Skip to main content

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove 
or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
(1964)

(SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia (Lolita, Eyes Wide Shut), MKUltra programming (A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords (2001: A Space Odyssey), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove?

If we run with the suggestion that Kubrick faked the Moon landings (filming them, according to some suggestions, in Laurel Canyon, although that would have entailed him reluctantly leaving England), then 2001 is about something he knew to be potentially highly questionable (the nature of, and possibility for exploration of, space). Even if he did not, and took the official account of the cosmos at face value, a conspiracy to withhold a consciousness-shattering discovery on the Moon from the public is at the core of developments in that picture; it goes to the root of the protagonists’ understanding of their paradigm (the effect might be similar, say, to their learning that the Earth is, in fact, flat, or that the planets are not really what we think they are).

At the core of Dr. Strangelove too, there is conspiracy. Or perceived conspiracy, as espoused by Sterling Hayden’s uber-paranoid Brigadier General Jack D Ripper, who believes the fluoridisation of water is a communist plot to sap and impurify his (and by extension everyone else’s) precious bodily fluids. Hence, Jack drinks only distilled or rain water. The Brigadier General considers fluoridisation “the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face”. He explicitly links this plot to the disruption of his sex drive (“… a profound sense of fatigue… a feeling of emptiness followed” the “physical act of love”). Hence, while he does not avoid women, “I do deny them my essence”. Kubrick and Terry Southern might as well have pointed to something as ludicrous as fluoridisation causing, oh, I don’t know, the calcification of the pineal gland. But that might have hit too close to home, and besides, it isn’t nearly as funny as an emasculated army officer.

The only real difference between Jack’s theory and one whereby the Elite are responsible – “It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without choice” could as well be applied to vaccines – is that Jack lays it at the door of the “hardcore commie”. As we know, at a higher level, the Cold War was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Although, some are still keen to refer to the intentions of the New World Order as “communist”. Which I suppose they are, under a certain definition, but not one that is particularly helpful.

Group Captain Lionel Mandrake: I mean, after all, let’s face it. We don’t want to start a nuclear war unless we really have to, do we?

It’s Jack’s paranoia that leads to the conviction that he needs to deal with the communist threat by means of a pre-emptive strike, not having counted on the Soviets having a doomsday machine that is “triggered automatically and at the same time impossible to untrigger”. It’s a very conveniently all-encompassing device, as its name suggests, one that “cost us a small fraction of what we had been spending on defence in a single year” and it “will destroy all human and animal life on Earth” via a shroud of cobalt chlorium G, “a cloud of radioactivity that will encircle the earth for ninety-three years”. The Soviets developed it so quickly because “we were afraid of a doomsday gap” (see also the space race, the arms race). Accordingly, their description of its possibilities is very similar to that of nuclear stalemate: “Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR of attack” whereby there is an automated and irrevocable decision-making process, one without human meddling. The machine is “terrifying and simple to understand…. And completely credible and convincing”.

Of course, nuclear bombs are real, and a cobalt chlorium G bomb is not. Aren’t they? There’s no record of Southern and Kubrick being aware of the nuclear weapons hoax theory (which is, variably, that all nuclear weapons are fake but nuclear power is not, or that the whole nuclear deal is one big lie). Indeed, Dr. Strangelove played as much long-term part as the Cuban Missile Crisis in promoting and perpetuating the dread fear of the bomb. Albeit, in this case with an acidic streak of black humour; Kubrick had optioned the thriller Red Alert but concluded the only way to treat the inherently absurd subject matter was to make a satire (Fail Safe, in production at the same time but released after, made the serious case).

But was Kubrick really telling a tale of elites nursing a largely flippant attitude towards the devastation of life on Earth (personified by George C Scott’s cheerfully combustive General Buck Turgidson). Indeed, in consort with Soviets (Peter Bull’s Ambassador) and Nazis (Seller’s Dr Strangelove), the picture concludes with the appealing prospect (to those present) of a great reset, one in which they get to wipe out the population and start afresh. True, events unfold accidentally in Kubrick’s scenario, rather than with united – more or less – global hoodwinking of a somnambulant populace, but the results may be ultimately seen to yield similar fruits.

Is it likely that Kubrick would make a film promoting something he knew to be a sham? Well, if he did it in 2001, why not (the initial Dr. Strangelove draft was bookended by aliens arriving on a devastated Earth and working out what has happened, a structure that carried into Peter George’s novelisation)? Which is to say, I don’t actually consider it likely that he did (and I don’t profess to know either way regarding the nuclear hoax theory). Certainly, if the story that he planned to move to Australia with his family during the Sixties, on the grounds that it would likely be a safe haven in the event of nuclear war is true, that would rather scotch any such outlandish conjecture. It also rather goes against the omniscient gaze often accorded the director by retrospective acolytes of his oeuvre (that he took the Cold War seriously). Still, as a filmmaker openly talking about conspiracies designed to impact the health of the population and the overpowering importance of the fear of the dread weapon (whether or not the dread weapon exists), the hoax theory surely wouldn’t have been beyond him; Dr. Strangelove and 2001 both did a bang-up job of delivering the atomic and astronautic messages.

Everything about Terry Southern’s screenplay (credited with Kubrick) is top drawer, from the puerile character names (Keen Wynan’s Colonel Bat Guano is the best, even more than Seller’s President Merkin Muffley) to the emphasis on insane, antithetical logic underpinning military and political strategy (Armando Iannucci’s entire oeuvre of contrived political hysteria could have been modelled on Strangelove). It’s probably telling that none of Southern’s other screen work has the same kind of impact. Of course, he’s helped by his director’s rigour (no retiring flower in taking other people’s credit) and a lead performer at the zenith of his creative abilities (commercially too, this and the preceding year saw Sellers at his most commanding).

Sellers reportedly improvised most of his dialogue, and when you see Bull struggling not to corpse behind Strangelove, it’s entirely easy to believe it (his delivery of “Animals could be fed and slaughtered” is magnificent). Each of his performances is a gem, and while Slim Pickens is indelible as Major Kong, I do think it’s a shame that Sellers fell out (literally) of that role. The temperamental Scott reputedly hated Kubrick for using his OTT takes, but this results in one of his very best performances (certainly his most revelatory).

True, Kubrick’s penetrative visual fixations (refuelling mid-air, Jack and his cigar, Pickens riding the bomb) are a little adolescent, but then, the basic plot of the picture was hugely influential on the movies’ biggest adolescent, the Bond series. Both The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker posit an evil mastermind planning to wipe out the world’s population, but for his carefully-chosen specimens intended to facilitate the ultimate reset. Several Doctor Who stories in the decade following Dr. Strangelove also deal with plans to reset the planet, via engineered global catastrophes (The Enemy of the World) or time travel (Invasion of the Dinosaurs). And in both those cases, a select and deceived group living underground are promised to inherit the Earth. Of course, pretending there’s a virus loose, then injecting the entire populace with a poison (while engineering varied methods of culling) and herding them into megacities is much tidier in the long run, if you want that now empty, unspoilt countryside exclusively for you and your one-percent pals.







Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was