@@LearningaboutMovies I'm glad you liked that, and if not so many young people are not watching, it is a shame, as it has so many quotable lines in it! That and the idea of a doomsday weapon the Soviets keep secret because...it's a secret?! I can see why the president was irritated, LOL. Just a fun film to watch over and over, to the point my two teens are into it now.
@@williamcurry4606 dw i’m in my early 20s and I love Kubrick’s films and watching analysis videos on them, always trying to learn! I hope you believe the younger generation can make a difference ❤️
"Peace is our profession. War is only a hobby." This was the secret motto among enlisted men in SAC. I say secret because if the brass ever heard you say it, you might end up immediately transferred to Burpleson Air Force Base!
LeMay was a maniac. Leaving aside his firebombing campaign against Japan (which at least was after the last US declaration of war) he pressured JFK to bomb Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis - which would have led to a nuclear holocaust in the United States.
ok, disagree that this movie was simply mocking or had no ideas to solve it. Its like the ultimate hactivist product. Like hactivists which try to break into computer systems to show those system owners that it is possible and to force them to fix it, this movie really stuck it to the military industrial complex saying that they needed to fix their systems as well - and really hammered the point home that we only get one chance at this, that one 'single slip-up' is enough to doom us all. As a result, the government in the US (and probably other governments) really took it to heart. They changed their codes for launch from 000000, instituted tight controls on who could fire them (lower level echelon commanders), instituted dual key and triple key systems, etc. etc. etc We may have survived intact because of this movie, full stop. So Kubrick really did a big public service here by making it.
The first view it’s a war drama, next view it’s some perverse view of politics, the third view it’s a comedy and by the fourth view it’s the funniest movie ever made. This movie has aged better than any. Kubrick got the best movie in every genre. Guy is a god in film. No one touches him
There are many deep themes in the movie, that go beyond mere satire, and are still relevant in 2024. To list just a few: The absurdity of war and deterrence strategies Technological determinism and loss of human control over systems Leadership, agency and bureaucratic failure Human fallibility and irrationality Nihilism and existential powerlessness Masculinity and power dynamics Ethical implications of survival and eugenics And ultimately, fragility of modern civilization
This movie and Fail Safe should be a double feature to show the thoughts of people in the 50s and 60s. Both movies are about the same thing but take very different approaches. Both came out the year I was born and I never really understood the attitudes from the time, these really put it into perspective.
@@jimslancio If you really want the most impact, I would say Strangelove and then Failsafe, ending without laughs will do that. Although either order is good viewing. For pure comedy gold, there is another double. Enter The Dragon and the sub-movie of Kentucky Fried Movie called A Fist Full Of Yen. If you watch Fist first you will laugh and be someone confused but laugh uncontrollably at Enter. Watching Enter first you won't laugh but you might piss yourself laughing watching Fist.
Love this movie. I wish more modern/younger audiences were aware of it. The story may seem dated or irrelevant now, but the themes are timeless. While Paths of Glory is probably my favorite Kubrick movie, Dr Strangelove is definitely a close 2nd. (I will admit that 2001 is probably his best movie, it’s just not my favorite).
I watch it twice a year on CD and watched it in the cinema 60 years ago as it made me feel "safe," and not be in so much "fear" of nuclear war because of the satirical nature of the topic by Kubrick. The film made people "lighten up" about atomic war and "the bomb!"
Peter Sellers a great comedian - he had a really good grasp of the absurd. Sterling Hayden is a favourite actor - so good and a good man who saw through Hollywood - 'The Killing'.
@@LearningaboutMovies The film supposedly had the effect of the USA and Russians initiating even stronger failsafe mechanisms than those already in place.
This is one of my favorite movies. It's amazing to think that this came out at the height of the Cold War and really highlighted how absurd it all was.
@@LearningaboutMovies dont even get me started on all the "RussiaGate" nonsense from the Trump administration. At this point, it borders on conspiracy theory that people believe to be true despite the findings of the Mueller Report.
@@alanwatson4249 and that shady company from Ukraine. Ever wonder why the us gives a rats rear end about Ukraine? It’s where all the corrupt us officials do their dirty work.
My dad was US Navy. Sub hunter patrol squadron during the Cold War. I'm a millennial but knowing what was going on not to long ago makes me still care.
