MrTony's Pick: "Dr. Strangelove" - 07/06/03 - 07/12/03

[Morticia]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. We are open to any ideas about running this forum.

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

thanks to MrTony for agreeing to participate in this discussion!

[MrTony]

Hey everyone! I'm very excited to be "hosting" this discussion, so let's jump in. I'm a little tired right now and not really up to a very in-depth post, so that'll come later. For now, here's a few questions to get us started:

1) What is your favorite performance in the film? This is, IMHO, one of the best-acted movies ever, with everyone really digging into their roles in a way that doesn't happen often. I would personally pick Sterling Hayden or George C. Scott - let's hear your picks and why.

2) One of the featurettes on the Columbia SE DVD talks about sexual imagery in the film - the plane refueling sequence during the opening credits, Major Kong riding the bomb, etc. What's your take on this? Does it serve the story? Is it there as a commentary of some sort? Are the "scholars" reading too much into it? Discuss.

3) What are some of your favorite moments from the film? I can think of one right away that I'll throw out: After the bomb falls, and Dr. Strangelove is describing his plan for an underground society, he talks of developing a breeding program with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio. The looks on General Turgidson's and President Muffley's faces as they realize a long, drawn-out nuclear conflict will help them get laid - a lot- is priceless.

4) How well does the movie hold up? Is its satire a product of its time, or does it have anything relevant to say in today's world?

Again, sorry for raising more questions than I've answered, but I just wanted to get the discussion underway. Now that that's done, have at it!

[aintnosin]

Originally posted by MrTony
1) What is your favorite performance in the film? This is, IMHO, one of the best-acted movies ever, with everyone really digging into their roles in a way that doesn't happen often. I would personally pick Sterling Hayden or George C. Scott - let's hear your picks and why.

I'd have to say Peter Sellers in the other two roles (The president and Group Captain Mandrake). Dr. Strangelove is a little too over the top, but the president trying to explain what happened to the Soviet premier and Mandrake dealing with Ripper are hilariously understated).

Originally posted by MrTony
2) One of the featurettes on the Columbia SE DVD talks about sexual imagery in the film - the plane refueling sequence during the opening credits, Major Kong riding the bomb, etc. What's your take on this? Does it serve the story? Is it there as a commentary of some sort? Are the "scholars" reading too much into it? Discuss.

The names of the characters make it explicit: Turgidson (another word for flacid), Jack Ripper (a killer of prostitutes), Kissoff, and Strangelove. The president's name (Merkin) means "pubic wig" I think Mandrake is a type of aphrodesiac but I may be wrong.

Isn't the whole story about a bunch of alpha males trying to assert their dominance?

Originally posted by MrTony
3) What are some of your favorite moments from the film? I can think of one right away that I'll throw out: After the bomb falls, and Dr. Strangelove is describing his plan for an underground society, he talks of developing a breeding program with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio. The looks on General Turgidson's and President Muffley's faces as they realize a long, drawn-out nuclear conflict will help them get laid - a lot- is priceless..

The scenes on the B-52. I don't know how authentic they were (because I doubt the Defence Department would let the director of Paths of Glory near a real B-52), but they sure feel authentic.

My second favorite is the first exchange between Ripper and Mandrake.

Ripper: Looks like we're in a shooting war.
Mandrake: Oh hell.

Sellers' dry-as-bone delivery sells it.

Originally posted by MrTony
4) How well does the movie hold up? Is its satire a product of its time, or does it have anything relevant to say in today's world?

You don't have to live in Dodge City to "get" a western, and I don't think we need to live under the threat of nuclear annihilation to understand the satire in Strangelove. Besides, today's focus on WMD make this film as relevant as ever, I think.

[docF94]

Originally posted by MrTony
Hey everyone! I'm very excited to be "hosting" this discussion, so let's jump in. I'm a little tired right now and not really up to a very in-depth post, so that'll come later. For now, here's a few questions to get us started:

1) What is your favorite performance in the film? This is, IMHO, one of the best-acted movies ever, with everyone really digging into their roles in a way that doesn't happen often. I would personally pick Sterling Hayden or George C. Scott - let's hear your picks and why.

George C. Scott is amazing in this film. You are absolutely right, MrTony, that this film is incredibly well cast - and Slim Pickens particularly is a delight - but Scott does remarkable work here, obviously when he's speaking, and less obviously the rest of the time. "Now the pilot...if he's good, see..." - just amazing. And, I fear, disturbingly accurate!

2) One of the featurettes on the Columbia SE DVD talks about sexual imagery in the film - the plane refueling sequence during the opening credits, Major Kong riding the bomb, etc. What's your take on this? Does it serve the story? Is it there as a commentary of some sort? Are the "scholars" reading too much into it? Discuss.

