may lead people to believe that its intent is to mock the war hawks and pro-military leaders, but it can be argued that Kubrick was meaning to establish an comparison between man and machine to show the fallibility of human kind. Throughout the film the machines were dependable, and were not at fault for any part of the catastrophe that was unleashed. Anytime there were problems or flaws, it was always the part of people. The technology worked just as it should, but the entire national defense plan left the final responsibility for success in the hands of an imperfect master- people. Kubrick showed the “lovable lunatics,� as stated by Burgess, to be doing what they believed was right, whether it helped or hindered their intended cause. General Ripper believed he was doing the just thing by starting an offensive against Russia, without knowing he was triggering the destruction of mankind. It was a clear demonstration of the fallacy of mankind, fighting through life on the basis of his beliefs and convictions, regardless of whether they are true or right. Buck Turgidson was convinced that the “Commies� were trying to trick him, and refused to cooperate in an attempt to save the world. Every character is acting on their convictions with the best intentions, but end up going nowhere. The movie shows us that people are a faulty machine, capable of mistakes and misguided passion, but “also capable of hope and courage� (Burgess). In the end, the only plan that is carried out perfectly, and without the obstacles human emotion or decision, is the ultimate destruction of the world by the machine.

Alex Schreiner

Posted by schr0845 at 10:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My reading of the t he film Dr. Strangelove was that it is a statement about powerholders in Cold War America and the citizenry. THe film creates the impression in its viewers that the power holders, and the citizenry who are supposed to keep them in check, are infantilized, decadent, and that is dangerous for the world during the cold war and is irresponsible on part of those in power :Americans.
There are several points in the story where men in power are shown indulging in pubescent curiosities. First, The pilot of the jet carrying a nuclear bomb is shown looking at a Playboy magazine and eating. Later on the same plane, a man opens a safe with several envelopes marked "top secret" and pasted to the inside door are several pictures of women in bikinis. One of the presidents advisors is in a relationship with a woman in her early twenties who is clearly intended to be a sex object. During a meeting with the president's cabinet the same advisor's girlfiend calls and he tells her "I can't talk to you baby. I deeply respect you as a human being." This is not the activity of mature leaders who have a sense of urgency and duty during a time of crisis and is highly representative of the decay of adult maturity into an adolescent ideology for those in power and it couldn't have come at a worse time.
The characters in the stoy are very small minded, even anti-intellectual. General Jack Ripper tells a colleague "today war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought." What he is saying is that there is no more room for diplomacy but he hasn't proved anything. He is just talking directly out of his ideology as a military man. Also, the American president calls the Russian president or Czar and has a ridiculously petty bourgeios housewife like conversation. "I'm glad you are fine. I'm fine too. I'm glad we are both fine." The examples in the film of those in power being small minded are supposed to remind us that our elected official are not above being idiots. That has proven deadly. Although if that's not clear now, it may never be!
The men in power are also created to be unscrupulous, and so is the public. For instance, when the presidential advisor's mistress calls him during the meeting, no one seems to notice. Not even the President! When the American President chats with "Alexi" some kind of Russian ambassador I think, he is informed about a nuclear weapon that is designed to detonate itself including if someone ever tries to disarm it. Exclaiming about the idea being mad he questions why they would ever build such a device. The ambassador tells him "there are of course those of us who fought against it, but in the end we couldn't catch up with the cost of the arms race, the space race, adn the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines." It is no irony that those who fought against a device being built were not successful because of material distractions. It is as such even today with demonstrations or lack there of. During the film the idea that the publiic forcing the government never enters the picture. That in itself is highly indicative too of an unscrupulous public. The theme is indicative that in our AMerican democracy there is a significant deterioration occuring in our willingness to see ourselves and our situation in a critical light in order to make smart choices.

small minded, unscrupulous, and adolescent.

Posted by dahme012 at 10:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was a highly entertaining piece of media. It was a perfect mixture of a serious matter that needed to be addressed to the public and comedy. The most enjoyable parts of the film for me was the conversation between The Presidents about being sorry and when the pilot “rode� the atomic bomb to its destination. The use of black or “nightmare� comedy in the movie was a great way to address the very real possibility of a nuclear war between the super powers without scaring the audience. The quote, “black humor is pitched at the breaking point where moral anguish explodes into a mixture of comedy and terror, where things are so bad you might as well laugh� by Charles Maland in “Dr. Strangelove (1964): Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of Liberal Consensus� sums it all up for this movie. The audience is able to come to a realization of how possible and horrific a nuclear war could be, but is able to take it on easily through the use of the black comedy. Dr. Strangelove worked in the manner of effectively getting its point across, but with a few knee slaps of laughter. On the same note, this film would not have worked as a serious drama. If the film had strictly been on the nuclear war subject, its high possibilities, and devastating effects, it would have merely frightened the public into a panic. The nightmare comedy was effective and the audience was still able to understand the seriousness of the nuclear situation.

Posted by mcgui149 at 10:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb� is a “black comedy� which satirizes the exaggerated fears of nuclear war that paralyzed America in the 1960’s. I don’t think the movie could have been released at a more ideal time. Less than two years after the Cuban missile crisis caused a wave of panic throughout America “Strangelove� was released. It was for the most part a kind of relief for all of the paranoia that the nuclear war was causing; it was the first time that the situation was presented in a comedic (albeit dark) and not-so serious manner. I think the general population found that it lessened some of their fears of the war because of how non-chalantly the issue was portrayed. On the other hand it was a blow to politicians and the upper echelon of the military because of the way that Kubrick presented those characters in the movie. Jack Ripper, a psychotic United States Air Force General, orders a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union because of the delusions he has of the Soviet’s plan to impurify the bodily fluids of the American people with fluoridated water (he believed that it was the Soviet’s who caused his impotence). The reason behind his need to bomb the Soviet’s is so ridiculous that you can’t help but laugh. This is one of the ways that Kubrick slips comedy into the movie. Ripper is also usually filmed at odd, close angles and uses odd facial expressions which add a bit to his supposed insanity. Another character who has odd mannerisms is Air Force General Buck Turgidson. His way of speech, combined with his excessive gum chewing, makes him seen quite mentally unstable as well. His comment about being in superior strategic position and attacking the Soviet’s, thus destroying 90% of their missiles, and only having “10 to 20 million American casualties… tops� is also a funny, but sad line, because I feel like some generals actually look at war in that way. President Merkin Muffley invites the Soviet Ambassador to the United States war room, and gives him strategy on how to shoot down his own American planes which are on their way to bomb his country. What president would do that? I mean really. I could go on about the other characters in the movie, but I think you get the idea. Dr. Strangelove is a brilliant piece of political satire which will probably remain atop that category for quite some time.

Posted by ruppx051 at 10:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Was anyone else thoroughly bored by this movie? Skimming the last couple of posts, there seems to be something going on within this movie that I simply did not catch on to. The movie had its moments, but ultimately, comedies are ineffective (in my opinion of course) when it comes to critiquing something as subjective as governmental policies. As a class, we viewed this movie already knowing it was a dark comedy attempting to satirize and poke fun (and ultimately critique) the government. Therefore, why bother with the comedy part? Anyone who views this movie strictly for enjoyment purposes will not think twice about the underlying meanings, and anyone who views it to study its critique doesn't need it to be a comedy, because we aren't necessarily interested in the humor. It reminds me of the book "Animal Farm," which I am sure many of you are familiar with. I first read this book when I was very young, and did not understand its deeper intention as a critique of Soviet Russia. I simply found it a good and enjoyable book. Once I was told it was a parallel to the old Soviet government, I had to go back and read the book again because it required an entirely different frame of mind to analyze it as a satire. George Orwell was able to succeed in writing a book that was both enjoyable and meaningful (consider it an anomaly), while Dr. Strangelove falls short on both counts, as it is neither extremely funny nor extremely influential in its message. Films and shows involving bumbling idiots is a common genre (The Three Stooges, Family Guy, Hot Shots!), and just because these bumbling idiots are cast as leaders of the two most powerful nations in the world does not suddenly make this film a political satire. I feel Stanley Kubrick may have tried to draw more significance out of this movie than there actually is, and while there are certainly some good points to be made about government policies, this movie makes none.
-Chris Hansen

Posted by hanse978 at 10:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film “Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb� was a lot different than I was expecting it to be. I was expecting the film to be more old-school, slap-stick funny and very clean with little dirty humor. However, the film used dark, mocking, and sarcastic humor and it even made use of some sexual jokes and references. I do think that the seriousness of the subject of nuclear war was downplayed through the use of humor. The film did make light of the subject of nuclear war, but I think that this was a good way to handle this particular situation.

At this point in America’s history the whole country was terrified of nuclear war. Making the whole situation seem a bit less critical through comedy aided in easing peoples fears. If this film was a serious drama about nuclear war I think that it would have only added to the fright and tension that Americans had about a potential nuclear war.

When watching something more serious and realistic it is easy for a person to put themselves in that situation and get scared, and when something is being mocked and not taken seriously it is not as scary in peoples minds and lightens the situation. So by creating a film that was making light of such a serious subject helped people to not think so seriously and intensely about nuclear war.

Although this film was not one of my favorites to watch, I think it did a good job of making light of a very serious situation and potentially took away some of the tensions people were feeling.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 10:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thought the film Dr Strangelove was a very good film that made a joke of the military being incapable to defend the United States effectively and a very serious event of dropping the first nuclear bombs on the world. I also believe that the film shows how effective technology is used in the military.
The best example of the film making a joke out of the military is in the telephone conversation between the President of the U.S. and the Russian President, Demitry. The importance of the call is essential to the well-being of an entire nation, however in the film it is portrayed as friendly conversation between friends who would rather talk about who is sorrier than talk about the situation in hand. Also Demitry being drunk at that moment in time makes it even more comical, as one of the world’s most important decisions is going to be made by a drunken man. Other aspects that make the military look like a joke is when one of the men is talking on the phone with his girl rather than trying to save world war three from starting.
Technology is used as a vital part of the film. The use of technology, especially technology of communication is used in making extremely important decisions for the world’s safety. Maland makes this point in “Nightmare comedy and the ideology of liberal consensus when he states that Kubrick, the director of the film, “develops his attitude toward technology in Dr. Strangelove by making use of …machines of communication� (pp. 711). The technology in the film is not as reliable as it is in today’s world. This is shown by the plane that dropped the bomb managed to escape the radar of both the Russian and the U.S. militaries. Another example would be when the military man was unable to contact the President because he did not have any money for the pay phone.
In conclusion, the film makes very good points about the military and the technology that they use communication technology in particular. Maland make these points in his article, especially the point about technology and how it is so important.

Posted by culve018 at 10:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This was my first time viewing the movie. I really enjoyed it, as it was nothing that I was expecting. From the readings, I would have guessed that most the movie took place in the war room. I was pleasantly surprised to find it switching focus from the military base, to the plane, to the war room. Also, I was slightly taken aback by Dr. Strangelove's surprisingly minimal role in the movie, especially since the movie was name after him. Also, it's now nice to place a movie to the scene where the atomic bomb is ridden to the ground, especially after seeing something similar on the Simpsons, knowing it's a parody, and not knowing what it was a parody of.

I can understand why Dr. Strangelove wasn't necessarily a box office smash, as stated in the blog assignment. I feel that movies of that type aren't necessarily seen as important films. By 'of that type' I mean movies dealing with the Cold War being produced during the Cold War. I can see why the public didn't necessarily herald a movie with a negative outcome about a very real issue at the time. However, now knowing the outcome of the Cold War, we look back on Dr. Strangelove as being a great example of a Cold War satire. Likewise, in an attempt (perhaps fruitlessly) to make a comparison to a contemporary film, should the global warming issue have a major effect on the earth, perhaps we will look back on 'The Day After Tomorrow' as a Hollywood benchmark on global warming. I should probably feel ashamed for comparing Dr. Strangelove to The Day After Tomorrow.

I think the main reasons Dr. Strangelove has been able to find acclaim 40+ years after its release are the characters in the film. I really enjoyed all the stereotypes (is that bad?) portrayed. There was Mandrake, the British who was seemed sort of feminine; Ripper, the general who just wanted to kill Russians; De Sadesky, the Russian who took every opportunity to spy on the US...The Charles Maland article (on page 10) pointed out an interesting bit that I definitely would have missed on the film. The main characters who were against the attack were President Muffley and Mandrake, which have female sexual connotations. Meanwhile, all the other characters were about as aggressive as you could get, calling for the US to cripple Russia with nukes.

All this has led to the survival of Dr. Strangelove as a classic from the Cold War. I wonder if it would still be considered so good if the Cold War resulted in a global nuclear war. I would guess that people would find it to be making light of such a horrible tragedy, and the movie would be more condemned than lauded. However, seeing as things turned out relatively okay, I think it's good to be able to view a film that takes a lighthearted, satirical outlook on the whole situation.

Jeff Batts

Posted by batts002 at 10:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Strangelove was a pretty good film in my mind. I found it interesting how Kubrick turned a serious matter, like the cold war, into a comedy. I enjoyed how Kubrick did this, because I like comedies and I feel as if the majority of the population would choose a comedy over a serious drama film to go see. And since this film was a very popular one of its time, I think most people agreed with me. I thought that technology definetly had a role in this film. Communication was portreyed very strongly throughout the film. I found it interesting how when Mandrake is trying to get a hold of the President but can't because he doesn't have anough money for the pay phone. This would never happen in our day, since mostly everyone has a cell phone. Overall I thought this film was very interesting to watch and it portreys the military very well and the use of technology, especially communication very good as well. I can see why this film was so popular and considered an important film.