Holden, Scott, Sellers,Sellers,Sellers! Wow! you’ll never see a triumphant like that again! And that’s 5 characters. The levels of impressive that this movie is are insurmountable
This is in the conversation when I think of my favorite movies of all time, and it's definitely one of my top three comedies of all time. Another great pick, thank you for the review. My wife is a millennial with very little history background, and she loves this movie Also, it's my favorite Kubrick movie. I think the Shining and Full Metal Jacket are stronger visually, but this is the far better movie
@@jizzfreeficus it’s satire. if you can’t grasp what it is they’re making fun of, then you’re going to miss out on what is ‘funny’. it’s not the usual slapstick comedy with obvious jokes
Good vid, except I so very strongly disagree with your opinion of a "happy ending". This movie is a warning, and that type of typical Hollywood ending would have wasted the significant opportunity to hit us over the head with the danger we all really do face. It clobbers the viewer into realizing this really can happen, and the hope is that this masterpiece can accomplish that.
Thanks for reviewing, I love this film (and yes, I was born in the '60's). I do think it is Kubrick's masterpiece if nothing else other than Peter Sellers amazing performances. It has a lot going for it - great use of satire, well written, good pacing, excellent acting, beautifully shot (although still in that cold Kubrick way) and unfortunately still relevant. I've watched this film over and over again and never tire of it.
Kubrick and the set designer Ken Adams had to show the US government where they got the interior designs of the B-52 because it was classified. It was some good guessing apparently.
With the "Cold War"/nuclear war annihilation, as a back drop theme for my childhood ( my father worked at Rocketdyne, in Neosho, Mo. where they built and test fired the Atlas rocket engines for ICBM's ) , "Dr. Strangelove" movie fascinated me. Growing up in the 1950's & 60's at school, Boy Scouts, TV, movies, Mad magazines, etc. all had reminders we lived under a nuclear war nightmare that at anytime could become a harsh reality that would make Nagasaki & Hiroshima look like a sneak preview of the main event. Today that harsh reality is even more present and possible. May God have mercy on us and our children. ( I posted this at another "Strangelove" commentary video )
I seem to remember that Peter Sellers said that he was supposed to play another character in the movie but told Stanley Kubrick he couldn’t, I think it was Slim Pickens character that was the one Sellers was also asked to play….. however I think Slim nailed it for his character and his final scene….!
Kubrick's inescapable point is there is no way out of the arms race. He's obviously telling us that we are doomed. That is why the movie, even though a satire, is still terrifying today. Man has never failed to wage war with the latest and greatest weapons. The phrase "only one life to give for my country," is the fatal one in all human history.
Before I saw this film, I knew about the War Room line (one of the best lines in cinema history) I knew Dr. Strangelove was a former nazi and I knew about the infamous riding the bomb yahoo yahoo scene. The film was a bit different than I expected but I could still 'read' the film the way I had intended, and that it is a showcase of the madness that consumes the men whi have to make the decision of setting of these nuclear weapons and how these mass destructions will break the sanity of any human. We can't handle the act of killing that many people in just a push of the button.
The fact that there is NO positive "feel good" way out of the MAD is THE strength of this movie - When Kubrick first started work on the screenplay, his original intention was to "play it straight" But he quickly realised that the MAD policy that supposedly existed between the US and the Soviets was complete lunacy and could only be played as a black humour satirical farce - All it needed was one loose screw and that loose screw portayed so brilliantly by Sterling Hayden was the Jack D Ripper character, who was in turn based on a real life **** general, Curtis Lemay - Lemay at one point seriously wanted to nuke 200 Russian Cities !! - Even on the Manhatten Project the scientists and military were not certain that there would not be a 100% certainty that exploding their bomb could cause a chain reaction that would in all probability blow up the world - They were only 80% sure that it wouldn't, leaving a 20% possibility that it could - But they went ahead with it anyway !! - So who is nuts ?? - Jack D Ripper, Curtis Lemay or the Manhatten Project crazies ?? - That is why this film is both hilarious and terrifying and brilliant - Because it COULD still happen...
I think you miss the point when you say that there needs to be an alternative to the realist or cynical inevitable conclusion of the film. That is the whole point. The movie is in equal measure a comedy and a tragedy. And if your recall the classical definition of a tragedy, that regardless of the actions of its participants the story will end in sadness, this is a case in point. Regardless of the best intentions of everyone (including Gen. Ripper) a nuclear annihilation is inevitable. Since this is realistic, the movie's insistence on the inevitable end without providing an alternative is what makes it poignant and true to our world.
I get that. And yet, no artist has come along with great solutions to present horrors. That is what I am wanting, and yes, I do wish more of Kubrick. He wasn't the person for that, which is fine.
There are so many GREAT scenes in this movie. Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden and Slim Pickens (for the bomb ride alone!) were simply hilarious. To me it is the best comedy ever made. Nothing even comes close to it.