I read a book on Kubrick in college that noted both of the President's names - Merkin Muffley - were British slang for pubic wigs. There's nothing subtle about the sexual tension of the film - even if you miss the opening montage, Sterling Hayden makes it quite clear that the war is a result of sexual dysfunction. I may be treading on thin ice to politicize this discussion too much, but Norman Mailer, who is sometimes a great novelist, has something similar to say about the recent military action in the Gulf - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16470 - worth reading if you have time!

In any case, there's been no more wicked and blistering satire pointing out the sexualization of war that I'm aware of. A condom, some nylons, a nuclear missle - "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff..." Following Kubrick's battle with the censors in Lolita, it's pretty amazing he got away with all that innuendo in 1963.

3) What are some of your favorite moments from the film? I can think of one right away that I'll throw out: After the bomb falls, and Dr. Strangelove is describing his plan for an underground society, he talks of developing a breeding program with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio. The looks on General Turgidson's and President Muffley's faces as they realize a long, drawn-out nuclear conflict will help them get laid - a lot- is priceless.

It's a very tough call - everything with Sterling Hayden is amazing - Sellers on the phone with Premiere Kissov is hysterically brilliant - Col. Bat Guano is dead-on perfect - but I think I most love the moment, early in the film, when Miss Scott picks up the phone while Turgidson is occupied, relaying the conversation through the off-screen bathroom door. It is funny, but it makes the concept of apocalypse more believable, I think.

4) How well does the movie hold up? Is its satire a product of its time, or does it have anything relevant to say in today's world?

Again, sorry for raising more questions than I've answered, but I just wanted to get the discussion underway. Now that that's done, have at it!

I meant to add this note before my responses, but better late than never - 3 cheers on a fantastic pick! I fell in love with this film when I first saw it as a hiskool sophomore, and to me it remains as relevant as ever. efforts to remake the film (at least that I've seen) have all been pretty dismal failures, yet there's very little about Strangelove that seems dated - albeit the Cold War that has faded from current consciousness, and the threat of nuclear annihilation is less discussed today than perhaps any time before. Strangelove is more relevant today than virtually any film of the last few years - certainly more relevant than our culture could dare admit.

I seem to remember - but can't seem to find - Stanley Kubrick writing a letter to the editor (I'd thought it was a letter to the NY Times) in the late 1980s or mid 1990s to basically say something like "Of course this could really happen. Of course there's no way to be sure the chain of command can't be broken." Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Kunó.

[aintnosin]

Originally posted by docF94
In any case, there's been no more wicked and blistering satire pointing out the sexualization of war that I'm aware of. A condom, some nylons, a nuclear missle - "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff..." Following Kubrick's battle with the censors in Lolita, it's pretty amazing he got away with all that innuendo in 1963.

If you read Pickens' lips, he says, "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Dallas with all that stuff..." The line was redubbed after November 22, 1963.

[docF94]

Originally posted by aintnosin
If you read Pickens' lips, he says, "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Dallas with all that stuff..." The line was redubbed after November 22, 1963.

Does anyone know whether this was Kubrick's decision, or the studio's? I'd imagine no one objected to it, but I'm curious if Kubrick was ordered to do it.

Also, is there anything about the filming - camera angles and so forth - that was unique in its time? Or is it the story that was most radically different in its day and age?

Makuí'simi.

[aintnosin]

Originally posted by docF94
Does anyone know whether this was Kubrick's decision, or the studio's? I'd imagine no one objected to it, but I'm curious if Kubrick was ordered to do it.

I don't know. I'm sure Kubrick had no problem with it.

In the custard-pie sequence that was supposed to end the film, there was a moment when the president was hit by a pie and Turgidson said, "Our gallant president has been struck down in his prime!" Even if the pie fight had already not been cut by 11/22/63, I doubt this would have stayed in.

Another bit of trivia. Slim Pickens never saw a complete script and was never told that the film was supposed the be a comedy. He was led to believe this was a straight forward adventure story and was told to play it "gung ho".

More trivia: The centerfold in Maj. Kong's copy of Playboy is General Turgidson's girlfriend.

Originally posted by docF94
Also, is there anything about the filming - camera angles and so forth - that was unique in its time? Or is it the story that was most radically different in its day and age?

The subject matter was pretty radical as a subject for comedy. The documentary-style cinematography was pretty unique for a comedy, too.

[MrTony]

Originally posted by aintnosin
Dr. Strangelove is a little too over the top, but the president trying to explain what happened to the Soviet premier and Mandrake dealing with Ripper are hilariously understated).