Posted by Katrina Heikes at 10:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In Burgess' film review, he notes the "curiosity" in the portrayal of the generals as being "lovable lunatics" rather than incompetent or villainous. While it could be construed that this was used by Kubrick to enhance the comic effect (which it in fact did), I believe that the choice goes deeper than that. We as a society have always loved eccentrics (Take Seinfeld's Kramer for example). I think that we tend towards these buffoonish types because they allow for a vicarious release from the social rules that we are expected to follow. As long as they don't stray too far from the expected rules (as in talking to oneself), we view them almost as childlike- laughing at their foibles but not really holding them accountable. I think it reflects a desire in all of us for escape. Given the time and the context when the movie was made, the need for escapism in the face of the nuclear threat must have been great. I believe this sort of desire for lovable lunatics has continued today with the war on terror. George W. Bush has long cultivated a persona of likable incompetence, which had for quite some time worked in garnering favor and support. Unfortunately for us, instead of seeking an eccentric in film, we have found one in real life.

Posted by Melissa Green at 9:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week’s film Dr. Strangelove was a great film. The reasoning for this is how the director, Stanley Kubrick was able to take a very serious issue, in this case being the Cold War and making it somewhat funny.
In the film Dr. Strangelove technology played a large role through out the entire film. I believe that it is portrayed in a sense that without it we would not be able to defend our country and not have world power. It is very apparent that the use of communication from a technological perspective is very important to our society in being triumphant. In present society communication is extremely efficient because of past technological advancements that have helped pave the way for big and better creations. In the reading “Kubrick develops an attitude toward technology in Dr. Strangelove by making use of both machines of destructions and machines of communication� (p. 710). An example of this is how Kubrick emphasizes the importance of communication and if not used properly can result in death. In the reading it talks about Kubrick’s world view, “modern man has made scientific and technological advances inconceivable to previous generations but lacks the wisdom wither to perceive how the new gadgetry might be used in constructive ways or, more fundamentally, to ask whether the “advance� might cause more harm than good� (p. 701). An example of ineffectively using technology through the use of communication is when Mandrake tries to call the President after hearing about the supposed recall code. He tries to get in touch with the President, but he does not have enough money to call him at a pay phone. In today’s society that would never have been an issue because most people have cell phones, which are virtually always reliable.
The film Dr. Strangelove was a movie that portrayed how technological advancements are always being developed for the greater good of society, but if not used properly can do more harm than good.

Posted by white968 at 9:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Strangelove is undoubtedly a movie that depicts the phobia that people had over the cold war. It was a time during which technology in the military was booming. It seemed as though there was a competition amongst different countries to own the biggest and the most damaging explosives. Even though such technology advancements was still at its birth, Americans were highly horrified by the thought of it being used by the communists. Politicians helped to fuel this anxiety, which then modified a concrete purpose to become less hesitant to applying a nuclear attack if there was a slight need for it.

Reliance over the use of technology has definitely made it possible to advance on many aspects on the way of living. However depending on technology especially when there has not been a safe certainty of its use presents major consequences. Even though technology was there to represent the development and aspiring new ways of warfare, the movie showed the up and downside of its reliance. Phone lines worked all the time, but it did not work when it came down to the fact that aborting the General Ripper’s attack codes relied on a simple phone notification. To make matters even worse, there was not other alternative to reaching the bombers; thereby depicting that technology can in-fact harm the ones that rely on its use. Aside from a simple phone glitch, every other technology seemed to be perfectly reliable.

Some may say that the military was improperly characterized while some may disagree. I think the movie used a good illustration of the military in getting the message across. It was a time that nuclear weapon was new and as in other aspects, people usually get excited about new things. General Ripper, knowing that he needed an authorization from the president to send the “Code R�, his obsession of the nuclear weapon idea made him ignore the needed authorization. Upon acknowledging the message, Major Kong became very eager to accomplish the mission after a little doubt that the ‘go’ code was actually real. He was so excited that he left the plane with the bomb in other to ensure that it went through. I think that he military in this movie represented the minds of American popular belief. People may say that such method used to portray the military was unfair, but there was not a better way to depict a national obsession for cold war especially when the top political heads were not hesitant to strike with a nuclear weapon.

I think that Kubrick made a good decision to use black comedy in getting the message across because knowing that the time the movie was made, the idea nuclear weapon and its possible usage anywhere would do nothing but fuel the already existing cold war anxiety. The comedy strategy also worked because it makes the film more acceptable to public. Majority of people that see movies only go for the fun of it. They do not sit and analyze the movie or think in depth about why certain actions were depicted because that is when it starts to go down the sensitive part.

Like any other great movie, it took some time to understand more in-depth how much Dr. Strangelove tells about the American obsession over the cold war. Kubrick made the right move in choosing to use a black aspect, and the movie overall tells a tale of the consequences of total reliance on technology especially when there isn’t any second or even third back-up plan in the event it fails its purpose.

Posted by onon0006 at 9:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think that the portrayal of the military in Dr. Strangelove’s was very unfair and biased. I believe that Kubrick intentionally satirized the intentions made by the military leaders at the time. He was trying to show the stupidity of military leaders with their "callous disregard for other human lives, and their own lust for power" (Malland 702). Turgidson was a perfect example of this when he showed how he could care less about the number of people that were killed. He also showed his selfishness when he later talked about the ration of women to men in the shelters. I think that this movie really gave the people and unfair and untrue look of what really goes on and behind the scenes of the war room. They mocked and made fun of many situations when in reality it was a very crucial and important time. I think that Kubrick used black comedy throughout this film to sort of enlighten people and not show how serious and scary "war" really is. I believe that this sub-genre of comedy was a new thing at the time and was really a risky thing to do. I don't believe that it was a huge hit when it came out in the 60's because this was such a new idea and many people didn't really agree with it. Now a days, people are much more accepting and are willing to view this movie in a more light-hearted way. In “Dr. Strangelove (1964): Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of Liberal Consensus�, Charles Maland suggests that '"black humor is pitched at the breaking point where moral anguish explodes into a mixture of comedy and terror, where things are so bad you might as well laugh, and I believe this totally explains the way it is used in this movie. Kubrick also uses technology in the film to show how important it is in defending the country. Maland emphasizes that Kubrick shows a fascination for machines and “develops his attitude toward technology in Dr. Strangelove by making use of both machines of destruction and machines of communication� (pp. 711). All of this shows that our country relies largely on communication and this is an extremely important part of the technology used in the war. All in all I felt that this was a pretty good film but I just think that its use of black comedy was way ahead of its time period and the people did not get a good feel of what the movie was really trying to do. This is why I think that it is now viewed as one of the best U.S. films of the 60's.

Posted by kapla137 at 9:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In my opinion, Dr. Strangelove did portray the military unfailrly. This was clearly seen the the scenes on the ariplane flying to Russia. One of the pilot was reading playboy while controling the plane, the other one was eating and drinking. Then they made it sound like the soldiers were usually "horsing" around on the air. The captain even wasn't wearing his uniform; he had on a cowboy hat instead of his captain hat. When the U.S. military being portrayed as tos relaxing and lack of disciplines, I felt that was really unfair for the soldiers of the country. I think at any given times, the one out in the front lines should be respected and honored. When they were portrayed such as lackers and undisciplined group of people, their honored and pride were somehow taken away, more or less. I think Kubrick should had focus all the humor on the government instead, not the military men, making them look not so well trained in the public's eyes.
Except for those humors on the military, I think the humors from the scenes of the meeting room and the rest were good. I believe they did get the points across. Everyone should relax, don't worry too much about the nuclear war. Everything is ok, the bombs are not that big of a deal. One of the best piece in the movie when there was shooting at the office, and right at the scene where the shooting was happening, on the back ground was a giant sign "Peace is Our Profession". I found that funny and significiant. It was like a way of saying the government can do anything to bring peace to the country, they can shoot, fight, kill, or even use the nuclear bomb to keep the peace. I think the movie brought its message across clearly and loudly. Even when a nuclear bomb is dropped, everything would be fine like before. Recall the scene when the men on the plane received code for plan R, which is to attack Russia. They were getting ready to reach there target and drop the nuclear bomb, the captain and every men on board were so relaxed and the captain himself said something like "After this thing is over, you will get some kind of promotion". No one in the movie seemed to take it seriously. Right after the plane received the code for plan R, the captain called the general on land to comfirm, but he didn't bother to take the call and let his secretary lover answer it instead. When he was in the meeting with the president, his secretary even called and they talked informally like the meeting was going on. Moreover, one of the most important pieces in the film is the conversations between the President of the U.S. and the President of Russia. They were always chatting like old time buddies and they knew each other really well. They were portrayed as if they were just having a small little fight and it could be over tommorow. I thought those were halarious scenes, and the points were brought across pretty well.

Posted by truon052 at 9:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr Strangelove is a well made dark comedy, with the insane characters being what makes the film so effective. They demonstrate how military officials act in war sitsuations to the extreme, the very extreme. Dr. Strangelove definitely made its point as a dark comedy, I do not think it would have done well as a serious film. The Americans have the most over the top protrayal including general Ripper and General Turgetson, you give them a little power and the run off with it, blowing it out of proportion. It is like they believe blowing everything up and shooting everyone down is the most sensible option. The overdramatization is what makes Dr. Strangelove a dark comedy. I recall General Ripper announcing to his men "Shoot first and ask questions later," this theme of trusting no one plays throughout the film. My point is also reinforced when he whips out his machine gun from a golf bag and shoots from his office like a madman. General Turgetson protrays a typical ego driven American with his agressive violent nature that presents itself under the extreme pressure of Plan R. He wants to strike with nuclear bombs and has no problem that "10-20 million people tops" would die in the process. It would be a small sacrifice to pay to save the American way of life. "Bat Guano" is also one to take his position both too far and too seriously. While he will shoot to kill people at the drop of a hat he hesitates to shoot a Cocacola machine for 55 cents, saying its private property! He does not trust Mandrake and won't listen to his reasoning as if he sees Mandrake as inhumane. All he does is follow orders, no questions asked "Don't try any preversions or I'll blow your head off." Yet another comedic character is the hysterical Dimitri, the phone conversations between Dimitri and the president are both ineffective and unprofessional. The president clams his call to be friendly with the basic message being that the US mistakenly ordered planes to attack his country, Woops! It was obviously just a small slip up, no biggie.
While all these characters are definitely crazy, they are also hilarious in their rigidity and stubborness. The humor comes from their over the top personas, they are lovable lunatics. They are effected so entirely by their ego and militant position that they are blind to any other way of thinking. General Ripper has some far fetched theories on our precious bodily fluids and he seems to be the only one that knows what the hell he is talking about. Turgetson is also pretty spastic and overreactive to be a general, who are usually composed individuals who think things through. Guano's tendancy to act on orders like a robot, unaffected by emotion is an overdramatization of the sodiers of war. The characters are who they are, unchangeable stubborn individuals that make the movie what it is. A great, timeless satirical film.

Posted by kolsu002 at 9:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Stanley Kubrik's attack on the "red scare" through his film "Dr. Strangelove" is done in a way which allows the viewer crack a smile while thinking about the shortcomings of our government. In the movie, the big players of the government and military are shown as incompetent baboons incapable of making a worthwhile decision. However, Kubrik goes so over the top with his characters that it is impossible to view them with any sense of belief that the people who protect our country act like this. "Dr. Strangelove" is not making of personal members of the military, such as Edward Teller and General Curt LeMay, like Jackson Burgess wants to believe, but it is rather makin fun of certain procedures of the military in place to maintain order. The most notable attack on military procedure in the film is the idea of Plan R. As crazy as the idea sounds of an unauthorized general giving the order to nuke Russia, in all likelihood there probably was a plan in place very similar to the one in the film in case the Russians struck first. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Plan R and the President being allowed to send our troops into war without first getting Congressional approval. Both plans negate the necessary checks and balances that have held our country together since the beginning, which Kubrik alludes to through dark yet lighthearted humor.
Critics like Jackson Burgess either completely missed the point of this film or became very defensive about the military after watching it because Kubrik's portrayal isn't all that far off. Burgess goes as far to say that "Dr. Strangelove" makes "mincemeat of the military mind, the Birchers, the anti-fluoridationists, and all governments (which it does) and making the case for disengagement, sexual liberation, and philosophical anarchism (which it doesn't)" (9). Until that point in the article, I agreed with a few things Mr. Burgess wrote, but to say that this movie tried to make a case for disengagement, sexual liberation, and anarchism is ridiculous! I realize that many things have changed since he wrote the article in 1964 and that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I still find it hard to believe that the man wrote that in seriousness. However, that is off the topic, so I will conclude by saying that the military, like any organization of people, is prone to error, and "Dr. Strangelove" brings some of the military's possible fallacies to light during a time when it was necessary, though not popular, to do so.

Posted by ross0426 at 8:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This movie is a wonderful satire of modern political philosophy and warfare. It delivers in a turbulent time a refreshing look at how leaders of our time could go very easily overboard. Dr. Strangelove reminds me of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, a novel published seven years earlier by a Russian immigrant. In both pieces of work the government goes out of control to create an inhospitable world so that only one group of peoples is the ultimate group. The main difference is that in Rand’s novel there is a group of people that are above all of the destruction and recreate society, whereas in Dr. Strangelove the world and its people are destroyed ultimately.
During the early 1960’s one of the questions on everyone’s mind is who are we and where do we come from. The basis of human instinct is a prevalent theme in Dr. Strangelove. The idea of vital fluids needing to be replenished as a source for humanity symbolizes the need for person’s need for ideas to be exchanged and innovations to be made so as to further the human race. Communism is shown to slow human production, and in fact can be quite true. Communism works within a perfect society, but as the people are imperfect; such as communists only drinking vodka; society would end up failing due to need for thought exchange. The end of the world is brought about by the stopping of thought exchange and just blowing one another up. The doomsday device would create a cloud of radiation killing everything and dropping the earth’s temperature so as to stop the motion of all water. This “doomsday device� is how war acts to stop thought and thought exchange and is the end to human civilization. Another question posed is, why must we kill? One of the men in the war room suggest that we should destroy with the lowest number of casualties, but also acting as if the people dying are just number and are of no importance. A debate goes on as to whether a nuclear war is needed and whether people must be killed. The meaning of war and humanity is discussed in a whimsical manner with great destruction in the end. As satires goes, this one is funny, but makes the people who watch it think without knowing it.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 8:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Matt Hobbs
Blog #4

Doctor Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is able to function as such an effective critique of the military, and war in general, not because it depicts an ineffective military, but because it shows the reasons for war and the people behind the decisions in such an over the top, ridiculous manner. Far from showing the military as ineffective, Doctor Strangelove goes the opposite way, and Kubrick shows the military as being absolutely effective at what it does. If the United States needs to drop a bomb, well then our pilots are so good and our technology is so great that we can do that, even if we can’t keep track of it!
This is the tone of Doctor Strangelove and it is why the film is so effective at getting it’s message across. Instead of being useless the military is all-destructive; war doesn’t just cause famine or destroy an area, it decimates everything. Kubrick, by depicting the characters who are charged with this responsibility so incompetent and either over the top or soft-spoken, is able to show the audience just how fragile peace can potentially be. That the people in charge of the decisions, are just people, and just like us, have their own quirks, phobias, etc. By doing this Kubrick is able to effectively get the message across at how precarious our “diplomatic� peace really is.

