by Allan Fish
(UK 1963 93m) DVD1/2
Aka. Doctor Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Precious bodily fluids
p Stanley Kubrick d Stanley Kubrick w Stanley Kubrick, Peter George, Terry Southern novel “Red Alert” by Peter George ph Gil Taylor ed Anthony Harvey m Laurie Johnston art Ken Adam spc Wally Veevers cos Bridget Sellers
Peter Sellers (Dr Strangelove/President Merkin Muffley/Gp.Capt.Lionel Mandrake), George C.Scott (Gen.Buck Turgidson), Peter Bull (Ambassador de Sadesky), Slim Pickens (Maj.T.J.”King” Kong), Sterling Hayden (Gen.Jack D.Ripper), James Earl Jones (Lt.Lothar Zogg), Keenan Wynn (Col.Bat Guano), Tracy Reed (Miss Scott),
If ever a film had to be put into a historical context, it’s Doctor Strangelove. Never was a film more cutting-edge, more to the bone than Stanley Kubrick’s apocalyptic black comedy. The fact is it very nearly could happen and very nearly did. The uncanny accuracy of its depiction of military incompetence is frightening. America is a nation founded on fear-mongering and a “shoot now, ask questions later” code. Big Brother isn’t watching you, but he might be, so better kill the SOB anyway. Even to this day, politicians and military leaders use war as a way to forget about problems at home and the everyday working man. At one point George C.Scott’s Buck Turgidson declares “I don’t say we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed. Tops. That is, depending on the break.” to prove that very point. That great anti-humanitarian Josef Stalin once said that one death is a tragedy and a million is merely a statistic. Kubrick knew that, if Machiavellian in the extreme, he wasn’t wrong.
Put quite simply, Sterling Hayden’s appropriately named psychotic general has gone mad. He has come to believe that the communists are going to kill off all Americans by poisoning their water supply by underhanded means (or as he says “contaminating our precious bodily fluids”). The only way to stop this is to launch an unrecallable nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, unrecallable because the fail safe mechanism relied on generals and those in charge not going berserk. It’s up to a British RAF officer, collaborating with the Americans at the general’s base, to try and get the recall code, while the president is left with the unenviable task of ringing up the Soviet premier to tell him the “good news”.
Sidney Lumet shot a simultaneously filmed straight version on the subject called Fail Safe, but though still an entertaining movie, it dates beside Kubrick’s masterpiece. No small part of this success must be attributed to co-writer Terry Southern, who leaves his unmistakable imprint on proceedings. Some of the dialogue here is so ridiculous you believe every word, from Sellers’ RAF captain getting berated by Keenan Wynn’s dumb marine for shooting into the coca-cola machine to Sellers’ President Muffley berating the scuffling (“you can’t fight here, this is the war room!”) to virtually everything Slim Pickens says. You laugh like hell, but later on you realise just how dangerous that laughter can be.
Kubrick may have made more ambitious films later on with the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange, but never one so timely. With each passing year, Strangelove may move further away from relevance but has lost none of its potency. Though it’s largely down to Kubrick, one must not forget the other contributors; Ken Adam for his truly amazing designs of the War Room for one (just ask anyone at the Pentagon in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis how accurate they were), and of course the actors. Hayden and Wynn are superb in support and Scott is legendary as Turgidson, personifying everything that’s wrong with the military. Yet this is Peter Sellers’ show; giving three superb performances, brilliant in his one sided phone conversation with Moscow (“the bomb, Dimitri…”) and as the eponymous mad ex-Nazi scientist (Kubrick’s homage to Rotwang in Metropolis). It’s a one film ticket into cinema’s hall of fame which should be cherished forever. And who can forget Pickens’ bronco ride to nuclear oblivion? Vera Lynn will never be the same again.
Another good review, Allen. While The Killing has always been my favorite Kubrick film, this one is very, very close. I still remember watching this in a History Through Film class in college and having about 3/4 of the students being completely baffled as to what the heck they were watching!