This movie does an excellent job showing how rare soul and empathy is, and how as a result individuals and countries will do most anything in the name of nationalism.
There is no way to change or reform when you are hardwired into the military industrial complex, which is which by it remains in place decades after this. Kubrick was correct. If there was a way out Spielberg would have remade Dr Strangelove. A masterpiece from a maker of several masterpieces.
B-52 crews, then, and still today, do not have the luxury of being able to ruminate over whether they should drop the "big one" or not. They are trained to react, when directed, to bomb their targets. (A former B-52 pilot.)
@@LearningaboutMovies Being able to reflect on whether you should or should not drop a thermal nucler bomb that will likely kill millions of people IS a "luxury". A "luxury" that B-52 crews have neither the inclination or time to indulge in.
It is best to view Dr. Strangelove in contrast to Fail Safe - both released in 1964 with similar plots (subject of a lawsuit) both brilliant, one deadly serious and the other a brilliant parody. If you have not seen Fail Safe, watch it and then consider a re-take.
It’s crucial that people realize that it’s a comedy before going in. Some seem to be unsure whether they should be laughing or not, at least at the first half of the film.
There are many cold conflicts between countries that are armed. We're all hoping that rationality and the desire to be rich/free via trade will stave off the use of nukes. But, yes, it is a silent looming threat.
Another fantastic review. Thanks. The way in which the rationality (and morality) of human behaviour is distorted by their place in irrational structures, is exactly right, I think. The lack of a clear solution doesn’t bother me. Perhaps the only way out of a game you cannot win, is to stop playing? Still very relevant if a US President can ask ‘what’s the point having all these weapons if we never use them?’
1964, and the movie has revealed that, though the technology has changed, the Russians have not changed in 60 years, and the Americans have only softened. That alone makes it a historically valuable movie. Then add the demonstrated perils of the nuclear age, the insightful monologues, and the timeless common sense (and Georve C. Scott's performance), and you have 'great'.
it's true, and I really hate that it is true. Can't believe what I read yesterday regarding American political pundits floating the idea of "limited nuclear war."
I think it offers no alternative or solution because the film believes we are basically already in too deep. With all of these bombs on the earth there is no solution
yes, we know the movie depicts the imaginings of war-gamer planners, who thought they were being defensive and thoroughly preparatory. But when their imagined world is given to ordinary people, ala this movie, it does look insane. You could say that is one strong purpose of this movie, and a good one.
Always suggest this one to the movie reviewers on UA-cam. “We” got one couple to do A Clockwork Orange, so I am guessing Dr Strangelove will soon follow!
I think Kubrick not proposing an answer to critique is way more mature and responsible, there isn’t a rational proposal to correct individual rationality. We would have to exist in a hive mind to prevent that which is unattainable and would create its on issues if possible.
The lack of concrete endings in Kubrick films is the whole point. It’s postmodern. There is no answer, there is no absolute truth. This is where we’re heading and there is no way to solve it. I think that’s his point
As an international relations student, i can say that this is one of the lighter, more cynical way, to learn about international relations. At least on subjects about cold war era politics
I haven’t watched this film, but I am a big fan of Peter Sellers. Wish he hadn’t been taken from us so soon. Died 14 years before I was born, so much wasted potential.
The alternative is to accept the doomsday device and plan to come out first to reclaim control. "Animals can be raised and slaughtered". This is the king of black comedies in my opinion
@@LearningaboutMovies Then the question is who do you trust? Putin? Biden? the Chinese dictator? the Indian PM? and now countries like Iran that want their own nuclear weapons?
I just saw thet movie for thet first time. Could someone explain a few things about it (mostly the ending)? I'm not trolling , I genuinely interested in understanding it. I didn' get why the last plane couldn't be stopped either with the code which was transmitted successfully, or shot down like the others? So then the bomb goes down and then the doomsday bomb is activated and the world is ending. Then the people in the last seconds of their lives discuss some sort of a fantasy plan, which I guess is meant to be ironic since the world is already ending? what is the russian doing in the end scene? some posts I read said he is activating the doomsday device himself, others say he had another spy camera, but since the world is ending, whats the point? or is that suppose to be another ironic sentiment? why is the movie called dr. Strangelove? the character gets very little screen time (mostly at the end)? I guess he is the one who is delivering the last joky narrative at the end of the movie, but I don't get why the whole movie is named after him. Also, why is the alternate title how i learned to love the bomb? and who is the "I" in the sentence? I did like the cinematic aspect of the film and the acting is great too but many people say its the funniest movie ever made, etc. and I'm still trying to figure it all out. Any help is greatly appreciated. 🙏🙏🙏.