Posted by hobb0041 at 8:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The representation of technology in this film portrays a very negative impact of its role in society. I think Jason Burgess' reference to Col. Kong's B-52 bomber owning him says a lot about technology's power over us. In Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, it seemed that everything on that plane went wrong that could up until the very end, where Col. Kong had to manually override the H-bomb deployment with his own 2 hands because the automatic deployment failed. I think that scene symbolized something. Man created that H- Bomb, which I think represented the culmination of technological advances in the most grim way possible, something that can take thousands of lives or possibly destroy the human race. Not only was the plane vulnerable to technological failures, but also radio equipment, telephones with severed connections and a faulty coke machine. The role of technology in our society can't be denied and even though during the nuclear age most technological advances were for military purposes in order to take lives, many advances in technology have been created to save lives. A quote from Burgess' reading sums it up perfectly, "And it isn't that ordinary human virtues are inadequate to ordinary human vices, but rather that neither vices nor virtues, being human and passionate are much use in a world dominated by inhuman and passionless machines." I think the their were 2 major roles in the film, roles held by humans and by technology. Roles played by the actors were full of life, some cooperated together,some were insane, but nevertheless they were lovable and had character. These actors appeared to be at the mercy of technology and did their best to overcome the obstacles it imposed.

Posted by cros0189 at 8:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I like Dr. Strangelove just because of its title. It could be a awful movie, but I’d still like it because the title is so good. Anything over the top like that I think is genius, not unlike how I find the over the top gore of zombie movies hilarious. Yes, I want to see a pregnant undead nun get beheaded by a spud gun, and yes, I will always watch a movie entitled Dr. Strangelove. However in this instance, the over the top title is not some hollow gimmick, it actually fits the obnoxious portrayal of the military, specifically national security, contained within the movie. Although some critics found this way of critiquing such a ludicrous system ineffective, I feel that Kubrick’s use of satire was directed and appropriate. Focusing on the irrational fears created by the anti-communist military types at that time, Kubrick pokes satirical fun at our leaders in many ways (Turgidson suggesting that 10-20 million American lives should be about right for the sacrifice of personal safety was particularly wonderful). Malland makes a good point about the hysteria that came out of the ‘red scare’, noting that Kubrick is particularly good at highlighting the idea that this communist conspiracy was merely a way to get into a good ol’ fashioned nuclear war. This in turns brings us to the larger question that Kubrick poses: what, if anything, warrants nuclear war? And as a child of the late eighties and early nineties (when zombie movies were in their prime) I say very little. Nuke them all I say, because we all know nuclear accidents create zombies, and I really want little more from life than the chance to decapitate a pregnant zombie nun with a spud gun.

Miles Mendenhall

Posted by mende058 at 8:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The indulgence and recklessness of men is portrayed well in Dr. Strangelove as military leaders are shown as "loveable lunatics". Each powerful position occupied in this film is by a man. Rarely is a woman seen in this film and when one is, she is represented as a sexual possession of a man in power. Each goofy but likeable military leader has a character that we laugh at and are drawn to. When Burgess says, "Dr. Strangelove mocks not only militarism, Edward Teller and the Pentagon, but all pretensions to moral judgment on the part of men who have delivered their environment into the hands of totally amoral technological Science..." he says how these men are reckless. I think it is this barbaric and instinctive recklessness that we are drawn to. Instead of diplomacy and discussing issues at hand with words and logic, it is in our very nature to "do it the easy way" and blow everything up. The way of the dummy is tempting and I think Kubrick shows that it is ultimately our demise. He shows that we should strive to be smarter and logical so that the world doesn't explode.

Posted by luli0004 at 8:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I agree with the reading from Dr. Strangelove (1964): Nightmare comedy and the Ideology of Liberal consensus. The United States out of necessity had adopted a single unifying paradigm in order to come together against the obvious threat the World War II represented. After the war had ended we still had this united paradigm we obtained and solidified throughout the war. At the ending of the war this was thoroughly set in American culture. The American people truly and firmly believed in the United States and its way of life and were happy with it.
After the war people were very happy with how their lives were and did not wish to return to the uncertain and terrifying conditions in which they lived during WWII. The threat from Communism caused people to fear that their way of life which with they were content could be turned upside-down. These feelings are what lead to such strong opposition against the threat from Communism.
Despite this feeling of opposition to communism people were also afraid of the increasingly powerful weapons which newfound technology was making possible. The movie Dr. Strangelove was designed to alleviate the fears of the American people. Things you see in a movie become less mysterious and thus loose some of their fears of that subject. Also the movie being a comedy helps portray Nuclear War as something that is practically tolerable and not a big deal. Their were other agencies also attempting to make nuclear war seem tolerable as we discussed in class with the duck and cover campaign. This made people feel as if they could do something to protect themselves, though in reality they could not.
The way in which Nuclear Technology in this film was treated I believe says a great deal of how people felt about nuclear weapons. In Dr. Strangelove even the people who are using the nuclear weapons are terrified of using them, even though it may be a necessity. I think this shows how afraid people in the united states were of either having to use nuclear weapons or having them used against us.

Posted by andre368 at 8:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I can’t say that I particularly like this movie. This is not because the movie’s message is unimportant, because it definitely is, but I just do not find this type of satirical humor fascinating. As soon as the first scene began, I knew right away that Dr. Strangelove was going to poke fun at the United States military. And although this is supposed to be a light-hearted way to show viewers how complicated the system is, I find it a bit disrespectful.
Throughout the film, several attempts are made to make United States soldiers appear uneducated and blatantly ridiculous. Their words and actions are thoughtless, and it is impossible to take them seriously, even when speaking about classified information. I found it particularly interesting that there was absolutely no sense of urgency throughout the entire film, even though we are dealing with nuclear war, a rather important subject.
I do like the idea that this movie portrays the doings of political figures in the United States as careless, and that national policy is decided in such an imprudent fashion. The movie really pokes fun at our government, and makes a point to show the viewers that what was going on at the time was extremely important, and the film does this by making a mockery of people we hold in such high regard.
By the end of the film, although I still didn’t like it, it became obvious that Dr. Strangelove’s mission is not to ridicule the actual people in these positions, but the policy and decision-making itself. This film is very important for its time because it helped to shed light on a serious topic by lightening the load with satire.

Posted by Courtney Marlow at 8:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr Strangelove is one of the most popular movies of all time. It was nominated for several Academy Awards and today holds the rank of 39 on AFI's Top 100 Movies list. It isn't hard to see why it is so popular-- it's a clever and strikingly honest satire of a delicate situation. Yet, one has to wonder why exactly Stanley Kubrick would choose to turn it into a comedy rather than a drama as in reality there would be nothing funny at all about a problem where the only outcome was total destruction.

Kubrick originally intended on making this movie a serious drama as it was an issue he felt strongly about. However he found, as he was jotting down ideas, that the ones he kept throwing out-- "I can't do this, people will laugh!"-- were the most truthful. He saw that the only way to tell his story was to turn it into a black comedy. And yet it made its point and I would argue more effectively than a drama would.

The thing about dramas is that they're intense and captivating in the film world yet when the credits roll, we leave feeling glad our lives aren't like that. What Kubrick did with Dr. Strangelove was capitalize on the fact that people laugh at what we feel uncomfortable about. The things we fear the most we turn into comedy. Had he made this another drama people would have left feeling glad it wasn't reality, feeling as though it were a part of another world that was far away from the here and now. By making Dr. Strangelove a comedy, he was able to get people to laugh at what they already felt uncomfortable about, and as such, made it impossible for them to ignore the very real threat of nuclear war. Plus it worked also as a commentary on just how ridiculous the Cold War was as by that time, the conflict had escalated to a point where it was nearly comical.

Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing when he chose to make Dr. Strangelove into a comedy, and lucky for audiences everywhere he did.

Posted by bergm150 at 8:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The portrayal of military officials in Dr Strangelove was criticized as unfair, particularly those representations of men that took a strong approach to national security. While some critics focused on only the perceived the foolishness of the leaders’ words and actions, I feel that they missed the point that the film was trying to make.
Kubrick intentionally satirized the various strategies taken by military and civilian strategists at the time. He was trying to remark on the stupidity of military leaders with their “callous disregard for other human lives, and their own lust for power� (Malland 702). Turgidson was a perfect example of this selfish drive for personal safety; voicing his willingness to sacrifice millions of Americans, with little differentiation between ten and twenty million lives. He spoke in the same eager tones of this sacrifice for the dubious potential procurement of a safer reality as he later pondered the ten to one ratio of beautiful women to men in the survival shelters.
There was also a strong focus on the irrationality of the anti-communist fears that infused the culture of the time. General Ripper’s fears of Communist infiltration of American society are shown as extremist anxiety to the point that fluorides introduction synchronous with the formation of the postwar international Communist conspiracy was a just reason to initiate a nuclear war (Malland 706). The “red scare� was so prevalent throughout the nation that people were fired, jailed, deported and blacklisted for offenses ranging from involvement in humanitarian political movements to refusing to name ‘conspirators’ in their alleged wrongdoings. Kubrick was trying to highlight that any threat posed by the Soviets did not warrant the use of nuclear weapons (Malland 700).
The film intentionally highlighted the narrow focus of military strategists and the devastating consequences the nation could face because of this. I do not feel that he was trying to malign all military establishments or show the American government as dangerous, idiotic buffoons. It reminds me of the idea that there are not bad people, just good people making bad choices. The film is criticizing the choices and rationalization occurring in the culture not the society itself.

Nyssa Shawstad

WORKS CITED
Maland, Charles. “Dr. Strangelove (1964): Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of Liberal Consensus� American Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 5, Special Issue: Film and American Studies (Winter, 1979), pp. 697-717.

Posted by shaw0139 at 7:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last weeks film Dr. Strangelove was highly comical even though it was portraying an all too serious subject. I felt that it really gave the military the short end of the straw throughout the whole movie. Such things as nuclear war are not suppose to be taken so lightly as a General taking a call from his secretary in the War Room right in the middle of a decision of what to do. Every powerful figure that was part of the military had a highly amusing yet depressing trait about them, except for possibly the President. Gen. Ripper was simply insane and his obsession with his bodily fluids made his character far more unprofessional than a general should be. However this would make his justification for the nuclear strike seem far more amusing than logically sound, like a general should act. The other general, although seeming a little more professional when first introduced, was quickly shown to be the kind of person we would never want to see in the military, and especially in a seat of power. He is attitude towards the deaths of millions and his overzealous nature seemed very unfair to the position of general. What I found to be most comical but at the same time depressing for the seriousness of it was the discussion between both presidents. The sheer fact the U.S. president was trying to convince the drunk Russian that he needed to act negated all seriousness of the subject. The real justification to an unfair stance towards the military was Dr. Strangelove himself. He was by far the most out of place character in the War Room and only supported this with his apparent split personality. The sheer fact a person like this was giving consultation to the President could be seen as a slap to the military, and to the American generals. The president was taking counsel from an ex-nazi over their "expert" opinion.

Posted by leex2727 at 7:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From the beginning of the movie Kubrick uses black comedy to effectively display his fear of the possibility of nuclear war. I think he used black comedy as a way of getting people to understand the situation our country was in without scaring them too badly. It was a little bit of a wake up call to America asking us to pay attention to what was going on because there was a chance it could have gotten out of control. Some people might not have understood how he could make light of a serious subject, but I think it was genius. He could have made it into a serious drama, however I feel like it would have made it too intense and might not have appealed to as broad of an audience. After all, he really did want to send a message out to the public about the importance of this issue. In “Dr. Strangelove (1964): Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of Liberal Consensus�, Charles Maland suggests that '"black humor is pitched at the breaking point where moral anguish explodes into a mixture of comedy and terror, where things are so bad you might as well laugh," describing quite accurately the way Kubrick came to feel about the arms race and nuclear strategy.' ( pg.9).Although the movie was funny it for sure gets people to understand to a certain extent how bad a nuclear war could get. For instance there is that part describing how powerful a hydrogen bomb is in comparison to all of the bombs used during World War II combined. Also the description of the doomsday machine is a pretty frightening thought, and one that could be completely attainable. I think this movie really opened up a lot of peoples eyes to the nuclear issues surrounding our country.

