Have I missed something? This is a film that people everywhere seem to unanimously love. For me, it was... alright.
The next stop on the Kubrick-kick I'm going on right now is the all too famous Dr. Strangelove. I did see this film once in high school, but I fell asleep while it was playing only remembering brief moments in the story. However, I can now say that I've seen this film from beginning to end and (like most of Kubrick's films) I can understand why this stands as a classic. Why it earned a spot in the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress. Still, I wasn't nuts about it.
Now, each time I've walked away from a Kubrick film, I find myself liking it more and more over time. Perhaps this will happen with Dr. Strangelove. Perhaps not. The big thing I find fascinating about Kubrick films - the thing that only dawns on me days, even weeks, after I've finished watching it - is the sudden realization of amazing visuals, symbology, or metaphors that I missed in plain sight. Clearly, his work on The Shining is abundant with them (as explained in that fascinating documentary), but I feel like this film was somewhat dry on this hidden subtext. It's a brilliant satire focusing on Cold War, our heated relationship with Russia, and what amounts from mutually assured destruction. Was there anything else other than that, though? I'm serious here. I know there has to be. That I must, clearly, be missing something. People write dissertations analyzing this film and its take on war and global politics.
Here are some elements of the film I'm lost on. Maybe someone can elaborate on them and explain if there's anything missing here.
- Although an iconic image, Major "King" Kong riding the bomb down like he's in a rodeo, what was necessary about this scene? I saw it kind of as a satirical method to demonstrate our love for war and destruction, but I could see there being something more that I'm missing.
- Was there point to that gag about breaking into the soda machine ("You'll have to answer to the Coca-Cola corporation") for coins to make the phone call to the president other than stating how big and powerful corporations are?
- What's the point of Stangelove's character? Why is he the title of the movie (other than it being an awesome name)? The US having their lead scientific advisor being a Nazi is interesting/fucked up, but is there anything else hidden to that character?
- What was the significance of Strangelove's final line: "Mein Fuerher! I can walk!"
- Are we left to conclude that the Russian ambassador blows up the war room in the very last scene?
- Are the credits (all the nukes going off) with the song "We'll meet again" suppose to express the irony that humans destroyed themselves with no possible way of returning?
- Why did Kubrick choose to shoot this in black in white when Spartacus which came out years earlier was in color (I think)? Could be a production issue with no hidden meaning. But, maybe not.
These are just some moments in the film that I thought brought up cool points, but couldn't find a way of unpacking them any deeper than from their surface level. This bothers me only because I imagine Kubrick as this filmmaker who's all about building a movie with layers on top of layers. I just don't see that here.
On the other side of the fence - a less critically abrasive side - I want to commend the performances in the film. Obviously, Peter Sellers is fantastic. Playing up three characters (Strangelove, the US president, and Lionel Mandrake) who are a very, very different from one another; all outstanding, highly entertaining, deliveries. However, I was also blown away by George C. Scott's performance as General Buck Turgidson. Oh, man... he is amazing. His enthusiasm to go ahead with the bombing on Russia. His cavilere attitude when he guesses how that only millions of Americans would die when fighting a war with Russia. It's excellent.
That's all I got on this guy for the time being. I would like to add a bit more on how this film felt much less stylized than his other ones, but maybe Kubrick hadn't hit that stride in his career yet - his next film to be made is 2001 which changes everything. I've yet to watch the majority of his films that predate this one (Lolita, Paths of Glory, even Spartacus deserves another watch), but I'll be getting on that soon enough.
Love this post and love the movie. Let me jump straight into answering some of your questions (not authoritatively, of course, but with my own opinions).
ReplyDeleteAs far as "The US having their lead scientific advisor being a Nazi is interesting/fucked up, but is there anything else hidden to that character?" and "What was the significance of Strangelove's final line: "Mein Fuerher! I can walk!" " go, here's something from the Internet that provides a satisfactory enough answer for me:
"So here's what's happening in the last scene: The US and Russia have destroyed themselves, and Dr. Strangelove suggests a plan for preserving humanity. His plan is a realization of the Nazi's ideal world. A human breeding stock will be selected to live, while everyone else dies, to form a supreme race. Strict military discipline will be enforced in the caves. After the nuclear holocaust, the fascist ubermensch cave dwellers will rule the world.
Dr. Strangelove represents fascism: not dead, as the men in the war room assume, but merely confined to a wheelchair. When it seems that the cave plan will be adopted, fascism is re-released on the world and Dr. Strangelove can walk again. The last line, "Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!" is his cry of victory, as if he is telling the memory of Hitler that after the Third Reich seemed to have been destroyed, he survived to help develop weapons which would lead to the fall of the US and Russia and to the beginning of the fascist world.
So among many things, the film shows the irony in the fact that the US and Russia, after defeating fascism, built nuclear weapons which represented rule by military force and the possibility of mass holocaust to an even greater extent than the Nazis did."
Cool, right? Now, some thoughts I came up with on my own and without Internet searches:
-No, I don't think the Russian blows up the war room. The immediate cut to nuclear explosions is showing the world's annihilation, but the war room is, I think, down in a bunker where it's safe.
-For me, the song "We'll Meet Again" has always implied some kind of impending death. Like the phrase, "I'll see you in another life" or, you know, heaven. The nukes going off thus fit perfectly for me.
-I have a number of minor theories on the black and white decision. For one, it conveys the darker tone this movie has. For another, seeing things in "black or white" is to have very binary opinions about things, ie, you're either with us or against us. It sort of suggests the narrow-vision contrast of one superpower vs. another. Lastly of course it could just be cheaper to shoot movies in black and white, especially in the 1960s. In that regard a five year gap might be irrelevant, and you could ask forty years form now, "Why did Avatar come out in 3D in 2009 and then [some other movie] not come out in 3D in 2014?"
-As far as I know, you're not missing anything in the Major Kong scene. The idea that the guy is riding to his own death and just yee-hawing out of gung-ho patriotism seems to be the point, to me. I've heard some say that the way he straddles the bomb implies some sort of huge phallus, but I tend to think people look too hard for sexual symbolism in movies and other art.
-No idea on the Coca-Cola running gag either. Isn't there also a commander who has gone crazy who thinks the government is poisoning the water by adding fluoride? This may be a plot point from Catch-22; I can't remember
This movie is full of phallic references like the extra long drawn out refueling scene that opens the movie. Also I agree with almost all of what Stan said. Last I just wanted to note that James Earl Jones is great in this movie.
ReplyDelete