This movie is so much deeper than the arms race. It’s about male ego. Men that feel sexually inadequate hawk for war. Conservative men in particular. Potentially closeted gay conservative men even more particularly.
Allegedly Kubrick had planned to make a straight drama about nuclear war, but quickly realised just how silly the whole thing was. A couple of the things you highlight as comedic devices were 100% true to post war US military - The slogan of Strategic Air Command *was* "Peace is Our Profession", war planners *did* coin and casually thrown around the term "megadeaths".
I believe it. that book that Buck Turgeson holds is real (iirc) or based on a real book, which I remember discussing in a college class on nuclear deterrence.
Dr Strangelove is still the best movie ever made. I disagree with the host's only criticism of juvenality. This was a statement of the truth of Mans status in the cosmic order. Nothing Kubrick did was by accident, everything was intentional. And further than that, Kubrick has been proven correct with the passage of time. What has changed since the films release to the wurld? We are held ransom to the same forces of oppression from the same people who are the oppressors. The films statement of poisoning the water is correct. The water is poisoned today, along with the food, the Sky, even the sky has been poisoned by Chemtrails daily for 15 yrs now, & Spiritually Juvenal Man, ignores these truths as though the Titanic is going to be safe because its a large vessel. Kubrick used Satire & ridicule of the oppressors themselves as the only weapon to be used in urging the sleeping populace to realize the truth & cease to man the machines of destruction provided by those offering bread & water instead of complete cosmic expansion.
as a description of reality, the film is superb. As a prescription of reality, which all films are to some degree, it does not offer a way out or hope. that is my point in the video.
What gets lost is the dangerous insanity of "groupthink'. The scenes in the War room illustrate how the main objective can get lost while "intelligent" men discuss superfluous nonsense as if it were the most important thing. The bombs will begin to drop very soon and all they can get their minds around is not letting the Soviets get a "mine shaft gap"? "10 to 20 million killed, tops. Depending on the breaks." The only person in the movie who can grasp the horrible enormity of it all is Colonel Mandrake and no one is listening to him. I was in high school in the late '60s and they made the whole student body watch it in the school auditorium.
Watch Peter Bull. The Soviet Ambassador. He resists the urge to laugh at Sellers manic Dr Strangelove. A an old friend of Sellers. He just keeps a straight face.
I recall watching this movie when it came out in 1964, and have watched it again recently. Perhaps the lapse of time and the different social milieu from today made me remember the film as being better than it actually was. The context of the cold war, the anti-bomb protest movements and the Vietnam conflict- wrapped up in the military-industrial complex- provided a strong focus for the film’s clever satire, taken up by later directors of films such as Catch-22. The eponymous Dr Strangelove’s comical mimicking of Nazi-recruited NASA scientists and his promise of selective post-nuclear survival would now be described as a “great reset”- and as a figure- his contemporary counterpart might be found by anti-globalists in the form of the Teutonic Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum. Tapping into the theme provided by cold war spy genres - notably Ian Fleming’s Dr No- Kubrick’s film provided a sober and relevant reminder of the dangers of miscalculations and folly that could unleash nuclear war. But it also provided a simpler though no less deadly scenario for international conflict in what was then a bipolar world dominated by USA and Russia, without the complexity and subversion of contemporary cyberwar ( including social media manipulation and identity politics aggression) and international terrorism. What continues to appeal are the film's stylistic qualities: the closeups of the characters, the unhurried ironic monologues and the general absence of intrusive deafening incidental music that dominates many movies today. However, it is very much infused with the 1960s zeitgeist, and by today's standards, the film seems to me to be disingenuous and puerile in places due to its sexual allusions to phallic objects ( the aerial refuelling in the opening credits); and its sexist references to Colonel Turgidson’s scantily-clad mistress whose token likeness reappears in the bomber crew’s Playboy centerfold. In this satire, when you add Dr Strangelove’s assurance of harems of 10 women to every man, the perverse consequences of nuclear war do not seem so bad after all, at least for the surviving studs. But in 2021, times have obviously changed and the film raises an implicit question: would this satire with its gender roles and underlying themes of sexuality be permissible today in view of constraints of political correctness and feminism? I doubt it. But it was never intended to be updated as part of a serial franchise like the Bond films which in later iterations saw the new boss, M, cast as a female figure who on one occasion reproached Bond ( played by Pierce Brosnan, I recall) as a sexist cold war relic. Ouch. Time to grow up- or so the Bond producers would have us believe.
I don’t think Kubrick is offering a solution because there is no solution to nuclear proliferation. Like what alternative is he gonna offer? I think any notion that nuclear powers would ever give up their weapons would be childish, hence why Kubrick didn’t explore a solution.