Posted by stor0245 at 7:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Stanley Kubrick The director of the film Dr. Strangelove uses technology throughout the film as an effective representation of how technology is important to be successful in defending the country. Maland emphasizes that Kubrick shows a fascination for machines and “develops his attitude toward technology in Dr. Strangelove by making use of both machines of destruction and machines of communication� (pp. 711). The use of technology in the film provides evidence that our society relies hugely on communication to be successful. In our society today we use communication that has developed to be efficient and very reliable thanks too the advancement in technologies. In the film Dr. Strangelove it proves that the misuse of radio codes and lack of communication within the military was deadly. Kubrick stresses the importance of communication in the film as the failure of communication to the B-52s after directing the military to their targets lead to the one plane completing the task. Another example of technology failure is when Mandrake tries to call the President after hearing about the recall code; he cannot contact the president because he does not have any money to pay for the pay phone. With better communication tools, that we have today, this would have never occurred. Kubrick also provides other ways of showing that our society relies heavily on technology. Malland tells us that “throughout the B-52 scenes, Kubrick keeps viewers interest by alternating close ups of various panel controls� (pp 711). This emphasizes that technologies also succeeded in the film, without the importance of effectively using panel controls to ensure that flights run smoothly. The most fascinating and also successful technology throughout the film was the use was the use of the electronic wall chart in the war room, this technology always succeeded as it always monitored the exact location on the planes. The film also emphases that no matter how good technology may be, it needs to be used correctly, therefore qualified people must only use important technology. In the case of Dr. Strangelove the plan of attack would never had been enforced if the communication came from the war room and not unqualified military.

Posted by campb503 at 7:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kubrick’s Strangelove combines satire, fear and outrageous characters to produce a political commentary about Cold War time. Advances in technology during this time were immense. The film exhibits a map, or as Gen. Turgidson calls it-- a“big board�, that lights up and pinpoints the location of U.S. planes. Nuclear bombs are the major threat mentioned in the film, until the Russian Ambassador slips the secrets of the Doomsday machine. Radios are impounded and only returned to power with secret codes. All of this technology is not reliable, nor successful. While Maj. Kong tries to bomb a Russian target, the circuits on the plane stop working. He must manually fix the circuits and open the plane’s doors so the bomb may be dropped. Yet, Gen. Ripper’s plan R is implemented with out any trouble. At the same time, Ripper’s use of technology becomes a failure due to his conscious overstep of authority. Close ups of the plane’s cockpit, with all of its dials, knobs and buttons, shows the viewer the complexity and power of new technology. Maland argues Kubrick’s use of technology represents “machines of destruction� and “machines of communication� (p. 710).

Throughout the film, war mongers and Hawks are intentionally shown as blundering idiots. This seems to be purposely done to impart an idea of overblown aggression and lack of diplomatic skills. Pilots are shown busily reading Playboy and eating snacks, furthering the idea of a less-than-competent armed forces. The portrayal of an over zealous military trying to prove superiority is one that seems to act before thinking. As Gen. Ripper explains, “war is too important to be left to politicians.� President Muffley is too set on peacekeeping, even though signs on the military bases boldly read “peace is our profession.� Despite all this, these characters are developed in such a way as to earn the viewer’s favorable reception. They keep us entertained and amused. These characterizations tell of a society that views its leaders as puppets or sideshow attractions. The amusement Americans find in President Bush’s speeches exemplifies this.

As discussed in class, Kubrick’s film had to be a dark comedy in order to not to propound the fears of a nuclear age and the thought of war. The film’s use of this type of comedy is successful in that discourse about the actions and ulterior motives of the military are scrutinized, but not turned into civilian panic. If Dr. Strangelove had been released as a serious drama, it would have added to the hysteria and, for some, advocated military action.

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 7:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film Dr. Stangelove portrays the United States Military as incapable of protecting our country and makes a joke out of what would be a very serious situation. I believe this showing of the military is over-exaggerated, but is based on many truths. The first of which is international diplomacy. In the film when the US president is taking to the leader of Russia their phone call is a complete joke. Demitry is drunk and incoherent of what is about to happen and the President is just playing along. These phone calls between countries show how difficult it is to work between countries. Another aspect is domestic diplomacy. The communication between the generals and the President is very poor. One general is taking on the phone to his woman when he is in a meeting of national security. They are unable to get communication to the base where another military commander has gone rogue and sent a fleet of planes to attack Russia.

Plan R, as called in the film, was an attack plane that could be ordered by someone of lower rank in the military in case of a sneak attack on the United States. I think the point of this part of the movie was to show how in many cases the military tries to cover all of its basses, but it can backfire. They thought this plan would be good if something drastic were to happen, but they didn't think about the human side of the plan, and obviously that turned out badly. I believe all of these examples are things that happen in the military but taken to the extreme. No system can be flawless, and Dr. Strangelove picked on the flaws in the military and in a way made us lose trust in the American system of government. So, I can't say the the portrayal of the military was unfair as much as it was taken out of proportion.

Posted by elmxx014 at 7:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Strangelove effectively functions as a criticism of the military because of the extreme stance that it takes. The fact that the characters are caricatures of their respective military officials rather than direct representations makes it function outside the realm of practical. Such absurdity is important to the critical tone of the film because by illustrating the extremes of behaviors it becomes clear that the practices and not the people are what is under attack. Despite the intensity of the soundtrack and mise-en-scene, the dialogue is kept lighthearted and the characters’ actions and names are comical. It is impossible to take the film seriously and as such it functions as effective criticism of the brash decisions made about using nuclear force. The climax of the film that occurs as the pilot launches himself on the nuclear weapon rather than leave the conflict without launching the bomb. His cowboy demeanor and nonchalant approach to the bomb are obviously not typical and by taking the conceptual idea of cowboy foreign policy and interpreting it literally, the absurdity of the concept as a whole is presented. The existence of the Doomsday device shows how impractical the consequences of the arms race could be. The President’s failure to notify the public and the casual demeanor and petty arguments that occur in the war room may well confirm American fears that they will need to duck and cover. The accidental nuclear war is the consequence of impractical and overconfident foreign policy, so when the film is boiled down to its basic message, the criticism simply says we should pay attention to the potential consequences of our actions.

Posted by vieir013 at 6:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week we watched Dr. Strangelove. I really liked how this movie used nightmare comedy in order to satirize certain American beliefs that were felt during the period around the Cold War. According to the Dr. Strangelove (1964): Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of Liberal Consensus reading, the four dimensions of the Cold War consensus that were ridiculed throughout this film included: “anti-Communist paranoia; the culture’s inability to realize the enormity of nuclear war; various nuclear strategies; and the blind faith modern man places in technological progress.�
The “anti-Communist paranoia� was mostly displayed by a character in the film named General Ripper, who is convinced that the Communists are under cover in America and that they have contaminated our water through fluoridation. As a result of this paranoia he decides to carry out “plan R� and eventually destroy the world all because of fluoridation.
In class we talked about how the media made light of nuclear war by providing people with the idea that if they “ducked and covered� once they saw a flash that they would be saved from the nuclear bomb. In reality, this action wouldn’t do anything because they would be immediately vaporized if a nuclear bomb was to ever be dropped. During the last scene of Dr. Strangelove after the B-52 dropped the nuclear bomb on Russia the song “We’ll Meet Again� played while a serious of mushroom clouds filled the screen. According to the Dr. Strangelove (1964): Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of Liberal Consensus reading, Kubrick decided to have this song play during this time to “ironically suggest[s], we will never meet again, because there will be no one left on earth,� which goes against the world view of being able to survive a nuclear war.

Posted by clay0115 at 6:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I found the movie to somewhat odd, especially the role of Dr. Strangelove, not only did his voice and demeanor creep me out but the part in the end where he has German spaz-outs was weird. Burgess claims that that is a commentary on “American and Russian explotation of German scientists� (p.10) but I wouldn’t have understood that without having read the article prior to viewing.
The movie did a good job of pinning man versus machine and as Burgess discusses, showing the inconsisitencies between the two. In the film, even the best and most elaborate technologies were susceptible to human error. General Ripper almost started a nuclear war single-handedly. I found it ironic that the same plans and technologies intended to protect the nation were the same ones that ended up killing Colonel Kong and eventually and indirectly, the whole world. Plan R was well thought out, that is, until it went wrong. All the back-up plans that were to be used against the enemy ended up working against themselves, or in other words, the plans made in order to escape trouble ended up causing the most in the end. In order for things to be successful, both man and machine must be up to par. This film highlights the incapabilities of both man (General Ripper and the whole team of authorities at the Pentagon not being able to come up with a solution or being unprepared – not enough money to use the phone, etc) and machine (nothing working properly when it was supposed to) .
Burgess also mentions the ambiguity of the film, saying that “It suggests that we are, indeed, going toblow ourselves up but it isn't very sad or shameful, or even very important.� (p.4). This seems to be true and is illustrated in the demeanor of the characters. Besides General Turgidson’s super excited state, there does not really seem to be a sense of urgency presented. The President is concerned but more in “oh-man- we-really-messed-up� manner than an “oh-no-we-are-all-going-to-die� manner. The other officials barely speak and no one seems to be frantic or in a panic. Even when the Doomsday machine goes off, they are in the midst of calmly debating different plans of action. I am unsure if this ease is because they know the anticpated end of the world due to this situation is inevitable, are confused about what to do, or really just don’t see it as a super scary issue.

Looking back at the movie now, I can see it as an effective nightmare comedy, however, had I been a viewer during this time period, I don’t think I would have found it funny at all. I know the goal was to make people step back and look at all the hysteria and laugh at themselves for taking it so seriously. However,in that day, when the government was spreading messages that things like this could actually happen at any given time, any given place, and with the movie depicting the cause as human fallibility (which we know the military is certainly capable of), the goal would not have been accomplished with me, I would have sided with the critics who didn’t get it or have been angered at the insensitivity. Just like if someone made a satire of 9/11, even though it was 7 years ago now, I am sure most people would not find it funny, it is too close to home. However, in hindsight, I can definitely say it has value- offering a different view of both technological and human capabilities and fallibilities, as well as military procedures and leaders.

Posted by Jasmine Omorogbe at 6:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Being from a military family back ground and knowing that this film was going to make fun of the military I was a little bias towards the competence of the films message. I believe that the film Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb did intentionally portray the leaders of the military and the government as buffoons. However it may have been the only way that Stanley Kubrick was able to get his real underlying message across. I believe this film wanted to show that with technology improving rapidly it is still only as effective or useful as the individuals controlling it. The movie showed the idea that head military leaders would like to take physical action against a possible Soviet threat in order to alleviate some American casualties, if America was not able to stop their B2 bomber from attacking the Soviets. Like one of the best all time actors George C. Scott's character said that we should surprise attack them because "we would only suffer 20 million dead to their hundred million". The idea presented by George C. Scott's character was to bomb the Soviets so the Soviets have fewer resources when they attack the US. This strategy seem outrageous and funny at the same time but there are a lot of crazy people in this world and it only takes on person in charge to rectify that idea. Over all I thought that this movie was very good and comical. On the other hand it portrayed a very sincere and real message that people need to pay attention and technology is only as effective or useful as the people controlling it, so us Americans need to place/elect the right people to control these technologies. As a side note I found it hysterical how George C. Scott's character would always assume or call people COMMIES.

Posted by towar003 at 6:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I find it difficult to imagine that “Dr. Strangelove,� as it is written, could have worked as a serious drama. The source material for this film, the novel “Red Alert� by Peter George, is a “thriller,� and therefore written in a serious tone. Obviously since the basis of “Dr. Strangelove� is that of a serious drama, the film could have taken on that tone and have probably been successful; in all likelihood, however, it would not be considered one of the greatest films ever made. The satire and black comedy is what made this film great and without it, it is just another war film.

Black comedy and satire has the effect of professing to approve the very things one wishes to attack. Kubrick does an excellent job of employing this technique to illustrate his discontent with the Cold War and the threat of nuclear warfare. Kubrick, using the example of the “doomsday machine,� shows the absurdity of the real-life theory, “mutual assured destruction,� in which “each side is supposed to be deterred by the fact that a nuclear war would be a cataclysmic disaster for both sides, regardless of who ‘won.’�

He uses characters like Turgidson, who are eager to initiate nuclear war with the Soviet Union, to parody members of the government and military. In one scene, Turgidson states, “Now I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed, but I am saying no more that 10 to 20 million killed. Tops!� This is a direct reference to Herman Kahn, a military strategist and architect of the “mutual assured destruction� theory, who in his works, “estimated how many human lives the United States could lose and still rebuild economically.� Kubrick, by employing black comedy and satire in “Dr. Strangelove,� is able to show the illogicality, irrationality, and ludicrousness behind the methods that drives the members of the government and military in “fighting� the Cold War.

In some cases, as in “Dr. Strangelove,� the satire is able to say directly, what would normally be said indirectly; there is no political spin employed to filter out what might incite fear or panic. The statements are made with a smile and a laugh, but nonetheless, are said full out. One is able to grasp the seriousness because of the directness of the material being disseminated, but because of the tone, that of humor, it has the effect of deadening the fear.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb

Posted by palaz012 at 6:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Strangelove was an over-the-top cold war satire. The movie's main goal, it seems, was to show Americans how silly their obsessions with the cold war was.The reason for General Ripper starting his nuclear attack was that through flouridation, the communists were subverting the American way of life. This is why he only drinks distilled water, pure rain water, and grain alcohol. He doesn't want his bodily fluids to become impure by the treacherous communist plot. He is able to mount his nuclear attack because of a loop hole in the American nuclear war strategy, which allows a lone general to launch a nuclear war if America is attacked, and the normal chain of command is made inopperable. We see the President and his advisors trying to figure out the best way to deal with this crisis, which leads to American troops attacking our own army base, the buffoonery of the President and his dealings with the Russians, the eventual call back of all but one of the war planes, and then that one war plane eventually reaching a Russian target which sets off nuclear annihilation.

