Dr. Strangelove Podcast

Connor Patterson, Elle Coleman, Sadie McBride, and Brett Shapiro

Tags: Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick, Dark Satire, War Comedy, Context Episode

Introductions:

(something along the lines of:)

“I’m Connor.”

“I’m Elle.”

“I’m Sadie”

“And I’m Brett.”

In this episode, we’re going to delve into the world of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, a satirical war film (of sorts) directed by Stanley Kubrick in 1964…

Summary: 

   The first scene begins on an American military air base, where the Leading General by the name of Jack Ripper has issued a code red protocol to Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, essentially placing the base on lock-down and authorizing a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. The rest of the film develops as the U.S. President and his military officials frantically attempt to stop the right wing bombers from attacking the USSR’s “Doomsday Machine” and instigating nuclear war. The President’s frequent “friendly” calls with a Russian Ambassador over anxieties of their mutual detonation, General Ripper’s monologue on communist infiltration being the cause for the fluoridation of water, and an ex-Nazi mad scientist’s proposal of a new super race in front of a War Room council are all scenes that serve as dark comedic commentary on American hysteria during the Cold War period. In the end, all of their ludacris attempts to stop a world-ending-war turn out to be futile, and the film concludes with a lovely montage of nuclear destruction. 

Episode Goals: We will discuss the historical and cultural context of the film, the production context, and finally we each picked a scene from the film that we are going to close read and chat about!

Historical and Cultural Context:

Elle Coleman

Where is the story set? When is the story set? Is the setting important for the development of the main theme(s)?

Dr. Strangelove’s story takes place (for the most part) in three main settings: The War Room of the Pentagon, General Ripper’s military base office, and inside an American nuclear bomber set to attack the Soviet Union. The story is set during the Cold War, which started in 1947 and lasted until 1991. In fact, the film was released two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 19621. Dr. Strangelove offers a dramatized and rather hilarious depiction of the anti-communist and nuclear paranoia that plagued American ideology and politics for decades during the Cold War period.

When was the film released? Which events, philosophies, etc. influence this film, and what do we need to know about them? 

The film was released in 1964, and remind you, this was two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, so the wound was still pretty fresh for the American people. The discovery of the Soviet Union’s ballistic missiles had solidified people’s fears and the feasibility of nuclear war. There was a strategic term that was often thrown around during this period called Mutual Assured Destruction, the acronym being (ironically enough) M.A.D. This meant that both the U.S. and the Soviet Union acknowledged that the launching of one bomb would prompt a nuclear war and inevitable annihilation of both sides, thus discouraging them from ever “making the first move”2. Mutual Assured Destruction, however, spread hysteria throughout the country, and even political and military officials were not exempt from these anxieties. The Cuban Missile Crisis introduced the possibility that the President, being Kennedy at the time, may have to decide the fate of millions of people in the span of a few minutes. This heightened doubts of the president’s ability to take on such responsibility, and solutions like presidential succession were constantly considered and enacted (so if the president went crazy or something, the vice president would take over, and if the vice president was deemed unfit, the responsibility would get passed down a clear chain of command, and so on).3  An urgent desire to have an organized chain of command amidst potential nuclear warfare is more than understandable, especially considering General Ripper’s dramatic rogue attack on the Soviet Union without the authorization of the President in the film. Although the film is a “fictional” satire, General Ripper’s hyper-masculine and hysterical protection of “democracy” (again, heavy quotes on that one) reflects the majority of Americans’ mentality during the Cold War. Protecting democracy from who, exactly? That would be the communists, or as Major Kong so eloquently put, “nuclear combat, toe-to-toe with the Ruskies!”

 

Historical and Cultural  Context Continued:

Brett Shapiro

What do you know about the culture or society for which this film was created?

At this point in America, the 1960’s specifically communism was a big red flag no pun intended, The US was coming off the back end of McCarthyism aka the second red scare, which was just a super anticommunist time in which Senator McCarthy launched investigations and hearings during the 1950s in an effort to expose supposed communist infiltration of various areas of the U.S. government but it extended far beyond that in which anything McCarthy deemed communist was blacklisted Hollywood suffered a lot from this, people such as Orson Welles, Lucille Ball, and Charlie Chaplin. Almost everybody was affected by this, even Albert Einstein. The end of the world nuclear threat was bigger than ever, There were high tensions between the US and Russia, communism versus capitalism. The Vietnam war was nearing its peak and just two years before the Cuban Missile Crisis had happened, in which two nations, America and Russia were pointing nuclear weapons at each other about to end the world until the Russian president Krushchev (who didn’t trust any of his advisors) through many different proxies got in touch with Kennedy and they both called it off saving the world from nuclear catastrophe, sound familiar? There was also a lot of dehumanization of Russian communists, as there is in times of war. This movie was also a dark comedy, some saw it as communist propaganda (McCarthyism) which is entirely beside the point of the film, my point being tensions were so high when this anti-nuclear bomb movie came out people saw it as communist propaganda. There was lots of fear about Russia like Jack D. Ripper’s whole spiel on communists with the fluoridation in the water and the bodily fluids, which was a great satirical bit on America’s state of mind.

