DOCSLIB.ORG

A Teaching Guide to Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove&Q

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Teaching Guide to Stanley Kubrick's What I Learned since I Stopped Worrying and Studied the Movie: A Teaching Guide to Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" Author(s): Dan Lindley Source: PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 663-667 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1353558 Accessed: 01-10-2016 19:59 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Cambridge University Press, American Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PS: Political Science and Politics This content downloaded from 95.183.180.42 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 19:59:39 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms What I Learned Since I Stopped Worrying and Studied the Movie: A Teaching Guide to Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove Dan Lindley, University of Notre Dame Introduction tack may set off a doomsday device that pabilities and resolve, but also on the will kill all life on the surface of earth.2 adversary's values and emotional state John Pike, former director of space The doomsday weapon is unrealistic. (hence, mind). Deterrence rests not only policy at the Federation of American However, if one views it as analogous to on having missiles, bombers, and the Scientists, once said to me: "Everything mutually assured destruction (the near willingness to use them, but also on there is to know about nuclear strategy total destruction of the U.S. and Soviet knowing where to target them so that can be learned from Dr. Strangelove." Union inevitable in a real nuclear war), the enemy will fear the retaliatory at- "Everything" is only a mild overstate- then almost everything that happens in tack. Deterrence is impossible if the en- ment. I show Dr. Strangelove annually to the movie could have actually happened. emy fears nothing and does not mind Notre Dame audiences to teach about The most important theme of the film is being dead and destroyed. nuclear war, and I will continue to do so that it makes fun of the sad, perverse, until nuclear weapons and war itself are and absurd reality that the U.S. and the no longer problems. The film offers les- Soviet Union could destroy each other The Necessity of Communication for sons about war, politics, and history and Effective Deterrence within 30 minutes. Unlikely and improb- can serve as a teaching aid for classes in able, yes. Possible, yes. Deterrence only works if the threats introductory international relations, for- Dr. Strangelove also highlights the intended to cause fear are communi- eign policy, defense policy, causes of range of procedures and strategies in- cated to the adversary. No threats made, war, organizational politics, and Cold volved in maintaining the nuclear stand- no fear created. This point is made by War history.1 off. Why did the U.S. have bombers con- Dr. Strangelove when he says: "Yes, but In this teaching guide I cover three stantly in the air, already well on their the . whole point of the doomsday ma- tasks, all of which highlight concepts and way to their targets? Why might individ- chine . is lost . if you keep it a se- themes in Dr. Strangelove. First, I use ual base commanders have had the au- cret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" the film as a springboard to discuss de- thority to use nuclear weapons at their terrence, mutually assured destruction, (56:29). own discretion? Why were our forces on preemption, the security dilemma, arms hair-trigger alert? Why might a dooms- races, relative versus absolute gains con- day device seem to be a logical step? The Logic and Illogic of Nuclear cerns, Cold War misperceptions and The single, simple answer to these ques- Deterrence paranoia, and civil-military relations (in tions is the U.S.'s (and Soviet Union's) this order). Second, I put these concepts When mutually assured destruction quest to make nuclear deterrence credi- into their historical contexts to teach (MAD) is achieved, it becomes illogical ble. Think about deterrence and-the about Cold War history. Third, I show to use nuclear weapons, no matter the need for credibility as you read this and how closely Dr. Strangelove parallels ac- scenario. If anyone attacks, all will get watch the film. tual events and policies. I conclude with clobbered. If one receives a first strike, Finally, remember that the U.S. and the story of how an article by Thomas there is little or nothing to gain from Russians can still easily destroy each Schelling led to the making of the film. retaliation. Deterrence will have failed other and that several other countries and retaliation risks further strikes and have nuclear weapons. The Cold War is more fallout. Ironically, MAD makes over, but nuclear danger is not. When Dr. Strangelove, Nuclear nuclear weapons so illogical that deter- Stanley Kubrick made Dr. Strangelove in Strategy, and the Cold War rence may actually suffer unless the 1963, there were 34,000 nuclear weapons credibility of suicide (or further damage) on earth. Today, there are 31,500.3 The Dr. Strangelove is a black comedy can be restored. Two ways of making doomsday