One of the main plot lines in Dr. Strangelove is our increasing technology and how it can become a crutch with our reliance on it. In the movie we see the success of all the technology that allows for the nuclear attack, and failure of the technology that would enable the attack to be stopped. General Ripper is able to successfully send the attack codes to the nuclear bombers, he is able to successfully lock down the army base, and the crew of the plane is able to easily go through their check points without any glitches. On the other hand, the president and his staff are unable to get in touch with General Ripper, or anyone at the army base, because the phone lines have been made inopperable, they are unable to stop the bombers from their course of action because they don't have the secret communication code, the Russians do not have a way to disarm their preprogrammed armegeddon program which causes world wide nuclear annihilation upon Russian attack, the bomber that gets through has its communications system fail which doesn't allow them to get the call back code. In this way, Kubrick shows us that it is technology that can both aid us and lead to our destruction. We rely too much on developing, and furthering, our technologies, and not enough time on contingencies should these technologies fail us. At one point Dr. Strangelove tells us that the U.S. studied the viability of implementing an automatic nuclear destruction program as the Russians have. he states it was deemed not viable because there would be no way to stop it, even in the event of an accidental nuclear bombing. Unfortunately the Russians didn't come to this same conclusion, and their technology failed them because there were no contingencies in place.

I think the use of comedy was effective in getting across Kubrick's point. The cold war brought about too much craziness and irrational thought. At the time many thought it prudent for America to be the first to attack in the eventual nuclear war that was coming. His premise was that those in the government and the military spend most of their time focusing on our attack plans, and/or planning a counter-attack in the event of an attack on us, that they lose sight of the need for plans to prevent a nuclear war from ever happening. In his own way, he is letting America know that it needs to loosen up, quit relying on technology, and quit focusing on a nuclear war that most likely won't ever happen. Is he a little rough on his portrayal of the government as bafoons and of the military as war hungry psychopaths? Probably. But, the movie is a farce, and a farce is most effective the more over the top it gets.

Posted by bela0003 at 6:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I would say that the film, Dr Strangelove, is one of the best comedy films that came out in the 60s eventhough the film was about militarism and war. I thought the film contained lots of different types of gags, but it still showed how war can be very dangerous and how meaningless it is. However, there were couple of scenes where the producer wanted to send some importanat messages across to the audience. For example, in one of the scenes in the film(when the russians were attacking the americans), there was this big sign that was standing up in the middle of the battlefield, which said "Peace is our profession". I thought that was very ironic because there were gunfires everywhere in middle of this field where this sign was standing - this was, i think, one of the messages that Kubrick was trying to send a message across to the audience. some may think it's funny, but others may take it as a sign of ending the war. The audiences might have thought how meaningless the war can be and how the war can cause damages both externally and internally. In one of the assigned readings, the narrator said that Kubrick was drawn to the war films because of the concern he had with the public morality, not anti-militarism. Overall, i think Kubrick did a great job of expressing his ideads and emotions towards the "Ban-the-bomb movement" in the way that the audience could enjoy, but still take the film seriously - how people needed to pay attention to the messages that the film portrayed.

Posted by katay007 at 6:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The representations of technology seem to represent our need for acceptance of the technology as discussed in class the American public needed to understand that the technology created by our military and see it as necessary and controllable. Information like the duck and cover turtle made the devastating technology being created as something that was inevitable and socially accessible. In this film the destructive technology seems to always work even when faced with difficulty, the bombs drop and the doomsday device works, this seems to indicate the powers of conflict will continue and that the military actions can not be stopped. The fact that on many occasions the communication technology of the American forces does not work seems to indicate that the major problem within the American system is internal communication that the information in circulation always seems to be either sent by the wrong person or not sent at all. Every interaction with communication technology also has problems.
The extreme nature of the pro war antics show that social tone of the time and not directly those in charge of the military, it is a satirical look at the tensions in the public. The characters are one dimensional and steeped in their own eccentricities which makes the characters look distant and from another reality. Pro war critics may not get this element of the film because of the film seems to show only that the creators have a specific opinion on his topic and the subject matter being of such a serious matter this flippant film might look less like an creative look a the topic but a judgment on the members involved.
I agree that the characters in the film are seen as lovable lunatics. These characters show a parallel to the demonized image of the war heads that was presented to public by the media. Heads of war were shown through movie reels as godless and heartless. This film shows them in a more ridiculous light which makes them seem more real and personable in their quirks and eccentricities. One example of the lunacies portrayed that could be seen as lovable is the obsession with water and the communist plot to make him infertile that is held by General Ripper,, this shows a weakness behind his insanity that makes him real and likable.
I believe that the use of the nightmare comedy was extremely useful in addressing the serious nature of the tension that riddled the country at this time. It alludes to the importance and seriousness of the issue but also steps back from it to take a, even toned to it. If this film was created as a serious drama there would be an even bigger back lash then there was, at this time of political turmoil and pubic fear to look at something like this in a serious tone would seem like a judgment on the current status of wartime actions. By making it a dark comedy it makes the film seem like it is simply making a farce of it, and thus staying neutral to and separated form the actual action of the government. I believe that the seriousness the of the situation was intensely steeped in the mindset of the American public they understood that the situation was serious and the viewpoint of this film would most likely be seen as that of the director and not likely to impact the mass audience that had been so inundated with information to the seriousness of the time.

Posted by swanx058 at 6:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The representations of technology seem to represent our need for acceptance of the technology as discussed in class the American public needed to understand that the technology created by our military and see it as necessary and controllable. Information like the duck and cover turtle made the devastating technology being created as something that was inevitable and socially accessible. In this film the destructive technology seems to always work even when faced with difficulty, the bombs drop and the doomsday device works, this seems to indicate the powers of conflict will continue and that the military actions can not be stopped. The fact that on many occasions the communication technology of the American forces does not work seems to indicate that the major problem within the American system is internal communication that the information in circulation always seems to be either sent by the wrong person or not sent at all. Every interaction with communication technology also has problems.
The extreme nature of the pro war antics show that social tone of the time and not directly those in charge of the military, it is a satirical look at the tensions in the public. The characters are one dimensional and steeped in their own eccentricities which makes the characters look distant and from another reality. Pro war critics may not get this element of the film because of the film seems to show only that the creators have a specific opinion on his topic and the subject matter being of such a serious matter this flippant film might look less like an creative look a the topic but a judgment on the members involved.
I agree that the characters in the film are seen as lovable lunatics. These characters show a parallel to the demonized image of the war heads that was presented to public by the media. Heads of war were shown through movie reels as godless and heartless. This film shows them in a more ridiculous light which makes them seem more real and personable in their quirks and eccentricities. One example of the lunacies portrayed that could be seen as lovable is the obsession with water and the communist plot to make him infertile that is held by General Ripper,, this shows a weakness behind his insanity that makes him real and likable.
I believe that the use of the nightmare comedy was extremely useful in addressing the serious nature of the tension that riddled the country at this time. It alludes to the importance and seriousness of the issue but also steps back from it to take a, even toned to it. If this film was created as a serious drama there would be an even bigger back lash then there was, at this time of political turmoil and pubic fear to look at something like this in a serious tone would seem like a judgment on the current status of wartime actions. By making it a dark comedy it makes the film seem like it is simply making a farce of it, and thus staying neutral to and separated form the actual action of the government. I believe that the seriousness the of the situation was intensely steeped in the mindset of the American public they understood that the situation was serious and the viewpoint of this film would most likely be seen as that of the director and not likely to impact the mass audience that had been so inundated with information to the seriousness of the time.

Posted by swanx058 at 6:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Strangelove is a brilliant film, and may be considered one of the major influences of revolutionary thought of the sixties, continuing to today. Although some may think such satire on something so devastating as nuclear war as disturbing and repulsive, director Stanley Kubrick unearthed a multitude of prevailing problems as America was becoming a world power, particularly aiming at abused power of the military, the view on Communism, and the disconnect of technological and scientific advances and “social, political, and moral ineptitude� (Maland, 701). The film highlighted the evils of military leaders, or as Maland notes, “their callous disregard for other human lives, and their own lust for power� (702). Dr. Strangelove is not simply a tasteless film set out to bash the leaders of America, however; it is a comical reflection of the paradoxes of how the country was reacting to the threat of nuclear war; as Morris Dickstein would suggest, the threat of war and the nuclear race had reached a point so terrifying that it had reached a “point where moral anguish explodes into a mixture of comedy and terror, where things are so bad you might as well laugh� (704). Therefore, I feel the film did not unfairly portray the military; it was merely trying to depict the moral and mental struggles and hardships that the nation had to deal with.

Posted by riva0067 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As Charles Maland stated, 1) “the structure of American society [is] basically sound� and 2) something is “clear danger to the survival of the United States and its allies� (Maland, 1964). During the time when the film, Dr. Stranglove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was released, that “something� Maland discusses refers to communism and the threat it created for the safety of the United States. The American society began to unite due to the threat of foreign totalitarianism and I believe that this film helped them accomplish it. Just as Stanley Kubrick realized, “The only was to tell the story was as a black comedy, or better, a nightmare comedy, where the things you laugh at the most are really the heart of the paradoxical postures that make nuclear war possible� (Kubrick). By producing a film that poked fun of the military and the idea of a nuclear war, people were able to step aside and laugh about a serious issue. I wouldn’t necessarily say that the film portrays the military in an unfair light (as when the men are falling asleep in the plane and playing cards instead of tending to their tasks) but instead, argue that Kubrick wanted to give the American society a break from their stressful days of worrying about a nuclear war.

Posted by eisl0005 at 5:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Stanley Kubrick used black comedy in 1964 with his film, Dr Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. In reality, the circumstances of causing a nuclear war which may lead to the destruction of mankind would have been treated as a very serious condition. This film brought black comedy into one of the scariest situation in which the world has to face. If this was serious, drama film I believe it would be a fairly good movie, but the only thing that it would create is more fear. The Cold War was still in effect and a movie the destruction of mankind would only create chaos. I believe that Kubrick’s main objective was to create a movie with the Cuba Missile Crisis still in the minds of the American people. Charles Maland states that this may be a way to “relieve anxiety during a time when the Cold War was intensifying.� Jackson Burgess suggests that this film is not to promote an anti-military approach, but a “concern to public morality.� Who has the right to start a war? The concerned President? The suicidal Army officer? Or the war-loving Air Force officer? Kubrick’s portrayal of the Cold War may have mocked the military and politics, but their judgment on how to deal with situations such as in the film. Dr. Strangelove epic, humorous approach may have led the audience believes that the United States is being protected by foolish, war-loving military. The use of technology in this film is indeed being distributed in almost every scene. The gadget that we all wished worked correctly in time of need was the radio code device used in the B-2 plane. The gadgets that we all hoped would work incorrectly, but of course, became a trustworthy gadget was a pocket watch camera that the Russian Ambassador used at the end and the nuclear weapons, such as the Doomsday Device. Dr. Strangelove may show or represents our society not trusting new technology as it may fail and serve us worse then good.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 5:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The use of technology in the movie, “Dr. Strangelove Or How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb� is unreliable at best, which is one of the main points of the movie. The other point is that when technology in the wrongs hands, adding the human element of failure to it, that is just about the only time it works, leading to the destruction of us all.

The story revolves around this “plan R,� which is the most unthinkable plan that the military could come up with. The provisions of this plan make it impossible to re-call once set in motion unless of course you know the re-call code, which only one crazy man, General Jack D. Ripper, knows. The plan also over rides all authority, giving lower commander rights to send out a nuclear attack, if they feel that action is necessary. The problem with this is the human element of the plan failing, putting a crazy man in charge of the plan order. Once he sets the attack, the technology “works� to his advantage to make his plan go through, even the failed technology, such as the broken communicator with caption Kong’s plane, works to Ripper’s advantage.

Another way that technology was shown to have human flaws to it was when the doors to let the bomb drop wouldn’t open. Instead of taking this as a sign that perhaps the bomb shouldn’t be dropped, caption Kong went and manually overrode the door security, making it possible to release the bomb and lead to ultimate destruction.

On the Russian side, they have a plan that revolves around the doomsday machine, which is set to go off whenever they are attacked, killing all human and animal life forms on Earth. The problem with this device is that it is very easy to make, but impossible to destroy. This also has the failed human element in that you just need one gutsy person to create it and then the technology will work perfectly and kill us all, which is what eventually happens at the end of the movie.

Posted by kenne404 at 12:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film watched in class entitled, Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, was a very interesting and different type of movie than those that we have seen in the past. As discussed in class prior to the film, Stanley Kubrick directed the film as a comedy because he was tired of everyone taking the whole “nuclear scare� so seriously and wanted people to “lighten up�. Therefore, in a sense, he really just made a big joke out of the whole situation, and in particular made a joke out of the US Military.

At the beginning, while Colonel Kong’s soldiers were within two hours of their targets in Russia, they were looking at images from Playboy, the pilot was snoozing as he was flying, while the other soldiers were looking up Top Secret codes while eating and spilling crumbs. When Colonel Kong was given the “Go Code� to approach and attack their targets, he placed his cowboy hat on, as though he was preparing to face-off with another cowboy. It was also clear that Colonel Kong was from the South, given his intense Southern Drawl, which made him sound as though he was unintelligent and slightly ignorant as to war tactics.

When this “Go Code� was given, Colonel Kong attempted to contact the General and seek assistance in whether it should be taken seriously or not. The General’s secretary, who was sunbathing at the time, answered the phone and relayed the messages back and forth. The General told the Colonel to call the Commander, as though to say that he does not want to be bothered with the crisis at hand – what a joke! The General later comes and takes the phone from his secretary and speaks business with the Colonel, while standing in his underwear.

During the time the President was gathered with other US Generals to discuss the situation in the “War Room,� the General was addressing the president while smacking on gum. Other Generals were chewing gum or smoking cigars while discussing the crisis with the President, as well.

The General that announced the “Go Code,� authorizing the attack on Russia, was explaining that “political people do not have the understanding or ability to conduct a war.� He continued by stating that a General should be the one in charge of conducting a war, not politicians (namely the President). This seemed controversial because it was hinting at “Anti-US Government,� taking a direct hit toward the President.