You can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!
yes!
@@LearningaboutMovies I'm glad you liked that, and if not so many young people are not watching, it is a shame, as it has so many quotable lines in it! That and the idea of a doomsday weapon the Soviets keep secret because...it's a secret?! I can see why the president was irritated, LOL. Just a fun film to watch over and over, to the point my two teens are into it now.
He'll see the big board!!!
@@williamcurry4606 dw i’m in my early 20s and I love Kubrick’s films and watching analysis videos on them, always trying to learn! I hope you believe the younger generation can make a difference ❤️
I will definitely watch it this weekend thanks 👍
"Peace Is Our Profession" was the real, actual motto of SAC (Stratgic Air Command). It was created by SAC's first commander, General Curtin LeMay.
I was going to point that out. You said it perfectly. Former SAC Boom Operator here.
Of course the better motto is "Peace through Strength" Roosevelt and Reagan implicitly understood that.
"Peace is our profession. War is only a hobby." This was the secret motto among enlisted men in SAC. I say secret because if the brass ever heard you say it, you might end up immediately transferred to Burpleson Air Force Base!
LeMay was a maniac. Leaving aside his firebombing campaign against Japan (which at least was after the last US declaration of war) he pressured JFK to bomb Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis - which would have led to a nuclear holocaust in the United States.
Although his name was "Curtis", Perhaps for a whole lot of people ,would say Curtains might be more accurate.😜
ok, disagree that this movie was simply mocking or had no ideas to solve it. Its like the ultimate hactivist product. Like hactivists which try to break into computer systems to show those system owners that it is possible and to force them to fix it, this movie really stuck it to the military industrial complex saying that they needed to fix their systems as well - and really hammered the point home that we only get one chance at this, that one 'single slip-up' is enough to doom us all.
As a result, the government in the US (and probably other governments) really took it to heart. They changed their codes for launch from 000000, instituted tight controls on who could fire them (lower level echelon commanders), instituted dual key and triple key systems, etc. etc. etc We may have survived intact because of this movie, full stop. So Kubrick really did a big public service here by making it.
good point, thank you.
"This is it, boys? Nuc'lr combat toe to to with the rooskies!!"
The first view it’s a war drama, next view it’s some perverse view of politics, the third view it’s a comedy and by the fourth view it’s the funniest movie ever made. This movie has aged better than any. Kubrick got the best movie in every genre. Guy is a god in film. No one touches him
Just watched this yesterday. As a gen z film watcher this is my 2nd favorite Kubrick behind Eyes Wide Shut.
excellent, thank you.
There are many deep themes in the movie, that go beyond mere satire, and are still relevant in 2024. To list just a few:
The absurdity of war and deterrence strategies
Technological determinism and loss of human control over systems
Leadership, agency and bureaucratic failure
Human fallibility and irrationality
Nihilism and existential powerlessness
Masculinity and power dynamics
Ethical implications of survival and eugenics
And ultimately, fragility of modern civilization
This movie and Fail Safe should be a double feature to show the thoughts of people in the 50s and 60s. Both movies are about the same thing but take very different approaches. Both came out the year I was born and I never really understood the attitudes from the time, these really put it into perspective.
Question for discussion: as a double feature, in what order would you present these two movies?
@@jimslancio If you really want the most impact, I would say Strangelove and then Failsafe, ending without laughs will do that. Although either order is good viewing.
For pure comedy gold, there is another double. Enter The Dragon and the sub-movie of Kentucky Fried Movie called A Fist Full Of Yen. If you watch Fist first you will laugh and be someone confused but laugh uncontrollably at Enter. Watching Enter first you won't laugh but you might piss yourself laughing watching Fist.
Love this movie. I wish more modern/younger audiences were aware of it. The story may seem dated or irrelevant now, but the themes are timeless.
While Paths of Glory is probably my favorite Kubrick movie, Dr Strangelove is definitely a close 2nd. (I will admit that 2001 is probably his best movie, it’s just not my favorite).
I agree.
Everyone forgets Barry Lyndon.
Imo a clockwork orange is his best but he really only makes good movies everything he puts out I’m a fan of
@@NoahSpurrier it’s a great movie. I saw it twice in a week and while long, was very goid
Nothing, and I mean no movie ever, in the history of movies, is as good as Dr Strangelove... None... Full Metal Jacket is a good second place...
I watch it twice a year on CD and watched it in the cinema 60 years ago as it made me feel "safe," and not be in so much "fear" of nuclear war because of the satirical nature of the topic by Kubrick. The film made people "lighten up" about atomic war and "the bomb!"
