rms
Active Member
both profs said it was anti-war, then when I 'confronted' them after the discussion, she said critique
nuclear or regular war? regular war, I disagree
The Official Movie Thread
- Thread starter Manic Ferocity
- Start date
both profs said it was anti-war, then when I 'confronted' them after the discussion, she said critique
nuclear or regular war? regular war, I disagree
Einherjar86
Active Member
rms
Active Member
rms
Active Member
I would imagine you'd think Strangelove is anti-war from it's portrayals of the two generals and the little bit of screen time of Dr. Strangelove, but I think this misses the point.
The base commander, Gen Ripper, is clearly insane with commi propaganda. His hilarious conspiracy theory about flouride being a communist trick of ruining the 'precious bodily fluids' is nothing to do with war or anti war, it's about a rogue agent. Because of this rogue agent in a government bureauocracy, I take this satirical viewpoint as one against politics in general. One man can do a lot of bad things, if he's really that crazy.
Then we go to the other hilarious general, Turgidson, the clear war hawk. Anti communist, anti-atheist to the core, likely a symbol for the conservative male at the time period. I would say his anti-Rooskie views are equal or countered by his discussions about the costs of war, where he says "instead of 150 million casualties, we'll only have 10, maybe 20. Not a problem at all" (to that effect) is obviously channeling a quote from Stalin (1 death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic) and I think obvious a critique against how human lives are in fact valued at the upper echelons of military leadership. I don't necessarily take this viewpoint as anti war, instead, demonstrating how far removed from humanity you are to be able to do your job. I could see where my interpretation is not sufficient for most, though
But this is a problem, as the table is almost entirely full of high ranking generals, we really only hear from 1 and I think Turgidson is never 'supported' by any other generals at the table. It also appears his neighboring generals think little of him, especially during the sequence where his secretary calls him in the war room.
Then, the airmen on the plane, nothing for or against in their depiction in relation to war, just doing their job. Some might say they are portrayed highly since they do not see Wing Plan Attack R right away and start getting excited to go drop bombs on the Rooskies.
Another point is the idea of the mutually assured destruction, or the blatant double entente...or duality here;
maybe some see this and think right away that war is stupid because of it, but I don't think this is a realist perspective. Instead, this is the harsh reality of all political measures, that to ensure order and or peace, you must do the opposite. Prison deterrents, strip other nations of their sovereignty for a time etc
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
Interesting reading. I think you're right that it's a political satire, and that it's mocking the kinds of conversations that take place in the far reaches of bureaucracies (like the hermetically sealed "war room"). Ultimately, I feel like it's impossible to say that the film condones war, but you might be able to suggest that it isn't explicitly anti-war, although that's a really tough sell. It is definitely making fun of certain personalities who tend to be attracted to war, and I think those two things are related if not quite the same thing.
I agree partially with this. His comments basically make an organic comparison between the country and the human body, suggesting that communists are corrupting parasites, or "rogue agents" that infect the host. I'm not sure I think the scene is against "politics in general," but that it's mocking a very common view held at that time: that of the evil, infectious quality of communists, and the programmatic actions taken to neutralize the communist threat. The "precious bodily fluids" comment is ruthlessly satirical and over-the-top, and intended as a mockery of communist anxieties during the Cold War.
Interesting fact about Turgidson, who was played by George C. Scott--Kubrick tricked him into playing that role in the goofy manner that he did. Scott was well-known for his role in Patton, and was also a mildly conservative figure in his own right, and he wanted to play the general rationally and seriously. Kubrick made him do "practice" takes in which he asked Scott to play the role in a goofy way so as to better capture the seriousness of the "real" takes. Then Kubrick used the goofy takes.
It pissed Scott off, but it makes for a better movie.
As far as his portrayal, again I don't think it's explicitly anti-war. I just think it's mocking certain personalities often associated with war. The film is crammed with suggestive analogies between belligerent personalities and phallic symbolism, and much of it is intended (I would argue) to poke fun at the alpha-maleness of military figures. You have lots of guns, cigars, Turgidson with secretaries in his bed, etc.; and his goofiness undercuts the solemnity of that personality.
I could see the prospect of "just doing their job" as a satire of the chain of command, the unquestioning attitudes of many in the lower ranks. The fact that they're excited to go to war also seems like more of a mockery than a laudatory portrayal, given that they're kind of bumbling goofs, if I recall correctly...