Aside from the great performances from Sellers, George C. Scott is outstanding… everything thing he does, from his dialog to simply his facial expressions, are hilarious.
That’s the ultimate introduction to it Dave! Nice insights there as usual.
I saw this film four weeks ago at the Teaneck Movie City Theatre as part of there two-month screen classics series. Although I had seen it many times over the years, seeing it in this fashion was the ultimate way to go. Having a speaker before was an added enriching bonus.
Yep, another great review by Allan.
Dr. Strangelove is my favorite Kubrick and one of my all-time favorites. I love the black humor, its atypical view on the military leadership and the brilliant performances by Sellers, George C Scott and Sterling Hayden. A nice review Allan, though I do disagree with you on your statement “With each passing year, Strangelove may move further away from relevance”, I think the film has remained relevant, and with the human race’s penchant for war will always do so.
I cannot image a film like this being made today
John:
I agree with you (and not with Allan) on the relevence thing, both as a repudiation against the notion of being dated but more importantly for the fact that conflict is inevitable.
Thanks again for the terrific comment.
I too disagree somewhat with the “dated” aspect. I watched this a few years ago (before the man in question was fired) and all I could think while watching George C. Scott was “Donald Rumsfeld, Donald Rumsfeld, Donald Rumsfeld…”
Well, come on fellas, despite the political satire being very much timeless (tragically, I might add), the social wit is a bit overripe, particularly Slim Pickens’ stereotypical cowboy and his laughable attempts at PC pep talk (“…regardless of yer race, yer color, or yer creed!”). Not that there aren’t still gung-ho cowboys who years to straddle bombs…. The Sterling Hayden bodily fluid obsession is also a fairly campy cold war throwback, though its depicted as so off-kilter it’s still pretty funny.
When I was in Junior High I once watched a laserdisc copy of this film every day for 3 months straight…I thought it was the most ingenious and eclectic sort of anti-war opus. I’ve cooled on it somewhat, and on its director — I actually find the films Kubrick made after this quite irritating for the most part — but one can’t deny the potency here. One thing Kubrick and Southern don’t get nearly enough credit for is their prescient sexualization of national affairs. In the post-Clinton era we take for granted our tendency to view politicians as overgrown, horny schoolboys.
Ah Jon, “contrar” on A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE SHINING and 2001, which I think are Kubrick’s three masterpieces. (Allan and I actually agree on this sentiment). After those three, for me, next up would be STRANGELOVE, and like John I also quite like THE KILLING and also PATHS OF GLORY.
You typically though make another superlative political point here.
Movieman0283
Your so right, Rumsfeld would have fit right in this group.
Ah Jon, “contrar” on A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE SHINING and 2001, which I think are Kubrick’s three masterpieces.
That would be au contraire, mon frère. 😉
Most film fans are likely to agree with that sentiment, and I must admit that my own opinions are based on mere autobiographical nuance (mine, not Kubrick’s) and Oedipal angst-conditioning (long story), rather than fair critical assessments of the works themselves. Still, immediately after “Strangelove” I feel that Kubrick’s art became inflicted with a hollow aestheticism, perhaps the result of his increasing need to control all aspects of his films. In any case I’d rather not turn this into a debate thread, so…more anon.
Contraire, indeed, Jon. Sam’s command of phrases outside of gutteral Joisy is anorexic at best. But though his syntax is appalling his sentiments are right. There’s no such thing as cinematic heresy, which is just as well, or you’d be burnt at the stake Jon. Doctor Strangelove is a masterpiece, but it’s merely a prep run for what came later, his even greater works, though Sam neglects one…Barry Lyndon.
There’s no such thing as cinematic heresy, which is just as well, or you’d be burnt at the stake Jon.
Bring it on!
Yes, sometimes I do come off as illiterate, guilty as charged! LOL!!!
Jon you are a good man, and anything you say here is welcome always.