Are social ideologies, historical events, personal experiences, etc. influencing the film?

Believe it or not, The Cuban Missile Crisis was a huge influence on the film, as they both happened to be about two nations with nukes pointed at each other. (talk about my grandpa and his cold war experience). Jack D. Ripper’s whole character is based on communist attitudes in America, one thing I found funny was the criticism that the events in the film could never happen but similar events did two years before the release of the film. Something else interesting was Dwight D. Eisenhower had signed a bill that would essentially let a commander take nuclear action if the president was unreachable or worse. There were also dozens of American nuclear weapons, ones that were hundreds of times stronger than the bombs that went off at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stored in Europe barely being handled by Americans with very low security. The book that Dr. Strangelove was based on “Red Alert” by former R.A.F. Pilot Peter George was sent to officers all around the pentagon and was looked at as a what could go wrong manual. There were even two commanders removed from their posts because neither appeared to be a stable person you’d want with a finger on the trigger, there was a straight-up real Jack D. Rippers in high military positions. There was also a real Doomsday machine called The Dead hand, now instead of being a giant bomb it was a perimeter system that would go off if there were to be an American missile strike and the response would be a full volley of missiles heading for the United States and just like The Doomsday Machine, it wasn’t revealed until after the war, so as Dr. Strangelove said: “The whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret.” The movie was way more accurate than previously thought.

Production Context: 

Connor Patterson

What studio produced the film? How did they come to this idea?

The Director, Stanley Kubric collaborated with Hawk films to create Dr. Strangelove and the Idea came from a couple of different places, starting with the thought of making a thriller about a nuclear accident that built off the fear of the cold war. But as Kubric did more and more research, he began to realize the balance of terror between both sides of the war and how he could build on that. Then a guy named Alistair Buchan recommended a book called Red Alert which he turned out loving. From then on, Kubrick looked in on how he could get the film rights and start production that would be heavily inspired by the book. During film production Kubrick originally had intended on making the film a more serious drama, but in early development, he really wanted to add comedic elements because he wanted to make the scenes seem more ridiculous and outlandish, but still serious enough to make it believable. 

What was the film’s budget? Where did the funding come from? Did it have a large or small production crew? How/where was the film exhibited?

The budget for this film was around 1.8 million dollars and seemed to come from Columbia pictures who helped to make the dream a reality. Compared to some major blockbuster films today, the crew seems to be on the side of more independent with around 25 people. Finally the film debuted on January 29th of 1964 in theaters around the UK and the US and basically had box office numbers of around 9.4 million dollars in the United States creating a lot of buzz and even Academy Award nominations at the time.  

Production Context Continued:

Sadie McBride

Which genre/tradition does the film belong to?

As Connor previously mentioned, the film was actually intended to be a drama, based on the novel Red Alert. However, while Stanley Kubrick was writing the script, he couldn’t shake the idea that it had a comedic tone to it.5(and when you think about it, it does seem kind of absurd that there was a possibility that the end of humanity and everything else inhabiting the planet could be caused by nuclear war, something we could control)  So, the genre of this movie shifted to have satirical elements within it. The American Film Institute states the genre of this film is a “black comedy”, which means that the film makes light of subjects that are considered serious (which it certainly does).6 This film can also be considered a war movie (the whole plot is centered around the cold war), a thriller (Kubrick was still able to keep the elements of the original thriller novel Red Alert into the film itself), and in some aspects a fantasy (although what was happening in the movie could have very well happened in real life). This film is essentially a nuclear war satirical thriller. 

How was the film received when it was released? (nationally and internationally)

Due to the fact that the genre of this movie was satirical it was divided on those who liked it and those who hated it. Bosley Crowther, a film critic for the New York Times at the time of its release in 1964, wrote that the film was “the most shattering sick joke I’ve come across”. 7(that quote definitely explains itself) Other reviewers also compared this movie to Soviet propaganda. However, there were also those who loved the film like Brendan Gill, who wrote in the New Yorker and called it “the best American movie I’ve seen in years”. 8A social philosopher by the name of Lewis Mumford wrote a letter to the New York Times after Bosley Crowther’s negative review and stated that “This film is the first break in the catatonic cold war trance that has so long held our country in its rigid grip”7 . (which I think is the reason why most people liked the film at a time, everything was so scary and serious, but this film does a great job of making light of such a dark reality that surely haunted everyone’s mind daily).  A unitarian minister named Rev. Donald W. McKinney was quoted in the New York Times, shortly after the film’s release, that “beneath all the absurdities of a film fantasy like ‘Dr. Strangelove’ there is enough truth to convince anyone that some such nonsense could bring about doomsday, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.”9 ( and in addition to both the good and bad reviews of this film this quote demonstrates that the film does give some food for thought: Could what ensued in this movie actually happen? This film definitely sparked conversations about what was going on at the time of the Cold War and whether or not any of it was really worth it. ) 