Although this film was a comedy, I believe that it did still portray the seriousness of nuclear war because, while it represented the US Government and Military as a “joke,� it included many realistic and frightful images of what dropping a nuclear bomb would entail.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 12:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks." - General Turgidson

George C. Scott's role in Dr. Strangelove for me made this film. Just picturing him in the role of General Turgidson after knowing the serious role he would later play in Patton made his satire all the more brilliant! What makes Dr. Strangelove such a successful black comedy is that while there is plenty of satire at every turn, the underlying message that the American military, and especially those in positions of leadership, are often viewed by the American public as incompetent, or at least questionable in their actions.

As we discussed in class, there have been writings in the past about the Cold War such as Gary Gerstle's article "The Cold War, Anticommunism, and a Nation in Flux, 1946-1960" where passages such as when Hoover argues that the communists "poison and pollute the very atmosphere of freedom with venemous attacks upon everything which we hold dear" (Gerstle, 243). Have we not heard similar dialogue from President Bush after the attacks of 9/11? Now, after a series of questionable decisions, many hold Bush and other leaders within the U.S. government and the military in the same contept as was illustrated in Dr. Strangelove over 30 years ago. As Arrigo stated, "history repeats itself."

We have seen satire displayed like this in recent films such as Airplane, The Naked Gun, and Hot Shots where the characters use comic dialogue and parody to poke fun at current events. What makes Dr. Strangelove stand out from these films, for me, is its inherently political message that makes you think while you are watching it that this could in some odd way happen. It is at that point I no longer find it funny.

Posted by char0018 at 12:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From its inception the military has been a form of ones safekeeping. Ones protection from the ailments of war, the military will always be a way to guard our freedoms. Its representation not only helps portray its stature, but it lets society understand how it really can help us. In a time where stifle had just ended and the American Military was recognized as great achievement in WWII, a series of films were released that either did justice or injustice to the stature of the military. One movie in particular, Dr. Stragelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, can either do justice or injustice the portrayal of the military.

According to Jackson Burgress, “Dr.Strengelove mocks not only militarism- but all pretentious to moral judgment on the part of all men who have delivered their environment in to the hands to amoral technological science and their decisions.� Not only did Jackson Burgess, a writer from Film Quarterly, believe that this film did injustice to the military so did many other pro-war military hawks. In several instances in this movie the military makes mistakes and even attacks itself. It is with mistakes like this that Hollywood made when they portrayed the military during the cold war.

The cold war era was surrounded by not only freight but the inadequacies of everyday life. With Russia taking a world leading stance and the Americas trying to compete for the arms race, times took their toll on society. Hollywood tried to exploit their indifference of people by alleviating some of the stress surrounding the issues. A vast majority of people felt that people didn’t understand this and would question everything. In the end with the end of cold war the military lost even more credibility with Vietnam and the Korean War. In most cases the military’s role is greatly influenced by society and the political influences that govern it.

Posted by remy0004 at 12:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This movie is the 1960’s version of Austin Powers. Not only because of its black comedy, but the names of the characters, and the ridiculous bombs that are going to blow up the entire earth. Only we switch Dr. Evil for the Russians. They even had a round table in a “war room� just like in Austin Powers. The names in Dr. Strangelove aren’t as noticeable as Number Two or Felicity Shagwell, but they named them in the article that we had to read and I thought it was funny because one of the names is Merkin. I just found out the day before we watched the movie that one of my friends nickname is Merkin and I had know idea what merkin meant; it’s a pubic wig. : ) In Austin Powers they had giant laser beam and other methods of destruction. Just like the “dooms day machine.� It makes me laugh, because no offense to the 60’s but I don’t think they could come up with a weapon to kill off the entire planet.
As far as characters go, they are lovable lunatics. Especially when the President is talking to Dmitry. I honestly think that’s what George Bush sounds like when he talks to Prime Ministers of other countries. I think that by having the most important people in our nation be idiots is a huge slam to the American government. I know that our government is that incompetent; however, it wouldn’t surprise me if we have made a few mess ups (like plan R) and then covered them up.
I think that this movie could have been made into a drama. But it was a better idea to make a black comedy, especially during that time period. I think that this movie was put out to slam the government and approaching atomic war. If they would have made it a drama, it might have put the public into more of a frenzy and make the war look more realistic. By having it be a black comedy people could laugh and take away from the reality of how close we actually came to nuclear war.

Posted by robak003 at 12:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I believe that the film Dr. Strangelove did intentionally portray the leaders of the military and the government as buffoons. However, in combination with this I also believe that many critics did not get the underlying message that this film was providing.
Yes, the film made the heads of the military and the government out to be wackos, incompetent, and buffoons throughout the entirety of the film. However, I believe that this rendition of those characters was to add a lighter side to the intense, unnerving subject of nuclear warfare. This film wanted to show that with technology improving it is still only as effective and useful as the individuals controlling it. The film drove home the point that the threat of a "nuclear holocaust" was very possible, and that one insane leader could cause complete and utter destruction.
The movie also established the idea that some military leaders would like to take physical preventative action against a possible threat in order to alleviate some American casualties, if America was attacked. For example, when the military leaders were meeting in the "war room" to stratgize abut options involving a nuclear retaliation by the Soviets. The idea presented by the general was to bomb the Soviets so the Soviets have less resources when they attack the US. Hence resulting in 20 million US casualties instead of 100 million. Seemingly a radical strategy.
Overall, I really like this movie. I thought the scenes were very witty and filled with lovable characters like the "cowboy pilot" and the dim-witted president. The film took a serious possible threat and informed viewers of it in a comedic way. But, maybe the movie did unfairly criticize the military, but it was for comedic value, which was one of the great aspects of this film.

Posted by zabor005 at 10:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr Strangelove has been one of those movies that tops the list for the best comedies. While it is not a movie that I find particularly funny I can understand why. Maland talks about the connections between politics, society and war and these all come together in this film.
This film gives a strong feeling of a documentary, with the different story lines coming together, as well as the voice overs. It shows the different aspects of war and how they work together. Applying Malands article to this film, it plays on where the American people were at this point in time and how this atomic war scared them. They had no idea what the people in charge were doing, nor did they have any control over what was going on. All they knew was they needed to "duck and cover".
As far as the film goes, I can see it being troublesome to audience members with its subject matter. As for todays audience watching, they can apply it to the war on terror or for the history buffs, the cold war. The fear of a complete outbreak is something that weighs down on multiple people and with such little control over the matter it makes sense. Espeically when you do not know what kind of person is making the calls on what direction they intend to go.

Posted by lile0005 at 11:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

--Dwight D. Eisenhowser
Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961

The epitome of American culture of the WWII era – a hero of the people, a general, a president, a citizen – laid it all out on the table for the popular culture to ponder. This was extremely significant commentary coming at a pivotal point in our nation’s course through history, from a figure that symbolized the very concept he was warning the public about.

Stanley Kubrick expressed this same message in his nightmare comedy, Dr. Strangelove. In their analysis, Foss and Littlejohn explored the notion of how the frame of irony can be used as a tool by a filmmaker to propagate a given rhetorical vision – calling on viewers that “get it� to actively participate in the discourse, or not. The stakes of this decision are obvious when considering every character, scenic element, and plot twist of the movie we watched this week; that decisions on policy cannot be entrusted to the politically inept, morally corrupt individuals in power, or complete destruction is inevitable.

The American experience through the 1950s was one driven by hysteria of fear, mistrust, and division, as is well discussed in the Gerstle reading. The Maland article addressed the notion that although liberal consensus ideology worked well to support the war effort, it would not be able to sustain the nation as it looked toward the future. The seeds of change were being sown. A new political culture, the baby boom, was coming of age and getting ready to take control. Just as the Cuban Missle crisis brought America to the brink of nuclear war, the nation was on the verge of a paradigm shift.

As a symbol of the old era was literally saying goodbye, Kubrick symbolically dropped a bomb on the popular culture of the time. A culture that would never be the same again, a culture that would accept the awesome challenge laid out before them. Now was the time for change.

Posted by skog0031 at 11:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I enjoyed Dr. Strangelove. It was a good movie to alleviate the stress of "what could happen," or at least to those who find it funny. I think the movie was done really well in the satirical sense. It was a good way to make the movie. Those who didn't think it was a very good way to portray the movie, must not have had a very good sense of humor. At that point in time, people freaked out over the possibility of being hit by a bomb. There were fallout shelters and "duck & cover" practices, but these practices wouldn't prevent harm from happening. People need a way to relieve stress temporarily, or at least distract them from it temporarily. Sure, this movie probably reminded them of what was going on. But, it should have also made them realize how crazy they were acting. After people were being shown acting crazy, it was understandable why they wouldn't be very happy about it.

Posted by woehl007 at 9:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I enjoyed the film “Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb�. I found Kubrick’s representation of technology in the film very interesting. In Charles Maland's article, he talks about the use of technology and what it says about our society, “This challenge to technology-both to the stress on technique in society and to the increasing importance of machines in modern life-was to become a dominant theme in the late 1960s�. Kubrick’s use of technology made the film the satirical comedy that it was. Kubrick’s idea of the importance technology was kind of over the top. If the technology in the movie would have worked efficiently, human kind would have been saved. This seems a bit drastic but Kubrick definitely gets his point across about the importance of technology in every day life. Maland’s mentions, “Kubrick develops his attitude toward technology in Dr. Strangelove by making use of both machines of destruction and machines of communication; the problem in the film is that while people handle the machines of destruction with great alacrity, the more neutral machines of communication are either ineffectual or turned toward destructive purposes�. This meaning that man is more than ready to use dangerous technology that they know nothing about but is not able to use technology, such as a telephone, correctly. The movie began with the failure of the phones for communication in the time where they can’t reach the plane to tell them to turn the plane around and not to bomb Russia. I believe that one of Kubrick’s ideas for the movie was showing the incompetence of man and how they think they can use such deadly machines when they can’t even handle a simple technology such as a phone. This was shown with many uses of technology throughout the film, for example, as I mentioned earlier, the pentagon couldn’t communicate with the plane sent to bomb Russia, or when Peter Sellers was trying to call the president from a pay phone and didn’t have enough money to make the important call. Showing that in times of need, communication wasn’t possible. It also didn’t seem like a big importance to fix the communication. For example, President Muffley was on the phone with Demitree for a long time talking about nonsense things. They seemed to be taking their time talking to each other, like nothing bad was happening. Kubrick is saying, if man can't handle a simple technology such as a phone, how do they think they can handle such deadly machines of destruction? Overall, this movie was interesting. It was definitely something I have never seen before and the satirical humor made for a very entertaining film to watch.

Posted by ruff0046 at 5:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Strangelove is a humorous, witty, and politically motivated film that does an excellent job portraying the dangers of nuclear warfare. On August 6th 1945 when the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the way that nations would interact with one another changed drastically. Now man had created a bomb capable of destroying an entire city, killing hundreds of thousands of people within seconds. After the Cuban Missile crisis that shocked and scared the nation in 1962 director Stanley Kubrick did a marvelous job creating this dark humor film that in reality could actually occur!

Kubrick portrayed the severity of the cold world situation quite well. It showed how easily a nuclear war could be undergone. The biggest and most noticeable is the chain of command that had initially launched the whole sequence of events. When General Ripper sets the code to start the nuclear bomb strike, it was basically impossible to stop the situation. They had cut connections with the plane itself; General Ripper had boarded himself within his base. The movie really displayed how fragile or how close the nightmare of a nuclear war could become. President Muffley puts it best when he states that General Ripper is a psychotic. Kubrick makes the American people think is it right for top military officers to decide the foreign policy of America? That’s why the characters General Buck, General Ripper, Colonel Guano, and Air Force Major King Kong are all seen as loveable idiots. Even the President is seen as a fool. Why do men like these get to decide the fate of not only millions of Americans but billions of people around the world? General Ripper states that “there is no place in war for politicians,� which surprisingly makes sense coming from him.

America has always been portrayed as a land of the honorable, free, and brave but multiple times Nazi images can be seen portrayed on the leaders. A good example is when Buck wants to bomb all of Russia which in turn would kill 10 to 20 million people and the President likens him to Adolf Hitler. Another is with Dr. Strangelove towards the end informing to repopulate the world they must only pick the finest of human specimens. Overall though the film makes a complete mockery of the Cold War it is undoubtedly something that can be seen as insightful!

Posted by dhill004 at 4:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Although it was not a box office hit when it first came out, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb has become a classic of high historical value in the world of cinema. Over the decades, this film has allowed Americans the opportunity to view the nuclear arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States through a different lens other than the text book. Cinematography was utilized to embellish various aspects of the dark nature of the human mind as well as the blanket we as a society lived under during that time period.
Kubrick once stated on an interview pertaining to his film, “It occurred to me I was approaching the project in the wrong way. The only way to tell the story was as a black comedy, or better, a nightmare comedy...� This statement makes absolute sense from the perspective of a movie-goer of today’s society. With black and white color, the film emulates an eerie, almost fantasized mood. As black, dark scenes in today’s cinema culture often represent horror and nightmares, this was also true in 1964 when the film was produced. Dark scenes signified the nightmare that was currently on the American people of which they were unable to escape or awaken. The black and white nature of the film also made the characters appear ghostlike, as if they were merely figments of one’s imagination. This added even greater fear as it signified the political figures of the time as creepy and unpredictable. Producing the film in black and white may also have added relevancy as black and white films became less and less common over the decades and adding to its historical value.
At the time, it would have been difficult for this film to work as a serious drama about the possibilities of war. Nuclear war was too great a reality at the time and people often go to movies to escape from real life. Producing the film in a satirical manner allowed the American public a chance to lighten the situation. At the same time, however, Kubrick stated that the “things you laugh at the most are really the heart of the paradoxical postures that make nuclear war possible.� The most absurd situations happened to be the very events that sent shivers up the spines of many individuals. By nature, this allowed a chance for the American people to either realize the true enormity of the situation or laugh it away as a strictly political affair of little concern to them.

