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

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

You have a very angry family, sir.

Eternals (2021) (SPOILERS) It would be overstating the case to suggest Eternals is a pleasant surprise, but given the adverse harbingers surrounding it, it’s a much more serviceable – if bloated – and thematically intriguing picture than I’d expected. The signature motifs of director and honestly-not-billionaire’s-progeny Chloé Zhao are present, mostly amounting to attempts at Malick-lite gauzy natural light and naturalism at odds with the rigidly unnatural material. There’s woke to spare too, since this is something of a Kevin Feige Phase Four flagship, one that rather floundered, showcasing his designs for a nu-MCU. Nevertheless, Eternals manages to maintain interest despite some very variable performances, effects, and the usual retreat into standard tropes, come the final big showdown.