Allan i do like BARRY LYNDON too, although a bit less than the others.
Damn, the funny bit in my last comment didn’t make it through. It was supposed to read:
“Bring it on!” he shouts as his pupils prophetically dilate a la Falconetti.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jon, you are the best.
Nah, not Falconetti, Jon, more like Ollie Reed in The Devils…..in best Murray Melvin…CONFESS!!! CONFESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jon,
I hear what you’re saying, though I tend to embrace Kubrick (flaws and all) post-Strangelove. Kubrick often gets as many things wrong as he gets right, but the overall effect of his work tends to be so unique and powerful, I’m ok with taking the good with the bad.
I was watching The Shining the other night and it struck me that the opening scenes are full of little missteps. The color scheme is all over the place, the line readings are sometimes tone-deaf, and it seems extremely odd that the hotel managers would admit someone killed himself doing EXACTLY THE SAME JOB that they’re hiring Jack to do (and because of that job, no less!) and Jack himself does not seem impressed by this fact. Later in the film, there is the horrible mismatch between the grandeur of the location footage and the very English feel of the Overlook exteriors – a dislocation that was to continue in Full Metal Jacket & Eyes Wide Shut in which Kubrick unconvincingly tries to recreate Vietnam and New York, respectively, in the tidy backyard of Elstree. (And no, I don’t buy the “going for fakery” argument, as the interiors of these films have a strong feel of authenticity).
But then there’s something about that music, that wide lens, that ineffable Kubrick tone which power over missteps here and there. I think his style and his public persona seemed to be at once so humorless and so arrogant that critics were itching to go for the jugular sometimes – to say that the pontificating, strutting emperor was wearing no clothes.
But I find Kubrick’s work so fascinating, that I’m willing to take the bad with the good – perhaps even as an integral part of it (would he have achieved those sublime, uncanny moments late in The Shining had he not pursued his method of repeating takes which seems to squash some of the energy and naturalism of early scenes too?)
I’ll stick up for Jon in this debate. 2001 I can give or take. If I never see A Clockwork Orange again it will be too soon. I actually have not seen Barry Lyndon, so I can’t comment on that one.
The vitriol directed at Clockwork never ceases to amaze me. Not so much on account of its moral & ethical ambiguity, which I get and have my own problems with, but in relation to its style – Pauline Kael actually called it boring, and many seem to agree! However, I find its visual and (perhaps especially) its aural flourishes to be absolutely intoxicating, whatever I think of Kubrick’s attitude towards the material.
I wholeheartedly agree with it being boring. I just flat out didn’t like it… I’m not talking in regard to its content or message, just personal taste. I own it, and suppose at some point I might revisit it, but I have so many other movies I would like to get to that I don’t see that happening anytime in the near future.
Dave and others who dislike Clockwork, what can I say but your labrador needs taking out of its harness and giving some food.
I have no idea what that means…
Still, I’ve noticed that Clockwork is a movie that gets defended to the death by those that are fans whenever someone speaks against it. Interesting phenomenon.
I can’t really help personal taste. I didn’t like it, the same way that I guess it’s possible for someone else to dislike a favorite of mine like, say, Goodfellas or Sweet Smell of Success. No amount of arguing is likely to win them over if they just flat out don’t like it. It would be likely trying to convince someone to like the taste of sardines.
Don’t mind Allan, Dave. You are entitled to your opinion. I love CLOCKWORK too, but I know there is a sizable minority who have some serious issues, yourself included.
I don’t quite get the labrador comment (Allan, are you suggesting a modern-day variation on feeding Christians to the lions?), but it still amazes me that people find it boring! To me, Clockwork is a visceral, kinetic experience, as thrilling as just about any film in history – the moment Kubrick unleashes those primary-color titles and that throbbing classical-by-way-of-synthesized music on the soundtrack, opening on a close-up of McDowell’s snarling visage as he lifts a glass of milk to his lips and the camera pulls back slowly, slowly, followed by the beginning of his cheerfully evil narration…
well, Jesus, man, am I ever hooked.
