To start, I just want to throw out there that this film is probably one of my favorites so far. It was refreshing to have a noticeable plot again. Without the lecture about the Cold War before we watched the film I probably wouldn't have been able to follow it as well though. I also really liked, as someone mentioned in class, the fact that it was in black and white. I thought that it added to the authenticity and made it a believable situation, even with all the satire and irony.
The whole irony of the "War Hero" thing with the soldiers in the planes was really interesting to me. They never seem to notice that after they drop their bombs that they will be obliterated along with whatever they throw the bombs down at. The pilot of the plane even gives a touching speech at the start of their mission that talks about glory and promotions when they return back to the States. They don't realize that there really isn't a "good guy" or "bad guy" in their war. Everyone dies as soon as one move is made because of their "Mutually Assured Destruction." But then, viewing it from the soldiers' point of view, it's hard to stay driven when you are circling over a foreign country, away from your family for no seemingly good reason. If they realized that not only can neither side make an offensive move without destroying the world, but as soon as the airmen do drop their bombs they instantly die. It's not much incentive on their part, so all they really can do is hope that they survive and become war heroes.
Another ironic part that I couldn't help but laugh at was during the firefight on the base. Like we talked about in class, it looked like a scene from an old World War II movie with men on foot shooting at each other from only meters apart. As the camera pulled back to show us the entire scene, we can see through the smoke a billboard from the base that ironically says "Peace is Our Profession."
I think that if someone was to make a satirical film about the war in Iraq similar to Dr. Strangelove it might be a little more controversial (I think that's the word I'm looking for). I know that Dr. Strangelove was one of the first of a movement that started making fun of social and economic difficulties, but I think that "making fun" of the war on terrorism might hit a little closer to home seeing as Americans have lost so many of its people in the fight. I could be wrong because I don't really know as much about the Cold War as I should. In a way it might be easy to create a satirical film about Iraq because at the very least we have a common enemy, whereas in Dr. Strangelove we are all enemies of ourselves I guess. I don't know, I'll be interested to see what everyone else says about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you, I truly learned a lot from the lecture given by Professor McRae about the Cold War. It helped my understand the situation in which the movie was based. Could you believe in the article we read for class that Life magazine was making a nuclear bomb and their shelters look glamorous!I agree with you that a satirical film about the Iraq war would not go over so well. The atomic bomb was an event/situation people were frighten about and prayed would not come...whereas the Iraq war involves people losing their lives, it is an actual occurance taking place.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on the previous comment, I am unclear by your argument in stating, "The atomic bomb was an event/situation people were frighten about and prayed would not come..." Atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and thousands of people died. Dr. Strangelove was made after these bombings.
ReplyDeleteI think a filmmaker’s intent while making a film is important in considering whether or not a satirical film about the war in Iraq would be accepted by the public. Kubrick isn’t “making fun” of nuclear warfare, in a “ha ha aren’t atomic bombs hilarious” sort of way, but trying to bring attention to societal beliefs and corrupt action in the government by using humor. If a filmmaker uses humor with intelligent intent, not just to shock the audience, I think they could successfully question our current beliefs of war and policy in the Middle East. Ultimately, Kubrick’s film points the finger at us and not the soldiers carrying out orders. We are the ones who elect these representatives we are the ones who believe fluoridation is a communist conspiracy. I think a similar effect would take place if a film today were to be made.
The planes that drop nuclear bombs fly at an altitude where they should usually survive, the film kinda made it seem like they were doing a low height strafe with it. When you think of their situation with them surviving and they could make it back before the giant doomsday counterattack, it makes you think about their roles. Imagine thinking you're a group of heros and going home and hearing "congratulations,you've doomed the entire race". It makes it tough to think about the role of soldiers and how the way they can be viewed is through the circumstances of their actions. They were doing their jobs as ordered but they're the ones who would be blamed for the catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteYou have a good sense of things here, Erin, and also, interesting discussion.
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, though you all are basically saying this already, nobody on or near the ground would survive a nuclear bomb blast--nor would they survive what followed because of the policy of instantaneous MAD. That's part of the twistedness of the actual policies that Kubrick was satirizing, along with the war hero WWII imagery that you're noticing.