Posted by basse044 at 3:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I can honestly say that I enjoyed Dr. Strangelove. The humor hit me like, well, an atomic bomb. The representations of technology in the film point towards our society as being technologically savvy, but also a race of self destruction. We take great technological advancements and turn them into tools of war. More effort is put into technologies that destroy life and less effort is put towards technologies that save lives, which is why the bombs drop and do what they were designed to do, but the safe guards never accomplish what they are supposed to.

I don’t think critics of the time did get it. They did not look into the film deep enough and only took what was on the surface, which I found hilarious, and called it slander. I also agree with the characters being viewed as loveable lunatics, because it is all in good fun and for purposes of entertainment. This movie was not intended to make the military or politicians look foolish, but rather to incorporate comedy with a message.

I actually do not think that people understand the seriousness of the message. Most people would watch the movie and say it was humorous because lets face it people go to movies to be entertained not to analyze and think.

Posted by nels5175 at 2:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“Dr. Strangelove or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb,� is a hilarious satire that illustrates the absurdity of people’s ignorance and complacency regarding nuclear war. I think the film’s main criticism was meant to be more general, exposing American’s blind faith in technology and politics. It “mocks not only militarism, Edward Teller, and the Pentagon, but all pretensions to moral judgment on the part of men (all of us) who have delivered their environment into the hands of totally amoral technological sciences their decisions (the very stuff of morality) to gamesmen aspiring through amorality to science� (Burgess, 1964)

I agree Maland that two assumptions need to be met for this widespread acceptance and blind faith to be present; 1) “the structure of American society [is] basically sound� and 2) something is “clear danger to the survival of the United States and its allies� (Maland, 1964). When the film was made, that “something� was communism. In 2001, the same two assumptions were met, with terrorism filling in as the clear danger to the United States, contributing to the hasty, strongly supported invasion of Iraq.

As Maland writes, the dangerous “gap between man’s scientific and technological skill and his social, political, and moral ineptitude,� makes such complacency all the more disastrous. The characters in “Dr. Strangelove� hilariously illustrate this gap with their follies, erring on the side of destroying the world when programming “doomsday device� that cannot be deactivated to “rule out human meddling.� When told that one of the B52s is still in the air, “that’s impossible; look at the big board!� Technology is trusted over logic and reasoning of humans.

Posted by mayxx145 at 10:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout history the advent of new weapons has changed the war that war is fought. This has had tremendous impact on human society. Cannons for example meant that cities could no longer have really high unreinforced walls. The firearm meant that plate armor was no more effective than cloth. There are dozens of great examples of this. But technology has also lead to advances in diplomacy and peace, although very slowly. It has been said many times that Generals are only prepare to fight the previous war. I think this is also true of Presidents, politicans, and the public. In an open society everyone must be up to date. Advances in warfare required advances in peacemaking.

Alfred Noble, the inventor of Dynamite first thought that his invention of explosives would make war so terrible that people would not fight war at all anymore. The first conflict after the discovery proved otherwise. This is why Noble set up the Noble prize committee, with awards in physics, literature, music, and peace.

Those different reactions are distinct to how the world reacted to the age of atomic weapons. Some reconized that nuclear weapons could only be a weapon of last resort, others just viewed them as big bombs and advocated their use in the Korean war and even North Vietnam.

I believe that Kubrick greatly re-defined the debate over nuclear proliferation in his film Dr. Strangelove. He did so by highlighting key malignancies and paradoxes. These problems are of human error and mutually assured destruction.
Kubrick used the plan "R" and the "doomsday device" as a set-up to show how and single human error in such a destructive system invalidates the legmitacy of such a system. In the film general Turgison explains Plan R to the president as being necessary for a so called "legimate" revenge system. The paradox is in order for deterrent to be effective, it must be absoulute. The b-52s must be able to act without a command structure. And the doomsday device is basically the inverse. Instead of letting the bombers act as their own organism, the doomsday device goes a step farther and computerizes the apocalyptic process making it even more automous that the b-52s which could have gotten a re-call code but didn't.

" opposite of war is not peace, it's creation! Yippie!!!! " - Jonathan Larson

What we as humans must do is to work toward peace. Peace in our time in possible if it means enough to you for you to work for it. It will be an active process, and it will be very hard. We cannot fight the national guard into submission, if we want change we must vote for change and adopt the policy that all men are brothers and bothers shouldn't fight over land or lovers or missiles.

Posted by gonza275 at 12:08 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to Burgess’ review, General Kipper, Guano, and col. Kong are represented as lovable lunatics and not as incompetent or villains in the Dr. Strangelove satire film. I strongly agree with this assessment. During Kubrick’s preparation for filming Dr. Strangelove he came to this belief, “a psychotic general could engage in what Kahn termed ‘unauthorized behavior,’ and send bombers to Russia,� according to the article Dr. Strangelove (1964) Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of Liberal Consensus by C. Maland. This is what the plot of the movie came to be. General Kipper, Guano, and Kong were definitely not incompetent they knew exactly what they were doing and how to do it. They were aware of the risks, consequences, and results of sending bombers to the Soviet Union. Of course they were making these decisions based on their own beliefs. Their motives, logic, rationale, and reasoning were skewed in what they wanted to accomplish. I believe that man’s striving is described well by J. Burgess in the “Anti-Militarism� of Stanley Kubrick reading for this week, “Its processes are governed by decisions of thought and feeling rather than by formulae of the counsels of caution.� These military leaders are not portrayed as villains either. They are doing what they think is best for there country. General Kipper, upon ordering the attack, stated that it was the military leaders that used to take action during war and not the politicians who knew nothing about war. General Kipper was just doing what he felt was the best course of action against the “Communists.� They are definitely lovable lunatics in that sense. They are serious and crazy in what they are doing but at the same time they are presented humorously.

Posted by karp0040 at 11:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After seeing Dr. Strangelove, it is impossible to imagine the movie being made in any other genre but a black comedy. Kubrick's laughable and goofball characters are perfect for telling a story about the horrors of a nuclear war. The idea of nuclear war is so horrific that it is almost laughable. What would be the point of setting of hundreds of high powered nuclear devices all over the planet? If anyone (anything) survived the initial blast, they would surely perish quickly from the ubiquitous radioactive fallout created by the bombs. The point of Dr. Strangelove is that nobody could possibly win a nuclear war, as any potential "winner" would be among the casualties of their own attack.

I think that one must be aware of basic history in order to appreciate the comedy of this movie, as well as the magnitude of its message. For example, General Ripper, the man responsible for the giving the order for nuclear attack, resorts to McCarthyism during his broadcast message to the men on his base, saying that they needed to exercise "extreme watchfulness" of potential communist infiltration and that because of this, they should "shoot first and ask questions later". Senator McCarthy riled up the country into such activities, asking all citizens to be on alert for, and to immediately report, suspected communist activity. General Ripper's paranoia and probable psychosis mirrors the real life Senator McCarthy, who was so anti-communist that, in a way, he was a communist himself. Anyone who spoke out against his ideologies was labeled a communist, much like anyone living in the Soviet Union under Stalin's rule was subject to unjust labeling and arrest for similar minor infractions.

The humor of the movie is best summed up by a quote from President Muffley: "You can't fight in the War Room!"

Posted by smit1989 at 8:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film "Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" was to me more a weapon of wit than a comedically charged film. Directed by Stanley Kubrick and loosely based on the thriller novel Red Alert, Dr. Strangelove was at its hearts a tool used to focus on the follies, abuses, and incompetence of the Unites States government and ultimately, human beings in general. As I interpreted it, the film's ultimate goal was to express discontent by means of ridicule, mockery, and irony with an intent to bring about change. On the surface the film is funny but once you begin to look beyond the surface humor, it's easy to see the deeper meaning. The film's plot is strongly driven by either the success or failure of certain technologies. What was ironic though was that the most eccentric or complex pieces of technology worked consistently and flawlessly while the most rudimentary pieces failed continuously. For example, near the end of the movie when they're attempting to launch a nuclear weapon, a simple "blown fuse" stops the entire process. Also, the "three letter code" that was needed in order to get the U.S. bomber planes to turn around proved to be too much to overcome. It was my interpretation that these seemingly simple pieces of technology or easy to solve codes were used to make a mockery of the people in charge of using a nuclear weapon. Also, the film directly made a mockery of military personnel by portraying them to be idiots. Being as young as I am, it's hard for me to have a strong position on this film (considering its correlation with the Cold War). Quite frankly, I can't definitively say if I liked it or disliked it. I've been to Washington DC and I've toured the WWII memorial. Seeing that memorial and more specifically the virtues and ideologies that American soldiers as well as Allied forces fought to uphold touched me. So, if I had to lean one way or the other with regard to my overall opinion of the film, I'd have to lean towards disliking it. I'm aware that the US government is far from perfect, but to make a blatant mockery of the institution and its people is more or less like spitting in somebody's face...quite tasteless. Now on the other hand, criticism can also be the cause for positive change and forward progress. So, perhaps the film served a distinct purpose and in turn has made the world a better place. Considering the fact that it was created and does exist, we'll never know what the world would have been like without it!

Posted by John Erck at 4:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“You can’t fight in here, this is the war room!� This line from Dr. Strangelove in essence sums up the parody of the movie. It is clearly a political satire about the arms race with the Soviets and the scare of nuclear warfare. One theme emphasized in the movie was the presence of technology, working and non-working. One instance of the non-functioning technology was when President Muffley was in conversation with Kissov, and the phone was cutting in and out. Another example of this is once the code was finally figured out to stop the unplanned attack on the Soviets, one plane’s radio went out just before this, and they continued with their mission. Both of these examples were very problematic because the methods of communication were not working, but were the most important means of preventing a nuclear war with the USSR, which would in turn set off the doomsday device. On the other hand, the machines intended for destruction were in proper working order, or were fixed at the opportune moment throughout the movie. An example of this is the doomsday device, which would be triggered by any attack on the Soviet Union. The device is special in that it has no command to reverse the destruction. In “Dr. Strangelove: Nightmare Comedy and the Ideology of Liberal Consensus�, Maland thinks this use of working destructive technology is “to perceive a human death instinct� (712). He says that by creating these destructive machines in order to kill others is a debate to whether the human race has really progressed in the ways of technology.

The representations of working technology and non working technology could represent the irony in the nuclear war with the USSR at the time of the movie. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, had the US employed McNamara’s third option of striking first before the Soviets could hit us; the nuclear war would have started. This is because the Soviet missiles were lined up and ready to attack any US troops that decided to invade Cuba. It may also suggest how quickly the arms race was escalating, and weapons were being produced so fast that the non-weapon technology couldn’t keep up.

Posted by kuni0018 at 3:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I found Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Stranglove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb to be both an entertaining and quite effective portrayal of a very imminent fear during the 1960s. Although I see and appreciate the satirical content of the film, movies of this nature often undergo heavy scrutiny and criticism, typically because people view the content too literally.

I think Kubrick’s portrait of the military was not so much intended to make a mockery of the armed forces or their personnel; rather it was a way of exposing the ridiculousness of the general “Red Scare� on a more dramatic level. Kubrick takes the American public’s general fear and paranoia and places it in the minds of those charged with their protection. He is trying to show how quickly, needlessly, and irreversibly things can escalate to the breaking point when people’s rationale is replaced with such hysteria. Unfortunately, due to the medium of the message, most viewers will tend to be appalled by the literal interpretation rather than take in the true meaning and reevaluate their own outlooks. This was exemplified in part by the film’s poor box office showing at the time of its release.

Despite the limited appeal of the film, I think that the approach of a dark comedy was the most effective one. Much of the behavior displayed in the movie is so ridiculous that people can’t help but be amused because of the absurdity of it all. Once the connection is made that this behavior is more representative of the average viewer than of those exhibiting it on the screen, people may be more inclined to take a second look at their position and the appropriateness of their actions and reactions.

Posted by dunh0037 at 3:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Great movie, and judging by the number of people laughing at it I assume the class liked it a little. I wonder though if the longer scenes and mocking of the military may have turned some people off to the movie? Making fun of the enemy is fine but our own peoples foibles run the risk of enraging the patriotic. Since we didn't grow up with the red scare going on we laugh easily at the topic but its understandable that people at the time of the movies release were a little unsure. It would be like a movie coming out today making fun of the possibility of a terrorist attack. Although I'd probably see that movie now that I think about it.

The movies "villains" aren't so much evil as they are representations of people who do their jobs far too well. Ripper's job as a General was to protect the country from Communism and because he has been affected personally recently he immediately blames the enemy and not himself. Kong is all to determined to be a successful soldier and complete his mission by any means necessary. And Guano's instructed to just suspect everyone at the base of being an enemy trying to trick him. Villains would be people who are well aware of what they are doing wrong but do it anyway. All these people seem to be more of victims of circumstance and unknowing villains.

Posted by kupp0012 at 2:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The movie Dr. Strangelove and How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a nightmare comedy, or black comedy, that exposes the advancements of technologies in the 1960s. However, Stanley Cubrick the movie director portrays these advancements in a humorous manner. I think by using black comedy to represent nuclear war, in some way, takes away the creditability of the movie and the subject matter. The nuclear war and the new technologies is a serious subject and I think someone who did know about the war and watched this movie would take this matter very lightly because they know that it is a serious subject. Someone knows nothing about the nuclear war would think that it was not that big of deal if they had seen this movie. However, I believe Cubrick assumes the type of audience that would go watch this type of movie would have some knowledge or background about the war and would already know it is not a laughing matter. At times, I found the movie funny, but I still understood the seriousness of the topic.
I believe Cubrick and this movie did portray the military unfairly mostly because it is the nature of the film. Cubrick pokes fun at the military and makes light of the government and their power. I think critics do get the movie, but I think some of them did not find it funny, therefore, reacting in a negative way.
I feel the statement about General Ripper, Col. Kong and “Bat� Guano being lovable lunatics could be a correct statement. They are not villains. However, I feel it does say a little something about our society that we can put those two words together and it is socially acceptable. Lovable is usually known as nice, sweet, and soft and lunatics are usually referred to as crazy, psycho and scary. But when you put those two words together it has an entirely different meaning. It could mean something along the lines of that you hate them so much that you love them. I think it is interesting that this is a socially accepted phrase in our society.

