A nightmare comedy; there is no better way to describe Stanley Kubrick’s film Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Unfortunately for me, it the equivalency of watching grass grow. I find it unsurprising that the film was nominated for four Academy Awards yet received none. While I was unimpressed, I don’t want this to seem like a total bashing. The film had its’ moments. There were parts of the movie that had me laughing. The humor was definitely evident. What I find more interesting than the film is Grant Stillman’s article “Two of the MADdest scientists: where Strangelove Meets Dr. No; or, unexpected roots forKubrick’s cold war classic,” which looks into Kubrick’s piece and at the references and inspiration used to pull all of his ideas into one screenplay. We also get a sneak peek, from Stillman’s article, at who Stanley Kubrick was, and how this strange comedy was ever imagined. I find it comforting that the director says you shouldn’t exactly understand the film but rather make your own meaning for it. Thank goodness. This means I wasn’t completely lost Stillman quotes him as saying:
It’s all very elusive and very rich. There’s nothing like trying to create it. It gives you a sense of omnipotence – it’s one of the most exciting things you can find without being under the influence of drugs…If I told you [the meanings of my films] it wouldn’t be ambiguous – and if you didn’t discover it for yourself, it wouldn’t mean anything anyway. (Stillman, 487.)
(Stanley Kubrick)
It was intriguing to see what the director took from other sources. Stillman explains that Kubrick was in no way afraid to borrow material and bend it to fit the ideas fluttering around his head (492). To be quite frank, this man is off the wall. Most of his ideas left me wondering (and questioning his mental sanity). While explaining his characteristic choices for Dr. Strangelove himself, Kubrick explains, “So instead of leaving it there looking malignant I gave the arm a life of its own. That arm hated the rest of the body for having made a compromise. That arm was a Nazi” (494). You really have to wonder.
The technical aspects of the film were rather commendable. In the days of making movies purely out of special affects I can absolutely appreciate a movie that didn’t have nearly the same amount of resources but worked with what they had to make quite an image. While panning shots of planes flying didn’t exactly look realistic they were quite a step up for being released in 1964. As a photographer, I took note of many of the lighting setups featured in the film. In example, when we are first introduced to General Ripper the lights are dark, casting harsh shadows, and representing a great deal of foreshadowing. The lighting for the War Room scenes was noteworthy; a room, completely sealed off with the only lights beaming onto the table and the men around it.
While viewing the film I took note that most of the shooting was done at eye level. There was not a huge mix of different camera angles, though they were present at times, such as the high angle observed each time we entered into the war room. Camera distance ranged from long shots to medium close-ups, staying away from extreme long shots, as well as extreme close-ups, which was effective for the movie at hand. Sound was an element that instantly threw me off. When the beginning credits started with a soft friendly tune similar to that of a love story, I had no idea what was to come.
Works Cited
Kubrick, Stanley, dir. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop
Worrying and Love the Bomb. 1964. Columbia Pictures, 2009.
Stillman, Grant, “Two of the MaDdest Scientists.” Film History. 20
(2008): 487-500.
