Dr. Strangelove (1964) is perhaps one of the strangest, saddest forms of satire I have ever seen. While it is presented as a comedy, as seen in moments like 55:20 when Turgidson says “gee, I wish I had one of those doomsday machines”, or the exchange between Turgidson and the President at 29:02, suggesting that President Muffley has forgotten all about their order of succession. Gags such as the “10 to 1 breeding ratio” were an easy way to get laughs. It is obvious that this piece of film is to be read as satire, especially critiquing the paranoia taken on by the United States in fear of nuclear annihilation. However, Dr. Strangelove seems to have a deeper, more profound reason behind its creation. It seems that the movie could be a sort of “comfort” somehow, to make light of a situation that was paralyzing US citizens with fear. Constantly monitoring Russian movements, being subjected to bomb drills, seeing plans for nuclear bunkers – all of these things are disruptive to daily life and literally changing the way one sees their reality. This film was an escape from this fear, through making light of a horrifying situation. Did anyone else notice this while watching the film? Or did you think that the film was purely made for satire and nothing more?
Through the Iron Curtain
I think this post gets at the question of the purpose of satire and the intended effects it has. Stanley Kubrick as the director of this film– perhaps more recognized in works such as The Shinning (1980), A Clockwork Orange (1971), or A Space Odyssey (1968), and Full Metal Jacket (1987)– illustrates that his humor (if one can call it as such) delves into “dark humor.” Certainly, it can be seen that the obvious jokes like “10 to 1 breeding ratio” as you put it are there to get a quick laugh from audiences. However, Kubrick appears to work in layers in this regard. There are the obvious jokes, and then there are the names of characters (almost all of which are double entendres like President Muffley or Jack D. Ripper) which are ever more subtle, and then there are the jokes that at first make you think they fall flat and then with some thinking make you realize that are actual indictments of the political structure of the U.S.. President Muffley, as portrayed in the film, is supposed to be taken as an effeminate leader, one who is all talk and no action unlike the generals, and has “gotten into bed” with the Russians (I say this from the act of letting Alexi into the War Room and the casual tone in which he talked to President Dimitri). Even the worries of Fluoridation that Jack D. Ripper makes to Mandrake were a reflection of some of the worries that citizens may have had during this time (Kubrick 00:47:23). [Flouridation of water started in 1945 in the U.S.]. However, I do not think that it is possible to cleave satire and social commentary from one another. They work in concert, and it would appear that the satirical conclusion that Kubrick was attempting to get at in this movie is not an escape from fear but an embrace of it. To assist in better understanding the situation, Kubrick made a film that approaches the difficult topic of what to do about nuclearization and that Mutually Assured Destruction (the use of Nukes) was an impractical strategy. If anything, it seems like the intended effect of the film was to a) ensure that there were better safeguards for those who could initiate a nuclear attack, b) warn against crazy conspiracy theories (Fluoridation leading Communism) in favor of level headed thinking, and c) take the strategies of nuclear war (or the possibility thereof) out of the hands of generals and politicians who kept it amongst themselves to a public census. On a parting note and, perhaps, for others to contemplating, I see this movie as the adult version of the Iron Giant (1999) and that the same overall lesson that it teaches is the same, is that a mischaracterization or does that hold water? Why for either?