When I see that billboard, I see it in a totally paradoxical light. To ensure peace, we go to war. Kubrick is emphasizing the contradictions of warfare left and right, so I don't think the film advocates the "realism" of warfare. I think it's mocking military personalities and military rhetoric.
I think you're correct in that the political reality is harsh, but I'm not sure you can attribute that "realist perspective" to the film. I think the film is satirizing almost every character that shows up in it, and satires are never realist. They exacerbate personalities into mocking caricatures. By pointing out the inconsistencies, the film is offering a critique. I'd stop short of calling it pro-this or anti-that, but I definitely wouldn't say it advocates or condones warfare.
I agree partially with this. His comments basically make an organic comparison between the country and the human body, suggesting that communists are corrupting parasites, or "rogue agents" that infect the host. I'm not sure I think the scene is against "politics in general," but that it's mocking a very common view held at that time: that of the evil, infectious quality of communists, and the programmatic actions taken to neutralize the communist threat. The "precious bodily fluids" comment is ruthlessly satirical and over-the-top, and intended as a mockery of communist anxieties during the Cold War.
Interesting fact about Turgidson, who was played by George C. Scott--Kubrick tricked him into playing that role in the goofy manner that he did. Scott was well-known for his role in Patton, and was also a mildly conservative figure in his own right, and he wanted to play the general rationally and seriously. Kubrick made him do "practice" takes in which he asked Scott to play the role in a goofy way so as to better capture the seriousness of the "real" takes. Then Kubrick used the goofy takes.
It pissed Scott off, but it makes for a better movie.
As far as his portrayal, again I don't think it's explicitly anti-war. I just think it's mocking certain personalities often associated with war. The film is crammed with suggestive analogies between belligerent personalities and phallic symbolism, and much of it is intended (I would argue) to poke fun at the alpha-maleness of military figures. You have lots of guns, cigars, Turgidson with secretaries in his bed, etc.; and his goofiness undercuts the solemnity of that personality.
I could see the prospect of "just doing their job" as a satire of the chain of command, the unquestioning attitudes of many in the lower ranks. The fact that they're excited to go to war also seems like more of a mockery than a laudatory portrayal, given that they're kind of bumbling goofs, if I recall correctly...
When I see that billboard, I see it in a totally paradoxical light. To ensure peace, we go to war. Kubrick is emphasizing the contradictions of warfare left and right, so I don't think the film advocates the "realism" of warfare. I think it's mocking military personalities and military rhetoric.
I think you're correct in that the political reality is harsh, but I'm not sure you can attribute that "realist perspective" to the film. I think the film is satirizing almost every character that shows up in it, and satires are never realist. They exacerbate personalities into mocking caricatures. By pointing out the inconsistencies, the film is offering a critique. I'd stop short of calling it pro-this or anti-that, but I definitely wouldn't say it advocates or condones warfare.
rms
Active Member
but the intro has a lengthy scene where they go to great lengths to ensure it's a mistake and not really Wing Attack Plan R
Definitely, male bravado is obviously part of his identity and alot of wars. Can't deny that aspect of war
I disagree, and we see this validation late in the film. It begins when Turgidson plants/finds the camera on the diplomat and that gets swept until the end of the film when we are shown he truly is taking photos of the big board. I think this is under noticed part of the film, even though Turgidson is a loony, he was still right about the Rooskies. If one side wants war, then there cannot be peace without war.
Born to kill / Peace on Joker in Full Metal Jacket seems a direct correlation with the unit slogan from Strangelove, to me
Einherjar86
Active Member
I mean, I would be interested in what other people think--but the comment that "if one side wants war, then there cannot be peace without war" strikes me as part of the very idiosyncrasy that Kubrick is highlighting. "We don't want war, but we will go to war for peace!"--that just strikes me as pure rhetoric, nothing more. Additionally, I think part of what Kubrick is saying is that America always wants war, not just Russia; it's part of cultural history and iconography. It's part of the phallic imagery, the bravado, the machismo, etc.
I'd forgotten the bit about taking photos of the board, but I'm not sure I follow your reasoning--or at least, I'm not sure why it makes the film "pro-war."
I have a difficult time seeing any aspect of the film as pro-war; it all looks like satire to me. I think the bit about the miscommunication regarding Attack Plan R points to the absurdity of the fail safe scenario, which is in reference to nuclear war.