device is alive and well. about a renegade U.S. Air Force Gen- retaliation credible involve automating eral, Jack D. Ripper, who orders his retaliation and introducing illogic and B-52 bombers to drop their nuclear uncertainty. The Definition of Deterrence weapons on the Soviet Union. This at- Automation ensures retaliation by tak- The eccentric nuclear strategist Dr. ing humans out of the loop. A dooms- Strangelove4 defines deterrence when he day machine fits the bill. Ruling out "hu- says: "Deterrence is the art of producing Dan Lindley is assistant professor in interna- man meddling" is crucial because one tional relations and security studies at the Uni- in the mind of the enemy . the fear to must make credible the incredible threat versity of Notre Dame. Lindley worked for sev- attack" (55:09).5 of suicide. Dr. Strangelove explains this eral arms control and research organizations Because deterrence requires the cre- logic: in Washington, D.C. before receiving a Ph.D. ation of fear, deterrence is arguably from MIT. Lindley has published and spoken on more an art than a science. The enemy President Merkin Muffley: "But, how is U.N. peacekeeping, internal conflict, tfle Cyprus it possible for this thing to be triggered must fear that the costs of attack will problem and Greco-Turkish relations, coltective automatically, and at the same time outweigh the benefits. Whether one can security, the U.S. intervention in Panama, the impossible to untrigger?" (54:42) role of ideas in international politics, and SDI produce enough fear to prevent an at- Strangelove: Mr. President, it is not contracting. tack depends not just on one's own ca- only possible, it is essential. That is the PSOnline www.apsanet.org 663 This content downloaded from 95.183.180.42 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 19:59:39 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms whole idea of this machine, you know. credibility. The idea was for plan R to visors to President Kennedy wanted to Deterrence is the art of producing in the be a sort of retaliatory safeguard." strike Cuba during the Missile Crisis, an mind of the enemy . the fear to attack. President Muffley: "A safeguard?" action which could have easily escalated. And so, because of the automated and Turgidson: "I admit the human ele- Had the U.S. engaged the Soviet Union irrevocable decision making process which ment seems to have failed us here. But rules out human meddling, the doomsday the idea was to discourage the Russkies in nuclear combat, we would have gotten machine is terrifying. It's simple to under- from any hope that they could knock out more than our hair mussed. This is one stand. And completely credible, and con- Washington, and yourself, sir, as part of a reason why it is dangerous to build first- . vlncmg. general sneak attack, and escape retalia- strike weapons (or defenses whose effec- tion because of lack of proper command tiveness is uncertain). They lend cre- Although it may not be fair to con- and control." demn the automated-response doomsday dence to semiplausible theories of victory that may persuade the president device on the basis of a single slip-up, Ripper's attack order to his bomber to attack during a crisis.8 the film invalidates the wisdom of that wing exemplifies the main tradeoff with machine by highlighting its dangers. devolution of authority: one cannot de- Would any state cede control of its volve authority and retain central control weapons to computers and sensors?6 So at the same time. Loss of control is ex- Advocacy for Preemption the problem remains: how to make the acerbated by the CRM-114 coded com- Although many believe that the U.S. incredible credible. A fallback strategy is munications device which makes it would never consider preemption, or to introduce illogic and uncertainty into nearly impossible to communicate with make it an official strategy, the U.S. has nuclear strategy and nuclear command and recall the planes while in the air.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 100 Best Last Lines from Novels
    100 Best Last Lines from Novels 1. …you must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on. –Samuel Beckett, The Unnamable 22. YOU HAVE FALLEN INTO ARt—RETURN TO LIFE –William H. Gass, (1953; trans. Samuel Beckett) Willie Masters’ Lonesome Wife (1968) 2. Who knows but that, on the lower frequencies, I speak for you? –Ralph Ellison, 23. In your rocking-chair, by your window dreaming, shall you long, alone. In your Invisible Man (1952) rocking-chair, by your window, shall you dream such happiness as you may never feel. –Theodore Dreiser, Sister Carrie (1900) 3. So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. –F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby (1925) 24. Go, my book, and help destroy the world as it is. –Russell Banks, Continental Drift (1985) 4. …I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the 25. It was the devious-cruising Rachel, that in her retracing search after her missing Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with children, only found another orphan. –Herman Melville, Moby-Dick (1851) my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could 26. The knife came down, missing him by inches, and he took off.