IMO, Dr. Strangelove is one of the few roles that actually benefits from unapologetic scenery-chewing. If he didn't completely own the screen when he was on, it wouldn't have worked as well. But you're dead right about the other two Sellers roles. The phone bits with Premier Kissoff are hysterical.

Originally posted by aintnosin
The scenes on the B-52. I don't know how authentic they were (because I doubt the Defence Department would let the director of Paths of Glory near a real B-52), but they sure feel authentic.

Supposedly, Kubrick was afraid that government officials were going to come and question him about these scenes because of how realistic they were. I read that as a blurb on the review at DVD Journal. (EDIT: Link to the review.)

Originally posted by aintnosin
You don't have to live in Dodge City to "get" a western, and I don't think we need to live under the threat of nuclear annihilation to understand the satire in Strangelove. Besides, today's focus on WMD make this film as relevant as ever, I think.

I agree completely. The guy who wrote the review I mentioned above kind of insinuates that anyone who isn't old enough to remember having to do "duck and cover" drills in school can't fully appreciate the movie, which is short-sighted at best and a little insulting at worst.

DocF94 mentioned one of my favorite bits in the movie - when General Turgidson is talking about the pilot flying under the radar: "Now, the pilot...if he's good, see..." They're still threatened with nuclear war, and he's getting wrapped up in how great his pilots are! Another great example of machismo gone unchecked in the film. George C. Scott really should have done more comedy.

Another bit of trivia: Peter Sellers was originally going to play Major Kong in addition to his other three roles, but was having trouble with a Texas accent. Then he broke his leg while shooting the scenes with the bomb and they had no choice but to replace him. Enter Slim Pickens.

[C Roberts]

I saw this movie for the first time in 2003. I can say that I enjoyed it and think it has held up fine over the years. The comedy is still funny and nuclear programs/failsafes still exist.

One question I have is about the "to love the bomb" subtitle of the movie. Is the movie meant to make you like the bomb or is that being sarcastic?

[MrTony]

Good question, C.

I think the whole subtitle "How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" refers to the final scene in the War Room where they're discussing a future underground society where the breeding program and so forth. As Dr. Strangelove is explaining his vision, President Mufflin and General Turgidson are clearly considering the possibilities and thinking it won't be that bad at all. Maybe they didn't "learn to love the bomb," but they don't seem to mind where they're going because of it.

That's my take, anyway.

[C Roberts]

Before I saw the movie I thought the I in "How I Learned" referred to the viewer of the movie. As in watch this and you'll stop worrying and love the bomb.

But the ending doesn't support that even though the themes in the movie do. Because of the 10 women to 1 man thing. First its a slim chance that you'd be one of the people chosen for the caves so no reason for most men to love the bomb. Second, from what little I know of women they wouldn't want to be baby factories through multiple men. So they wouldn't love the bomb either.

Now I see How I Learned as referring to someone specific in the movie? The President was worried about the bomb early on, but then after Dr. Strangelove's speech at the end he began to love the bomb. So its really the Presiden'ts story all along about how his encounter with this situation and Dr. Strangelove changed his view. Does that make sense?

But back to the themes I mentioned. Back at that point of the cold war people were worried that a nuclear war would happen. This movie shows that even though both sides don't trust each other neither side wants a nuclear war to happen. But beyond that it shows just how ridiculous a set of circumstances would need to be for a nuclear war to occur at that time with no warning. Also it shows you could choose to worry about gung-ho generals pressing the button, but there really isn't a "button" to press. Its a whole red tape procedure with codes, authorizations, etc.

[aedavela]

I was fortunately enough to select this DVD as my free-bee with the Panic Room SE. This is easily my favorite Kubrick film now (sorry Spartacus); still very funny and somehow timely given the recent state of world affairs. Anyway, I figured I'd give MrT's questions a few takes:

1. So many wonderful performances to choose from, I keep coming back to Slim Pickens as Major "King" Kong. I don't know, something about putting command of a bomber that will start a chain of events ending in the destruction of life on earth into the hands of the biggest good-ol-boy of good-ol-boys is very funny to me.

2. I don't see how anyone could read too much into the sexual imagery in the movie. It's in your face from almost the first frame and doesn't let up; I'm sure even the final bomb sequence with the song playing over them has plenty.

3. "The string in my leg has gone." I got a huge kick watching Strangelove fight with his arm. BTW, the glove was Kubrick's and Sellers borrowed them hoping they would help add to the sinister appearance of Strangelove.

4. Even after 40 years, the movie still holds up today. Just replace the Ruskies with one of several other nuclear-capable hostiles. And I'm sure there are at least a couple high-ups in our military command who are worried enough about our precious bodily fluids to send the redneck commander riding off to Armageddon.