Peter Sellers a great comedian - he had a really good grasp of the absurd. Sterling Hayden is a favourite actor - so good and a good man who saw through Hollywood - 'The Killing'.
yes!
@@LearningaboutMovies The film supposedly had the effect of the USA and Russians initiating even stronger failsafe mechanisms than those already in place.
Probably my all-time favorite film.
excellent!
Yes same here
This is one of my favorite movies. It's amazing to think that this came out at the height of the Cold War and really highlighted how absurd it all was.
and still is. all that Russia-fear in the US recently was psy-ops stupidity.
@@LearningaboutMovies dont even get me started on all the "RussiaGate" nonsense from the Trump administration. At this point, it borders on conspiracy theory that people believe to be true despite the findings of the Mueller Report.
@@mrrrl795 Don't forget the dodgy MI5 involvement from us in the UK.
@@alanwatson4249 and that shady company from Ukraine. Ever wonder why the us gives a rats rear end about Ukraine? It’s where all the corrupt us officials do their dirty work.
My dad was US Navy. Sub hunter patrol squadron during the Cold War. I'm a millennial but knowing what was going on not to long ago makes me still care.
Holden, Scott, Sellers,Sellers,Sellers! Wow! you’ll never see a triumphant like that again! And that’s 5 characters. The levels of impressive that this movie is are insurmountable
This is in the conversation when I think of my favorite movies of all time, and it's definitely one of my top three comedies of all time. Another great pick, thank you for the review. My wife is a millennial with very little history background, and she loves this movie
Also, it's my favorite Kubrick movie. I think the Shining and Full Metal Jacket are stronger visually, but this is the far better movie
you're welcome.
Yeah, this is one of Kubrick’s weakest looking films. But still a masterpiece
What is funny about it? I just watched it and I chuckled maybe once.
@@jizzfreeficus it’s satire. if you can’t grasp what it is they’re making fun of, then you’re going to miss out on what is ‘funny’. it’s not the usual slapstick comedy with obvious jokes
Good vid, except I so very strongly disagree with your opinion of a "happy ending". This movie is a warning, and that type of typical Hollywood ending would have wasted the significant opportunity to hit us over the head with the danger we all really do face. It clobbers the viewer into realizing this really can happen, and the hope is that this masterpiece can accomplish that.
thank you
Thanks for reviewing, I love this film (and yes, I was born in the '60's). I do think it is Kubrick's masterpiece if nothing else other than Peter Sellers amazing performances. It has a lot going for it - great use of satire, well written, good pacing, excellent acting, beautifully shot (although still in that cold Kubrick way) and unfortunately still relevant. I've watched this film over and over again and never tire of it.
you're welcome.
I am absolutely flabbergasted, NOBODY noticed the FIRST on screen appearance of James Earl Jones??? My god, how could you miss that voice???
Yes. It`s a masterpiece! It should be seen today by every person. To see the insanity we live in today. Peace on earth!
I was born in 1986 and it's one of my favorite movies
I just watched it a couple of days ago for the one thousandth time on YT. Free with ads. Great movie.
'Peace Is Our Profession' was the motto of SAC(Strategic Air Command).
Kubrick and the set designer Ken Adams had to show the US government where they got the interior designs of the B-52 because it was classified. It was some good guessing apparently.
This movie is even more relevant now than then...
This movie is on my 10 best movies list of all time. Sellers is a genius.
Slim Pickens character Major Kong comes across as a hayseed, but he is a very good pilot and knows his way around a B52.
He played it straight, not knowing that the film would be a black comedy.
This is a masterpiece. An absolutely perfect film.
I grew up at Offutt AFB lol. Dad was a 28 year USAF Chief Master Sgt. I love the movie. I thought of it when I went to Nuclear Warfare School.
With the "Cold War"/nuclear war annihilation, as a back drop theme for my childhood ( my father worked at Rocketdyne, in Neosho, Mo. where they built and test fired the Atlas rocket engines for ICBM's ) , "Dr. Strangelove" movie fascinated me. Growing up in the 1950's & 60's at school, Boy Scouts, TV, movies, Mad magazines, etc. all had reminders we lived under a nuclear war nightmare that at anytime could become a harsh reality that would make Nagasaki & Hiroshima look like a sneak preview of the main event. Today that harsh reality is even more present and possible. May God have mercy on us and our children. ( I posted this at another "Strangelove" commentary video )
thank you.
I seem to remember that Peter Sellers said that he was supposed to play another character in the movie but told Stanley Kubrick he couldn’t, I think it was Slim Pickens character that was the one Sellers was also asked to play….. however I think Slim nailed it for his character and his final scene….!