    [Show full text]
  • Buck Henry, Who Helped Create ʻget Smartʼ and Adapt ʻthe Graduate,ʼ Dies at 89 an Unassuming Screenwriter and Actor, Mr
    1/11/2020 Buck Henry, Who Helped Create ‘Get Smart’ and Adapt ‘The Graduate,’ Dies at 89 - The New York Times https://nyti.ms/2N7atsQ Buck Henry, Who Helped Create ʻGet Smartʼ and Adapt ʻThe Graduate,ʼ Dies at 89 An unassuming screenwriter and actor, Mr. Henry thought up quirky characters with Mel Brooks and inhabited many more on “Saturday Night Live.” By Bruce Weber Published Jan. 9, 2020 Updated Jan. 10, 2020 Buck Henry, a writer and actor who exerted an often overlooked but potent influence on television and movie comedy — creating the loopy prime-time spy spoof “Get Smart” with Mel Brooks, writing the script for Mike Nichols’s landmark social satire “The Graduate” and teaming up with John Belushi in the famous samurai sketches on “Saturday Night Live” — died on Wednesday in Los Angeles. He was 89. His wife, Irene Ramp, said his death, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, was caused by a heart attack. John Belushi, left, and Mr. Henry in the 1978 “Saturday Night Live” sketch “Samurai Optometrist.” Fred Hermansky/NBCUniversal via Getty Images As a personality and a performer, Mr. Henry had a mild and unassuming aspect that was usually in contrast with the pungently satirical or broadly slapstick material he appeared in — and often wrote. Others in the room always seemed to make more noise. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/movies/buck-henry-dead.html 1/6 1/11/2020 Buck Henry, Who Helped Create ‘Get Smart’ and Adapt ‘The Graduate,’ Dies at 89 - The New York Times Indeed, for almost 50 years he was a Zelig-like figure in American comedy, a ubiquitous if underrecognized presence not only in grand successes but also in grand failures.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Groundhog Day (1993) 4. Airplane! (1980) 5. Tootsie
    1. ANNIE HALL (1977) 11. THIS IS SPINAL Tap (1984) Written by Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman Written by Christopher Guest & Michael McKean & Rob Reiner & Harry Shearer 2. SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959) Screenplay by Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond, Based on the 12. THE PRODUCERS (1967) German film Fanfare of Love by Robert Thoeren and M. Logan Written by Mel Brooks 3. GROUNDHOG DaY (1993) 13. THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998) Screenplay by Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis, Written by Ethan Coen & Joel Coen Story by Danny Rubin 14. GHOSTBUSTERS (1984) 4. AIRplaNE! (1980) Written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis Written by James Abrahams & David Zucker & Jerry Zucker 15. WHEN HARRY MET SALLY... (1989) 5. TOOTSIE (1982) Written by Nora Ephron Screenplay by Larry Gelbart and Murray Schisgal, Story by Don McGuire and Larry Gelbart 16. BRIDESMAIDS (2011) Written by Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig 6. YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974) Screenplay by Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks, Screen Story by 17. DUCK SOUP (1933) Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks, Based on Characters in the Novel Story by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, Additional Dialogue by Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Arthur Sheekman and Nat Perrin 7. DR. STRANGELOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP 18. There’s SOMETHING ABOUT MARY (1998) WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB (1964) Screenplay by John J. Strauss & Ed Decter and Peter Farrelly & Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Peter George and Bobby Farrelly, Story by Ed Decter & John J. Strauss Terry Southern 19. THE JERK (1979) 8. BlaZING SADDLES (1974) Screenplay by Steve Martin, Carl Gottlieb, Michael Elias, Screenplay by Mel Brooks, Norman Steinberg Story by Steve Martin & Carl Gottlieb Andrew Bergman, Richard Pryor, Alan Uger, Story by Andrew Bergman 20.