Posted by pelt0071 at 11:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have to start out by saying that I enjoyed the movie very much. I did not expect it to be so entertaining and comical. The director and writers took all of the actors and turned them into stereotypically funny characters. The film was not to be taken as making fun of people, but for the public to realize how petty and silly we look sometimes when we engage each other, country’s, in war and other such arguments.
The writers of this film portrayed the technology of warfare in such a way that the countries represented in the film, America, Russia and Germany, were seen as ones who wanted to take over the world, but would end up destroying it instead. Russia had the ‘Doom’s Day’ machine that would automatically be launched if anyone attacked Russia. The ambassador of Russia said that there was no way to disarm it and that it would cause total destruction and uninhabitable conditions for 93 years. These representations of far fetched ideas and notions shows that these ‘world powers’, or countries, are very power hungry and are not very interested in just living with all of our differences from society to society. It also shows that all we, people, care about is power and dominance of others.
Technologies of total destruction and dominance always seem to fail. No one has yet to completely dominate the entire world and take over all countries, although some countries are trying to do so or have tried no has yet succeeded, thankfully.
The comical side of the film came in with the superior technological skill and the incompetent politicians and military officials. I believe that the writers were just trying to emphasize how ridiculous some of the decisions are that country’s leaders make and how outrageous ideas are ruining this world and our relations with other people.
The film pokes fun at the military and politicians. I do not think it unfairly portrays them; it just puts to light some of the ideal thinking that goes on in government. Of course not all of the military thinks and acts the way that the characters in the film did, but some military personnel have extreme ideals and views on having world power. I thought the film was hilarious in portraying such extreme ideas. The pilot was wearing a cowboy hat and riding the nuclear warhead, heading for a Russian landmark, like it was a bucking bull. The film is not to be taken seriously.
I would hope that the critics of the film would understand the film. They might not like it if they have ties to the military or government, but they should be able to understand its humor. It was a film of the 60’s, however, so it is hard to say whether critics will ‘get it’ or not.
I agree with Burgess’ analysis, “The curious thing about Dr. Strangelove as a satire is that Gen. Ripper, Col. Kong, “Bat� Guano… are shown not as incompetents or villains, but as lovable lunatics�, in the fact that the characters are so extreme and their claims and ideals are so far fetched that it is funny and you can not help but like their characters.
I believe that Stanley Kubrick had to use nightmare comedy to effectively portray this movie because of the content of nuclear warfare being the focus. Nightmare comedy gets his point across about how crazy people can get over power. I do not think the film would have gone over well in the 1960’s if he would have used any other technique to get his point across. It would have been too serious and could have caused uproar and people being extremely frightened.
I understood the seriousness of nuclear war from the film, even though it was meant to be funny. The humor makes the message lighter in the sense that it does not scare you to death, but it still makes you aware of the dangers of nuclear war.

Posted by hanl0083 at 11:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film Dr Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
is a black comedy, which portrays the advances and consequences of nuclear technology in the early 1960's in a casual and humorous way. The casual and humorous approach which director Stanley Kubrick took was some what of a risk considering the seriousness of the issue, but this Kurbrick realized, stating that the best approach is a black comedy, "where the things you laugh at the most are really the heart of the paradoxical postures that make nuclear war possible."

While some of the characters, such as Major King Kong (who physically straddles a nuclear warhead like a horse and rides it to his death) and psychotic General Ripper, were a little over the top, the comic relief made the film much more enjoyable (as opposed to watching a gloom and doom film about nuclear war). While the threat of nuclear war loomed over citizens and was a definite possibly in the 1960's, Kurbrick was able to use comedy to express his view of nuclear war technologies, which is a challenging task. Kurbrick's view states that although scientists are making enormous advances in technology, he is not convinced that man has the wisdom to use these new technologies properly. You can see examples of his view throughout the movie, when almost every piece of technology (phones, plains, warheads) malfunction, thus causing life threatening consequences. Overall, the film was enjoyable to watch and sent a quality message about nuclear war, unfortunately, the younger film audience of the 1960's was not as interested in Dr Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Posted by dollx040 at 10:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Strangelove was not one of my favorite movies that we have watched so far in this class. It was very affective in making a mockery of the United States military, however, I found the degree of ridiculousness too unbelievable. Dr. Strangelove does achieve its goal in exposing an exaggerated version of the diplomatic and political interactions that went on during the arms race. It was a time in history during which the fear of communism drove Americans to the brink of paranoia. For example, during this era in American History, there were a myriad of propaganda-posters, “duck and cover� commercials, and an increased promotion of fallout shelters. These methods were used by the media to perpetuate suspicion of the “big ten,� the group of ten actors who were blacklisted and suffered ruined careers because they were believed to be communists.
Dr. Strangelove works along the same lines as all the propaganda that was being thrown out, however, it differs in one distinct way. The movie portrays the whole situation as ludicrous, and the Russians as equally ignorant as the Americans. In everyday life, communists were vilified, whereas in this film, a mockery was made of both countries. The members of the air force team were comical, and purposefully shown to be the ‘ignorant Americans’ who only want to serve their country, but are utterly unprepared. The Pilot is the worst offender of being hopelessly clueless and unintelligent, as he rode the bomb towards the end of the world and screamed in victory. Similarly, Bat, the soldier/guard of the British General reflected ignorance and stupidity of many in this film. An example of this is when he threatens the General with the fact that the coca-cola company will come after him if he shot the machine so that the General could call the president. The irony that this soldier would be more concerned with destroying public property, than informing the president of the code to stop the end of the world, is quite obvious.
It was a decent movie, and got the point across that the arms race was in itself a little ridiculous, however, I didn’t find it particularly engaging to watch.

Posted by joh03704 at 10:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

1). The representations of technology in the film so numerous things about our society on various levels. First of all, we structure our society so that there are several levels to proceed with a military like action. Yet, because of how the technology was improperly set up, somebody (Ripper) was allowed to abuse the power and start the catastrophic war. The technology that always seems to fail is computers. Ever since computers have been invented, we have depended more and more upon them, and therefore have a sense of fear of their failure. Communication technologies always also seem to fail. When (Mandrake) desperately needs to make a call, all of the available telephone lines are down. Yet, the pay phone, which is still operational, still fails because of connection problems with the operator. Few technologies seem to succeed in movies, but one that typically succeeds is the "big board". In war movies, every thing always seems to be going absolutely wrong yet the "big screens" that they use to track aircraft, airborne weaponry and other things always seems to work. In this movie, it was even pointed out by General Turdigson that "(the russian ambassador) can't see the big board!"

2). The film doesn't accurately depict military personnel but it rather depicts a situation that is beyond military control. I find few people who would agree that this is an accurate depiction of military personnel because the military is always so "serious" whereas this movie was a clear satire of this. The satire results from the views of the general public on the "stupid" military policies that the movie clearly pokes fun of. I find it hard for people not to understand the movie today, but back when the movie was made I could clearly see an opposition to the combination of nuclear war and comedy. For example, if somebody made a satire about the 9/11 attacks, many people would not accept it. Later, once the "dust settles", people can look back at what the director/writer was trying to portray-- similar to what happened with this film and Stanley Kubrik.

3.) I do agree with the assesment that they are known as "lovable lunatics". They often say stuff that is so bizarre and out there (such as Ripper's idea of communists infiltrating the water system) that it makes people laugh. When villiians are comical in nature, people react much better to the characters then when thye are true villians. These characterizations of lovable lunatics relate to our society because many people believe that politicians and military personnel are a little bit "looney" for how they act anyway, so this film relies on peoples perceptions to perpetuate the characterizations.

4.) The way that Kubrick used a black, satire to explain his nuclear war story is peer genius. It was effective because nobody in their right mind at the time would have thought of making fun of a nuclear war, when everybody believed that an total nuclear war could happen literally anyday. This film definately could've worked as a drama, but I don't think that it would've had near the reaction nor the critical acclaim. There have been several attempts to make serious nuclear war dramas (such as Fail Safe and others) that have been successful, but not nearly on the level of this film. This film was funny to the class, but at the time I believe that many people wouldn't have laughed regardless. People were well aware of how dangerous a nuclear war was, but a satirical comedy can express how dangerous a nuclear war is through laughs. The movie was funny and the attack was pointless, and yet (in the film) the world wound up being exploded through and through. The movie helped people realize how pointless an all out nuclear attack would be for either country.

Posted by heigh006 at 9:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I found it surprising how different Dr. Strangelove was in comparison to the film we watched two weeks ago, Sahara. It is obvious that after World War II the OWI had no control over which movies made it to the big screen. In Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick makes his point clear that the hysteria regarding nuclear weapons was out of control in our country. He makes his point most evident through the character General Jack Ripper, who calls for the nuclear attack on Russia because of his paranoia of communism. He was even convinced that fluoridated water was the communists’ way of taking over the “bodily fluids� of the Americans, creating impotence – ridiculous! However, around the time this movie came out Americans were not too far short of General Ripper’s paranoia. As we discussed in class, completely innocent people were accused of being communists, ruining careers and lives, and people were living in constant fear of nuclear bombs.

I think the use of black comedy in this nuclear war film exposed the true absurdity of the American paranoia; however, at the same time Kubrik brilliantly made the film reassuring to American citizens that a nuclear war wasn’t just going to happen anytime. So many things had to go wrong in this movie for the nuclear attack to begin. There was a wacky General who called an attack without confirming it, a ridiculously passive president who talked to the Russian leader like someone would talk to their upset wife, a plane malfunction, and many more odd incidents. Dr. Strangelove made a nuclear war seem a little more far-fetched than they had been afraid of.

I don’t believe that a serious drama would’ve been as effective on Americans. They were already afraid from all of the warnings by newsreels and commercials such as the “duck and cover� clip that made it seem like a bomb could just strike anywhere, anytime. Dr. Strangelove wasn’t very popular when it first came out because people took it the wrong way due to their paranoid attitudes, so I think a serious movie on the issue would’ve just made people more paranoid about the possibilities instead of helping ease their minds.

Posted by osbo0100 at 6:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This my third time around watching Dr. Strangelove and I feel I enjoyed it much more than the previous viewing. The main reasons for this were actually because I found myself buying into the crutches and strengths of the film and its general intentions, which I will explain presently. First off, before watching it, learning some of the gritty details about the A-Bombs of WW2 really enhanced the concept of the film being a "nightmare comedy." I mean, I had felt that twinge of fear at the back of my thoughts in previous viewings but oddly enough with the more I watch it the more it gets to me. That being said, I also bought into the humor a lot more this time around. The first time I had watched it I had really enjoyed it and the second time brought it into a humbling paradigm of sorts, but this time I really enjoyed the film for what made it so famous. Nuclear war being a joke is just as dark as advertised, and what makes this film so original is the way it takes satire to such epic and pressing proportions. Kubrick plays with this 'epic-ness' most expertly in the way that the audience cheers for the airmen aboard the bomber, while simultaneously garnering support for Mandrake as he frantically tries to communicate the code to the top officials. The film is also original for its stark 'n dark style (even for black and white), its seemingly second-by-second plotline, and its general joking about serious or risque topics, among other things. I remember hearing that the original ending consisted of a food fight and the infamous line "Gentlemen, our beloved president has been struck down in his prime," obviously alluding to JFK (see here for more info--http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Underground/9798/piefight.htm). Though the present ending is great in itself, I feel the original ending would've been the topping on the cake (no pun intended) in making the film a full-fleshed dark satire. That would've been the boldest move of an already extremely bold film, but you take what you can. Backtracking, the humor works on so many levels, from upper-echelon dark satire to dumb, gross-out humor like “Bat Guano.� The amount of sexual humor in the film is also outrageous for the times--in general the film is way ahead of its time. In a way, it could be argued that Dr. Strangelove is the first truly modern film. I don't know if I personally would agree with it--maybe something more like The Night of the Hunter or Bonnie & Clyde--but either way a strong case can be made for many of the reasons listed above. All in all, it was great to watch it again and I've really found a new respect for it through further learning about some of the non-satirical background information of the time.

Posted by Darth Nep0wix at 3:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The success and failure of technology plays a large part in the war effort portrayed in Dr. Strangelove. Looking at some of the simple camera filler shots, many of them portray subtle technological themes. For example, when they show the cockpit of the plane there are numerous of seemingly intentional shots that show every switch being turned and every light indicator. I find myself asking, is all of this really necessary, but when it’s viewed from a larger spectrum with more considerations it seems plausible. It seems that with every switch thrown we are one small step closer to detonation. Maland portrays this idea well in his article when he says, “Kubric has returned constantly to one of the gravest dilemmas of modern industrial society: the gap between man’s scientific and technological skill and his social, political, and moral ineptitude.� So it seems here that the technology we have gained cannot be introduced properly into the social and political arena.
As the plot of the movie unfolds, it becomes interesting to see what works and what doesn’t in a technological sense. A recurring theme seems to be that everything that could potentially stop the nuclear bombs from being dropped ironically malfunctions, with the exception of the air plane doors. For example, when the general’s assistant finally figured out the code he hasn’t enough money to make the phone call, and “bat guano� isn’t exactly the most eager to assist him. It’s also ironic that the plane’s communication specifically for war order is shot down ultimately by the people in which it would have saved if still functioning properly.
In this movie the technology provides some comedic relief. The other generals many references to “the board,� which is nothing more than a map of Russia with blinking lights, gives us a sense of its importance to the war effort. I also found it particularly humorous that the pilot, coincidentally wearing a cowboy hat, ends up riding the nuclear bomb like a bucking bull into the abyss, all because the technology failed.

Posted by veire003 at 11:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)