Kubrick's inescapable point is there is no way out of the arms race. He's obviously telling us that we are doomed. That is why the movie, even though a satire, is still terrifying today. Man has never failed to wage war with the latest and greatest weapons. The phrase "only one life to give for my country," is the fatal one in all human history.
Before I saw this film, I knew about the War Room line (one of the best lines in cinema history) I knew Dr. Strangelove was a former nazi and I knew about the infamous riding the bomb yahoo yahoo scene. The film was a bit different than I expected but I could still 'read' the film the way I had intended, and that it is a showcase of the madness that consumes the men whi have to make the decision of setting of these nuclear weapons and how these mass destructions will break the sanity of any human. We can't handle the act of killing that many people in just a push of the button.
To me, Barry Lyndon is his masterpiece.
The Shining
The fact that there is NO positive "feel good" way out of the MAD is THE strength of this movie - When Kubrick first started work on the screenplay, his original intention was to "play it straight" But he quickly realised that the MAD policy that supposedly existed between the US and the Soviets was complete lunacy and could only be played as a black humour satirical farce - All it needed was one loose screw and that loose screw portayed so brilliantly by Sterling Hayden was the Jack D Ripper character, who was in turn based on a real life **** general, Curtis Lemay - Lemay at one point seriously wanted to nuke 200 Russian Cities !! -
Even on the Manhatten Project the scientists and military were not certain that there would not be a 100% certainty that exploding their bomb could cause a chain reaction that would in all probability blow up the world - They were only 80% sure that it wouldn't, leaving a 20% possibility that it could - But they went ahead with it anyway !! - So who is nuts ?? - Jack D Ripper, Curtis Lemay or the Manhatten Project crazies ?? - That is why this film is both hilarious and terrifying and brilliant - Because it COULD still happen...
"Hell, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas (Dallas) with all that stuff!"
I think you miss the point when you say that there needs to be an alternative to the realist or cynical inevitable conclusion of the film. That is the whole point. The movie is in equal measure a comedy and a tragedy. And if your recall the classical definition of a tragedy, that regardless of the actions of its participants the story will end in sadness, this is a case in point. Regardless of the best intentions of everyone (including Gen. Ripper) a nuclear annihilation is inevitable. Since this is realistic, the movie's insistence on the inevitable end without providing an alternative is what makes it poignant and true to our world.
I get that. And yet, no artist has come along with great solutions to present horrors. That is what I am wanting, and yes, I do wish more of Kubrick. He wasn't the person for that, which is fine.
There are so many GREAT scenes in this movie. Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden and Slim Pickens (for the bomb ride alone!) were simply hilarious. To me it is the best comedy ever made. Nothing even comes close to it.
One of my favorite moments is where the general asks if it's a "kraut" name, and the reply gives a German translation of "strange love."
by looking ongoing situation of the russia and ukarine this movie totally relevant now
This movie does an excellent job showing how rare soul and empathy is, and how as a result individuals and countries will do most anything in the name of nationalism.
We must not allow a mineshaft gap!!.🤩🤩
Not even a gap gap!
One of my favorite movies of all time
There is no way to change or reform when you are hardwired into the military industrial complex, which is which by it remains in place decades after this. Kubrick was correct. If there was a way out Spielberg would have remade Dr Strangelove.
A masterpiece from a maker of several masterpieces.
thank you.
B-52 crews, then, and still today, do not have the luxury of being able to ruminate over whether they should drop the "big one" or not. They are trained to react, when directed, to bomb their targets. (A former B-52 pilot.)
interesting to use the word "luxury" when we are talking about planetary apocalypse.
@@LearningaboutMovies Being able to reflect on whether you should or should not drop a thermal nucler bomb that will likely kill millions of people IS a "luxury". A "luxury" that B-52 crews have neither the inclination or time to indulge in.
One of the best movies ever made in my opinion. Sheer brilliance in black comedy.
By not providing the solution you think it lacks, the film success to make you think.
Going to see the play version of it tomorrow... Steve Coogan is doijg the Peter Sellers roles.
I saw the play this week - outstanding!
The movie is a Kubric master work! I love it!
It is best to view Dr. Strangelove in contrast to Fail Safe - both released in 1964 with similar plots (subject of a lawsuit) both brilliant, one deadly serious and the other a brilliant parody. If you have not seen Fail Safe, watch it and then consider a re-take.
It’s crucial that people realize that it’s a comedy before going in. Some seem to be unsure whether they should be laughing or not, at least at the first half of the film.