I'd forgotten the bit about taking photos of the board, but I'm not sure I follow your reasoning--or at least, I'm not sure why it makes the film "pro-war."
I have a difficult time seeing any aspect of the film as pro-war; it all looks like satire to me. I think the bit about the miscommunication regarding Attack Plan R points to the absurdity of the fail safe scenario, which is in reference to nuclear war.
rms
Active Member
you brush this off as if its not true though
gonna have to explain this with something from the film. male bravado is a part of war with every country/empire/city state ever. it's not an American thing
it's not necessarily pro-war, but it validates Turgidson's fears/concerns. Don't really know how else to explain it. Can't trust the other side.
huh? seems like quite the reach over the obvious "do we really want to respond to an attack that hasn't happened yet on American soil?"
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm not brushing it off! But just because it's true doesn't mean we can't make fun of it. That's what Kubrick is doing, I think.
It's been too long since I've seen it, I don't have a recall of enough details.
I don't think he's only making fun of America; he's making fun of Russia too. But the associations being made between America's anti-communist anxieties and midcentury conservatism, seem to me to suggest primarily a critique of American military attitudes. That's based on memory, along with my knowledge of the way the film has commonly interpreted.
Yes, but the Russians also feel that they can't trust us. That's part of the geopolitical atmosphere that Kubrick's poking fun at.
How is Ripper's response "to an attack that hasn't happened yet" not a clear criticism of America's excitement and obsession with war?
Look, ultimately the film is a satire of the nuclear tensions between America and Russia. It doesn't depict war in the same way that movies like Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse, Now! do. That being said, I find it a real stretch to say that the movie is promoting the implementation of "just war" theory.
rms
Active Member
of course not, but i swear you just made it sound like the idea wasn't based in historical reality
we went from talking about the bomber crew to the insane garrison commander. I don't think Ripper is an appropriate symbol for the American public at this time. Turgidson? I would say so, def the right. But Ripper? Nahhh!
cool, we agree then
promote and highlight are the distinctions I would make here. I don't think Kubrick argues that this is all unnecessary and silly, aka anti-war, but instead points at how ridiculous it is yet sadly is reality and true because of how the world operates. Thus, not an anti or pro war film, just a satire on how ridiculous humans can be
Einherjar86
Active Member
rms
Active Member
I thought it was clear we agreed from the get go. you asked for my opinion when you said it doesn't condone war, I think it does
Einherjar86
Active Member
To say that the film condones war is to say that it's pro-war, but you just said it's not a pro-war film. How does that make sense?
rms
Active Member
I think I rock with this definition though, "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue."
pro war to me is saying it's good, it's great, the world needs more war etc. I'm thinking Strangelove argues war exists because humans exist, and humans can be ridiculous (if that makes sense)
pro war to me is saying it's good, it's great, the world needs more war etc. I'm thinking Strangelove argues war exists because humans exist, and humans can be ridiculous (if that makes sense)
Einherjar86
Active Member
Haha, yeah that makes sense. I'm not sure I'd describe that as condoning war, though.
I think this has probably reached its terminus.
I think this has probably reached its terminus.
rms
Active Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'd say it's mocking the attitudes that lead to war, which implies that war is the result of immature children.
Saying that war exists because humans exist, and humans can be ridiculous, seems to imply that it's the ridiculous human attitudes specifically that often lead to war, or militarism, in the first place; and that these kinds of attitudes, many of them associated with excessive militarism or violence, should be criticized and/or corrected. By doing so, we could dampen the tendency for war. The implication is that war is a silly thing that could be tempered.
The film isn't an apology for war, but a critique of the attitudes that lead to it. I don't think the film is suggesting "sometimes you just gotta war, man"; it's saying "look at there idiots who get us into these dumb wars."
Saying that war exists because humans exist, and humans can be ridiculous, seems to imply that it's the ridiculous human attitudes specifically that often lead to war, or militarism, in the first place; and that these kinds of attitudes, many of them associated with excessive militarism or violence, should be criticized and/or corrected. By doing so, we could dampen the tendency for war. The implication is that war is a silly thing that could be tempered.
The film isn't an apology for war, but a critique of the attitudes that lead to it. I don't think the film is suggesting "sometimes you just gotta war, man"; it's saying "look at there idiots who get us into these dumb wars."
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,664
- 9,648
- 113