    [Show full text]
  • D6192 DR. STRANGELOVE (USA, 1964) (Other Titles: Dr
    D6192 DR. STRANGELOVE (USA, 1964) (Other titles: Dr. [i.e. Docteur] Folamour; Dottor Stranamore) Credits: director, Stanley Kubrick ; writers, Stanley Kubrick, Terry Southern, Peter George. Cast: Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, Keenan Wynn. Summary: War/science fiction/comedy set in the contemporary U.S. A satire in which the President (Sellers) and his military advisers struggle ineptly to avert a holocaust after two psychotic generals - U.S. Air Force Commander Jack D. Ripper (Hayden) and Chief of Staff "Buck" Turgidson (Scott) - trigger an ingenious, irrevocable scheme to launch a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union because they fear the Russians are poisoning the water supply in the United States. The brains behind the scheme belong to Dr. Strangelove (also Sellers), a wheel-chair bound nuclear scientist who has bizarre ideas about mankind's future. Identified as a Vietnam War film by Robert Cumbow in Vietnam War films: “…this black-comic slap at military-political thinking and warning of the perils of military brinksmanship is an accidentally appropriate beginning to what became known as the Vietnam Era.” Adair, Gilbert. Hollywood’s Vietnam [GB] (p. 106, 168, 170, 172) ___________. Vietnam on film [GB] (p. 149) Alpert, Hollis. [Dr. Strangelove] Saturday review 47 (Jan 25, 1964), p. 24. Auster, Al and Quart, Leonard. “American cinema of the sixties” Cineaste 13/2 (1984), p. 4-12. ________________________. How the war was remembered: Hollywood & Vietnam [GB] (p. 24, 25-6, 142, 144, 145) Baxter, Peter. “The one woman” Wide angle 6/1 (1984), p. 34-41. Bayer, William. The great movies New York : Grosset and Dunlap, 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • Performing Arts Annual 1987. INSTITUTION Library of Congress, Washington, D.C
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 301 906 C3 506 492 AUTHOR Newsom, Iris, Ed. TITLE Performing Arts Annual 1987. INSTITUTION Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO ISBN-0-8444-0570-1; ISBN-0887-8234 PUB DATE 87 NOTE 189p. AVAILABLE FROMSuperintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 (Ztock No. 030-001-00120-2, $21.00). PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC08 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Cultural Activities; *Dance; *Film Industry; *Films; Music; *Television; *Theater Arts IDENTIFIERS *Library of Congress; *Screenwriters ABSTRACT Liberally illustrated with photographs and drawings, this book is comprised of articles on the history of the performing arts at the Library of Congress. The articles, listed with their authors, are (1) "Stranger in Paradise: The Writer in Hollywood" (Virginia M. Clark); (2) "Live Television Is Alive and Well at the Library of Congress" (Robert Saudek); (3) "Color and Music and Movement: The Federal Theatre Project Lives on in the Pages of Its Production Bulletins" (Ruth B. Kerns);(4) "A Gift of Love through Music: The Legacy of Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge" (Elise K. Kirk); (5) "Ballet for Martha: The Commissioning of 'Appalachian Spring" (Wayne D. Shirley); (6) "With Villa North of the Border--On Location" (Aurelio de los Reyes); and (7) "All the Presidents' Movies" (Karen Jaehne). Performances at the library during the 1986-87season, research facilities, and performing arts publications of the library are also covered. (MS) * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document. 1 U $ DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement 411.111....
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Strangelove
    0 The Essence of War An in depth analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s DR STRANGELOVE By Rob Ager April 2015 © Contents Part one – Dr Strangelove in context Chapter one – The concerned film maker 1 Chapter two – Embracing the abstract 5 Chapter three – Production 10 Chapter four – Response and film legacy 17 Part two – Dr Strangelove under the magnifying glass Chapter five – Parallels and counterparts 22 Chapter six – Flaws in the system 31 Chapter seven – MAD 48 Chapter eight – The last spasm 61 Chapter nine – The evolving plot 68 Chapter ten – Code Read (sic) 73 Chapter eleven – Joe for King 79 Chapter twelve – Priority personnel 84 Part three – Implications and aftermath for Kubrick Chapter thirteen – Parallels in Kubrick’s larger filmography 86 Chapter fourteen – Conspiracy central 91 Chapter fifteen – Kubrick’s new code 99 © Rob Ager 2015 1 Part one DR STRANGELOVE IN CONTEXT Chapter one THE CONCERNED FILM MAKER “I was interested in whether or not I was going to get blown up by an H-bomb prior to Lolita.” SK interviewed in 1966 by Jeremy Bernstein Paranoia is a label that has often been leveled at Stanley Kubrick, but in the 1960’s fear of thermonuclear war was epidemic. Everybody from high ranking officials to school children was affected, be it through war game simulations or “duck and cover” public information films. Biographers have noted the affect on Kubrick. He considered emigrating to Australia so as to be out of the way should a nuclear war take place, but for a mixture of reasons eventually settled in England. He was especially prone to nuclear war fear because of his existing preoccupation with armed conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does the Hybrid American-‐British Film Dr. Strangelove Reveal About the Sh