Dave, do you feel that Clockwork is boring in parts (I think some sections definitely work better than others) or does the whole thing just fail to move you? If so, I can only quote Foucault when pressed on a matter he took to be intuitive, “We are not from the same planet!”
(I don’t mean this as criticism, just genuine – and actually kind of bemused – surprise that we can have such strikingly different aesthetic experiences regarding the same work – not just different intellectual or even emotional reactions, but totally different vibes, man!)
Yeah I think you probably interpreted Allan’s comment correctly, Movie Man! Ha!
I agree with you completely on CLOCKWORK–I also found it visceral and kinetic–and that Carlos score too–but I (like you) respect Dave’s position.
There were sections of it that were certainly shocking for me, but outside of the shock value I can honestly say that I never got engaged in it. The worst thing that can happen to me in a movie is to have absolutely NO interest, good or bad, in what happens to the people/characters I am watching and that’s exactly what happens for me in Clockwork. As far as technical achievements of the film, I don’t really want to make any great analysis of them because it’s been a while since I’ve watched it and would just be making stuff up or regurgitating common cliches.
I’ve actually had people tell me that they’ve had horrible reactions to the film at first and have given it repeat viewings and come to really like it, so maybe that could happen for me… who knows?
Man, I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE this film.
I almost cry from laughing so hard every time I watch it….the “precious bodily fluids” diatribe is hilarious.
Had I participated in the “listing” for the 1960’s, this probably would’ve been number 2….behind another Kubrick….2001. I find it fascinating he was able to traverse so cleanly from politics and satire to science and the cerebral in the same decade….and though both pure products of the 60’s….neither seems dated today.
Hi! Allan Fish,
What a very interesting, detailed, review of a film that I consider “okay” (Shrug shoulders), ;?
but I must admit that Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is the film for me…because the story “enticed” ” me” too!
….“shocked” 😯
“me” too!….and held “me” it in “grasp,” too!
But most importantly, it’s one of the first film(s) that my college instructor, required that we watch when I was enrolled in a film course.
(Along with Hitchcock, Chaplin, and Scorsese’s films….
….Just to name a few….because he (my Professor) covered the “gamut”….when it came to discussing directors from the silent era to contemporary directors.)
By the way, below is a quote from an IMDb reviewer, name Jenna Quaranta….
….According to Jenna Quaranta, “Stanley Kubrick’s future-shook vision of Anthony Burgess’s novel.
Unforgettable images, startling musical counterpoints, the fascinating language used by Alex and his pals – Kubrick shapes them into a shattering whole.
Hugely controversial when first released,
A Clockwork Orange won the
New York Film Critics Best Picture and
Director honors and earned four Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture.
The power of its art is such that it still entices, shocks, and holds us in its grasp.”
Thanks,
DeeDee 😉
“What a very interesting, detailed, review of a film that I consider “okay” (Shrug shoulders) 😕
Behind the comment above was suppose to be a
quizzical (minus the “mocking” or “amusement”) smiley representing instead my “uncertainty” about the film
Doctor Strangelove: also known as…. Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
DeeDee 😉
Hi! Allan, Sam, and WitD readers….
….Speaking of, the film Doctor Strangelove: also known as…. Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
my reliable source the LFNF…just informed me about Film Forum plan to screen a restored version of this film on May 22, 2009.
More information about the film screening…once you click on the link….
http://www.filmforum.org/films/drstrangelove.html
DeeDee 😉
Looks like I’m a little late to the party, but…
I saw Dr. Strangelove for the first time in a theater in downtown L.A., summer of ’69. I was on my way back for my second tour in Vietnam. The movie absolutely “nailed me to the wall” (as they used to say)…It was the start of a most memorable weekend.
Still love this movie…And please don’t make the mistake of thinking the characters are overblown or implausable.