 

Close Readings:

Brett’s: 

Scene: 0:20:57

The scene I’ll be talking about is the scene were General Jack D. Ripper, love that name, explains discusses some of his thoughts he talks about how his war to win the war is by sending nuclear warheads to Russia, he reasons that the higher-ups will realize there is no stopping the bomb, so they’ll have to be totally committed, he brings up what Clemenson said about war, “war is too important to be left to the generals.” Ripper says 50 years ago that may have been true but now, now the war is too important to be left to politicians. He explains that they have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. Ripper then says the most McCarthyist thing I’ve heard in awhile, he says: “I cannot allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”

• This scene reflects communist fears at the time, the fears of a crazy communist plot and the fear that anyone you know could either be or become a tool of the commnist regime
• The film addresses this very seriously there are no jokes in his speech only the fears of a man driven over the edge, setting up the deterioration of the character made other scenes where he was so far off the edge his state of mind was practically standing in midair.
• The film definitely reflects historical events, the world almost ended in 1962 with the CMC and all of the other stuff I addressed earlier, but this specific scene really focuses on the insane militaristic mind of General Ripper
• Unfortunately some parts of the film don’t really hold up, but it’s just because the cold war isn’t still happening but the messages are still very clear, nuclear war will end us all, and we gotta keep track of our weapons we can’t be stupid or careless.

Connor’s:

Scene: 0:40:53 

I found the president’s phone call scene toward the early-middle of the film quite intriguing. It occurs when the president tries to convince the russian ambassador to contact the Russian leader “Dimitri”. During this conversation I’ve noticed that it parallels the relationship between the leaders of the soviet union at the time and the president of the united states. I think that out of any war, the cold war was definitely the one that is most confusing because of the fact that most of it was either about preparation with big weapons against the other country, or the fact that there were just a bunch of races between the two for technological advancement but not much physical war between the two. And because of the fact that Stanley Kubrick is British, he seems to find it very funny to see the banter between both sides and doesn’t really have anything against satirizing Americains as kind of dull. And as Lyndon B. Johnsn was elected in 1964, they did a good job trying to make Pete Sellers look like him without making it too obvious who he was trying to impersonate.   

Sadie’s:

Scene: 1:20:40 

The scene I want to discuss is when Major Kong, played by Slim Pickens, volunteers to go down to where the nuclear bombs are in order to fix the electrical wiring (the wiring got ruined from the missle that hit the plane easier in the movie). He sits on top of one of the two hydrogen bombs, fixing the wiring that will allow for the doors to open below, when he finally gets it to work. However, when the doors for the bombs’ release finally open, he goes down with them. As the bomb falls down towards the soviet target, Major Kong rides the bomb like a cowboy rides a bull, until it detonates on the ground. 

-This scene reflects the main idea of the film which (I think) is how absurd the cold war was. → This scene reflects the social circumstances from which the film was made and how the war was centered around the idea of who was good (the US) and who was bad (the USSR). There was definitely a sense in American culture at the time of the cold war to feel a sense of patriotism and Americans should feel proud that they are fighting the “evil communists”. 

-This scene reflects the absurdity of American’s to “win” : not only does the Major Kong volunteer to fix the electrical wiring in order to release the bombs, but he does it while wearing a cowboy hat. ( certainly poking fun at individuals representing american values the most: cowboys). The way the Major Kong rides the bomb down to the ground, with no fear but excitement really conveys this idea of winning, being patriotic while doing so, and also how absurd it is. (absurdity in the whole war and how extreme americans became). 

-Along with this scene, the whole film reflects the idea of the absurdity of the war and how far Americans were willing to go to win. The film does a great job of this through its use of satire all throughout the film. The film’s ability to make the audience laugh demonstrates the humor in how unnecessary the cold war really was. 

-This film attempts to promote the idea that humanity’s destruction can be caused by our own stupidity and stubbornness. This scene in particular impacts the viewers into understanding that although we could “win” and drop hydrogen bombs on the USSR, it would ultimately cause the destruction of everyone and everything. 

-Dr.Strangelove tells us that the historical period with which it deals was so caught up in the cold war and the fear surrounding it that neither country wanted to admit how insane and pointless it was. Thanks to this movie, Stanley Kubrick was able to shine a light on how underlining funny and crazy this time really was. 