    Page | 47 What does the hybrid American-British film Dr. Strangelove reveal about the shifting cultural and political attitudes of the respective nations at the height of the Cold War? INDI ANGEL-AULD MHIS305 America and Europe from Colonization to Coca-Colonization Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,1 is a hybrid American-British black comedy that satirizes American and British political and cultural attitudes towards the nuclear threat of annihilation, within the context of the Cold War. The film reflects on and lampoons the shifting cultural attitudes of America and Britain from the introduction of the bomb on August 6th 1945, to the climactic events of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. It parodies the positions of the nations, poised precariously between naïve conformity, complacency and acquiescence on the one hand, and an intense and inescapable fear and anxiety on the other. In doing so the film itself becomes both representative of and indeed a catalyst for the bourgeoning counterculture of dissent that came to characterise the late 1960s and 1970s on both sides of the Atlantic. As the curtain opens and the lights dim, the audience settles into their seats, stifling the sound of their popcorn. White letters on the blackened screen begin to take shape, and the audience silently takes in a disclaimer from Columbia Pictures that is perhaps just as telling of the mood in the milieu as it is insightful into the film that will follow: ‘It is the stated position of the United States Air Force that their Safeguards would prevent the occurrence of such events as are depicted in this film.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Strangelove Programme Notes
    4k restoration OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB “Gentlemen. You can’t FIght in here. This is the War Room!” synopsis This BAFTA Award-winning (Best Film) title is a black comedy about a group of war-eager military men who plan a nuclear apocalypse. Through a series of military and political accidents, two psychotic generals - U.S. Air Force Commander Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) and Joint Chief of Staff "Buck" Turgidson (George C. Scott) - trigger an ingenious, irrevocable scheme to attack Russia's strategic targets with nuclear bombs. The brains behind the scheme belong to Dr. Strangelove (Peter Sellers), a wheelchair-bound nuclear scientist who has bizarre ideas about man's future. The President is helpless to stop the bombers, as is Captain Mandrake (also played by Sellers), the only man who can stop them... programme notes While making Lolita (1962), Stanley Kubrick became obsessed with nuclear gamesmanship, disturbed by the apparent likelihood that war could erupt by accident. He was perhaps even more disturbed by the way people responded to the abstract concept of total annihilation. As he saw it, they “accepted it fatalistically”1. Kubrick read over 60 books on the topic and set out to make a film about it for his next project. When he visited London’s Institute for Strategic Studies, its Director Alastair Buchan recommended a realistic and suspenseful nuclear war novel, Red Alert by Peter George. Kubrick was impressed by its technical authenticity and set out to adapt it into a serious drama with George as his co-writer.2 While developing the project, Kubrick kept crossing paths with the absurd and the comical.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reader on Red Alert: Stanley Kubrick, Peter George and the Evolution of Fear Graham Allen
    Special — Peer Reviewed Cinergie – Il cinema e le altre arti. N.12 (2017) https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2280-9481/7350 ISSN 2280-9481 The Reader on Red Alert: Stanley Kubrick, Peter George and the Evolution of Fear Graham Allen Published: 4th December 2017 Abstract One of the purposes of studying adaptation is to allow, periodically, for a reassessment of the dominant assumptions concerning the relation between films and their non-filmic, often literary intertexts. Therela- tion between Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb and Peter George’s novel Two Hours to Doom or, to use its U.S. title, Red Alert, is in need of such reassess- ment. In particular, the currently influential work of Peter Krämer on Dr. Strangelove presents us with an argument in which Kubrick’s film is a wholesale correction of George’s novel. This paper wishes torevise this influential reading, bringing our attention back to the literary and political complexity of George’s novel. Kubrick’s film, I want to argue, is not a correction but an historically situated adaptation. The paper presents this revision in the context of an emergent reassessment of Peter George’s wider career as a novelist. Keywords: Kubrick; Peter George; Red Alert Graham Allen: University College Cork (Ireland) Corresponding Author: [email protected] Graham Allen is a Professor in the School of English, University College Cork. His publications include Harold Bloom: A Poetics of Conflict (1994), Intertextuality (2000: 2nd Ed. 2011) and Roland Barthes (2003). His latest poetry collection, The Madhouse System, was published in 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • On Black Humor Fiction What Is
