Dr. Strangelove (1964), who are you? If genre was a personality; who is this film? Is it a political satire? A dark comedy? Or perhaps an existential critique of a war that is remembered in history as being “cold”? Even though these questions do not relate to actual history specifically, they go to speak to the many layers of historical retrospect Kubrick incorporates into his film adaptation of the novel Red Alert (Peter George, 1958). As a generation that was not in the heat of the Cold War, we are able to look back in nuclear terror because of the way this film conveys one of the worst “what ifs” of human history.
A terror that in hindsight was very real for many Americans and Soviets alike; but how do you accomplish this Strangelove? How is this film able to successfully encapsulate this fear existing in history through this type of retelling? How as film critics and historians can we see the move contextualize the Cold War? In detail- how do the images in certain scenes display the importance of communication and how technology influenced communication? How does the plot make clear the strong power systematic ideology can have? This question can be as simple as your interpretation of who the “bad guy” was. However, moreso as historians we all realize in wars the answer is rarely that simple.
Relative to this course, then, what scenes stand out as insights to each sides’ core beliefs or ideologies? Do any lines jump out as obvious references to figures or texts discussed so far in this class? Are these depictions or references historically accurate, and if not, do you believe this affects your overall interpretation or cultural value of the film? After all these questions, I think it is fair to say that we can all happily agree Dr. Strangelove remains in the history of film rather than the history of the Cold War.