-Although I wouldn’t say this film would hold up as a piece of historical analysis, I do think it shows a good insight into how people felt at the time of the war and the cultural beliefs surrounding the war.

Elle’s:

Scene 1:20:05

I want to talk about a scene toward the end of the film, in which President Merkin Muffley is told that one of the four bombers that were allegedly shot down by the Soviets is only damaged, and is still on course for the Doomsday Machine. The President asks General “Buck” Turgidson if there is any chance that the damaged bomber can make it past Soviet defenses. Naturally Turgidson goes on a rant about the unreliability and incompetence of the Soviets, referring to them as “ignorant pee-ons” (whatever that means) incapable of “understanding a machine like our boys”. The President asks once more if the bomber has a chance of getting to the machine, and the General answers with juvenile enthusiasm about the proficiency of the pilots and the impressive size of the plane. With boisterous pride, Turgidson hollers “Hell yeah they’ve got a chance!”, but his elated demeanor quickly dies when he realizes that a successful attack is not a call for celebration in the least. 

I think that this scene encapsulates the overarching themes of the film as well as the cultural ideologies during the Cold War and in America in general. That is, during the Cold War, the masculine “American” identity faced severe emasculation from communist infiltration and the inability to engage in active warfare in fear of nuclear detonation. In the film, we witness a bunch of military big shots well versed in waging and strategizing war trying to prevent war, something they’re not too keen on or used to. Feeling lost and unsure aren’t the most masculine traits, thus the characters in the film are constantly depicted in a juvenile, almost pre-pubescent light. Wrestling in the War Room, calling the enemy silly nicknames, and frantic and immature behaviors are all associated with boy-like tendencies. The military officials crave to exert masculine power in the fight for democracy, which explains why General Turgidson gets so swept up in describing the attack on the Soviets despite it being the exact opposite course of action that needs to happen, which is no action at all. This scene definitely speaks to the threat of emasculation and feebleness many American men faced during the Cold War, and satirizes this fear by making General Turgidson out to be an arrogant, war-obsessed little boy4.  

 

Bibliography

Achter, Paul J. “McCarthyism.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 27 Jan. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/McCarthyism.

“AFI CATALOG OF FEATURE FILMS.” AFI, catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/23082.

Bromwich, David. “Dr. Strangelove: The Darkest Room.” The Criterion Collection, 28 June 2016, www.criterion.com/current/posts/4119-dr-strangelove-the-darkest-room.

Bunch, Sonny. “Opinion | How ‘Dr. Strangelove’ Taught Us to Stop Worrying and Love the End of the World.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 11 July 2016, 

www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2016/07/11/how-dr-strangelove-taught-us-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-end-of-the-world/

“Black Comedy.” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, www.dictionary.com/browse/black-comedy?s=t.

“Dr. Strangelove.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Apr. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove#Release.

“Dr. Strangelove.” IMDb, IMDb.com, 29 Jan. 1964, www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/.

“Dr. Strangelove (1964) – Financial Information.” The Numbers, www.the-numbers.com/movie/Dr-Strangelove#tab=summary.

“McCarthyism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Apr. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism.

“MINISTER PRAISES ‘DR. STRANGELOVE’; Unitarian Sees Harsh Truth Beneath Film’s Fantasy.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Feb. 1964, 

www.nytimes.com/1964/02/17/archives/minister-praises-dr-strangelove-unitarian-sees-harsh-truth-beneath.html.

Nicholson, Ian. “‘Shocking’ Masculinity.” Isis, vol. 102, no. 2, June 2011, pp. 238–268. www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660129 

Rebecca C. Lubot, “A Dr. Strangelove Situation”: Nuclear Anxiety, Presidential Fallibility, and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, 86 Fordham L. Rev. 1175 (2017).

Schlosser, Eric, et al. “Almost Everything in ‘Dr. Strangelove’ Was True.” The New Yorker, www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true.

Schlosser, Eric, et al. “Almost Everything in ‘Dr. Strangelove’ Was True.” The New Yorker, www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true.

Shafizadeh, Nafis. “Then and Now: On Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Senses of Cinema, 13 June 2015, sensesofcinema.com/2015/book-reviews/dr-strangelove-peter-kramer/.

Swanson, David. “Watching Putin Watch Dr. Strangelove.” Foreign Policy Journal, Foreign Policy Journal, 10 June 2017, www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/06/09/watching-putin-watch-dr-strangelove/.

The New York Times, The New York Times, archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/film/013094kubrick-strange.html.

“17 Facts About Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Mental Floss, 29 Jan. 2019, www.mentalfloss.com/article/63436/15-things-you-might-not-know-about-dr-strangelove.