    BETWEEN SILLINESS AND SATIRE: ON BLACK HUMOR FICTION WHAT IS (WAS) BLACK HUMOR? Catch-22 and the Humor of Black Humor One can't help but note that in the critical commentary about the fiction of the 1950s and 60s known as "black humor" there is much discussion of what makes such fiction "black", but little of its humor. The most famous expression of this tendency occurs in probably the most frequently cited book on black humor, Max Schulz's Black Humor Fiction of the Sixties. "I have shied away from the humor in Black Humor," writes Schulz. Choosing instead to focus on what he calls the "cosmic labyrinth," Schulz claims that "to give equal value to humor in any consideration of this literature is possibly to let oneself be trapped by a term that came into being somewhat capriciously and may not accurately describe that literature." While it may be true that several of the novels labeled as black humor at one time or another are not "humorous" in a narrow sense, and that the term itself was adapted somewhat arbitrarily, Schulz's reluctance to deal at length with books such as Catch-22 or Stanley Elkin's A Bad Man, clearly funny books by any measure, evidences a common scholarly preference for the "cosmic" at the expense of the comic. It might reasonably be assumed that criticism of individual novels would confront more directly the vital role of comedy in their aesthetic and rhetorical operations. Such attention would seem to be in order especially for Catch-22, which relies so systematically on what Frederick Karl has catalogued as "puns, high jinks, slapstick, [and] witty dialogue." However, by far most writing about Catch-22 has focused like Schulz on more portentous issues of politics, philosophy, economics, and even theology.
    [Show full text]
  • How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) Informed Audiences That the United States Government Had Recklessly Managed Its War on Communism
    CHAPTER 2 THE ANATOMY OF THE FILM The creators of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) informed audiences that the United States government had recklessly managed its war on communism. President John F. Kennedy’s management of the Berlin wall crisis and his administration’s response to the alliance between Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and Khrushchev threatened to incite a nuclear war. Stanley Kubrick believed that the government’s dependence upon nuclear weapons increased the likelihood of using such weapons during cold war crises. In an essay published in Films and Filming in 1963, Kubrick expressed his hope that Dr. Strangelove would alter the public’s perception of the government and encourage changes in nuclear policies.1 He utilized all of the tools of filmmaking and storytelling to convey this warning to audiences. The screenwriting team utilized several characters to mock American officials and explore various themes associated with their cold war policies. All of the film’s major characters were based upon well-known figures in America’s war on communism, despite the disclaimer stating the opposite at the outset of the film. Although the portrayals seemed absurd, characters’ actions and appearances were intended to inspire comparisons to their real-life counterparts. Diplomat and politician Adlai Stevenson served as the model for President Merkin Muffley. Muffley’s failure to prevent a nuclear catastrophe warned audiences that a communications breakdown might hinder efforts to avert disaster and that in the world created by Kennedy might face greater crises. General 1 Stanley Kubrick, “How I learned to stop worrying and Love the Cinema,” Films and Filming 9 (June 1963): 12-13.
    [Show full text]
  • How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1
    CHAPTER 1 THE BIOGRAPHY OF THE FILM The final version of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) was much different from Peter George's novel Red Alert (1958), upon which the film was based. The screenwriting team of Stanley Kubrick, Terry Southern, and George altered the latter’s original story to expose the dangers of US nuclear policies in such a way that audiences could recognize. The writers altered the genre and constructed characters that satirized US military and political personnel and cold war strategies. The project underwent changes during production to become the most important statement of the cold war discourse. When Stanley Kubrick decided to adapt Red Alert for a film audience, he selected a novel and an author that provided a unique perspective on the threat of nuclear war. In the late 1950s, Stanley Kubrick decided to make a film about the dangers of nuclear war, but he had difficulty finding a story upon which to base his film. Kubrick heeded Alastair Buchan’s recommendation of Red Alert. Kubrick discovered the story he had been looking for in this novel.1 George appeared to have privileged knowledge about the inner workings of the United States’ war machine. Peter George served in the Royal Air Force during World War II. He withdrew from service for a brief time in the late 1950s before rejoining the RAF and serving until 1964. George filled the suspense novel with technical language that suggested his special knowledge of the subject and his intention that 1 Stanley Kubrick, “How I learned to stop worrying and love the cinema,” Films and Filming 9 (June 1963): 12-13.
    [Show full text]