What makes it great? "It would not be difficult mein fuhrer!"
I watched this as a sophomore and definitely something still to worry about, they just don’t speak about it openly
There are many cold conflicts between countries that are armed. We're all hoping that rationality and the desire to be rich/free via trade will stave off the use of nukes. But, yes, it is a silent looming threat.
After Putin gave the N-threat, this movie becomes more relevant than ever.
yes, and very unfortunate that this is among the most relevant movies. surely Kubrick would wish that that weren't the case.
I watched this movie yesterday for the second time and it was even better than the first. Easily my favorite Kubrick for sure.
Another fantastic review. Thanks. The way in which the rationality (and morality) of human behaviour is distorted by their place in irrational structures, is exactly right, I think. The lack of a clear solution doesn’t bother me. Perhaps the only way out of a game you cannot win, is to stop playing? Still very relevant if a US President can ask ‘what’s the point having all these weapons if we never use them?’
thank you. yes, if they are still around, the likelihood is that they will be used.
1964, and the movie has revealed that, though the technology has changed, the Russians have not changed in 60 years, and the Americans have only softened. That alone makes it a historically valuable movie. Then add the demonstrated perils of the nuclear age, the insightful monologues, and the timeless common sense (and Georve C. Scott's performance), and you have 'great'.
yes..it's getting more relevant today
it's true, and I really hate that it is true. Can't believe what I read yesterday regarding American political pundits floating the idea of "limited nuclear war."
I think it offers no alternative or solution because the film believes we are basically already in too deep. With all of these bombs on the earth there is no solution
Read Daniel Ellsberg’s “Doomsday Machine-Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner” . He says it was more like a documentary.
yes, we know the movie depicts the imaginings of war-gamer planners, who thought they were being defensive and thoroughly preparatory. But when their imagined world is given to ordinary people, ala this movie, it does look insane. You could say that is one strong purpose of this movie, and a good one.
I read that many of the characters the movie portrayed where contemporary politicians serving office at the time it was released.
yeah, Curtis LeMay is the George C Scott character. He's worth looking up and reading about.
Always suggest this one to the movie reviewers on UA-cam. “We” got one couple to do A Clockwork Orange, so I am guessing Dr Strangelove will soon follow!
thanks. perhaps I will tackle Clockwork Orange one day.
Our bodily fluids are pleased by this movie
Recently just saw “Don’t Look Up” on Netflix… I immediately thought of this movie.
I’m sorry too Dimitri.
I think Kubrick not proposing an answer to critique is way more mature and responsible, there isn’t a rational proposal to correct individual rationality. We would have to exist in a hive mind to prevent that which is unattainable and would create its on issues if possible.
Who's here after UA-cam made it free this week!?
Great review
thank you.
not his masterwork, but one of the best films ever :) so basically Kubrick is one of the GOATS
you wont believe me but ive watched this movie with my 7 year old brother and he loved it!( i explained the notion on movie)
The lack of concrete endings in Kubrick films is the whole point. It’s postmodern. There is no answer, there is no absolute truth. This is where we’re heading and there is no way to solve it. I think that’s his point
George C Scott walked so that Tim Robinson can run
Unfortunately still relevent, perhaps will be relevant till the end. And I love this movie, an absolute masterpiece.
As an international relations student, i can say that this is one of the lighter, more cynical way, to learn about international relations. At least on subjects about cold war era politics
I haven’t watched this film, but I am a big fan of Peter Sellers. Wish he hadn’t been taken from us so soon. Died 14 years before I was born, so much wasted potential.
I think we should care about this movie now more than ever.
This goes so well with Fallout lol
Dr. Strangelove is the spiritual successor to Oppenheimer ^
Master work and still revelent
I'd say it's pretty damn relevant now wouldn't you
yes
The alternative is to accept the doomsday device and plan to come out first to reclaim control. "Animals can be raised and slaughtered". This is the king of black comedies in my opinion
or you could agree to get rid of them.
@@LearningaboutMovies Then the question is who do you trust? Putin? Biden? the Chinese dictator? the Indian PM? and now countries like Iran that want their own nuclear weapons?
This movie is relevant as ever. You have all sides practically begging the US to fight in this war.
I just saw thet movie for thet first time. Could someone explain a few things about it (mostly the ending)? I'm not trolling , I genuinely interested in understanding it. I didn' get why the last plane couldn't be stopped either with the code which was transmitted successfully, or shot down like the others? So then the bomb goes down and then the doomsday bomb is activated and the world is ending. Then the people in the last seconds of their lives discuss some sort of a fantasy plan, which I guess is meant to be ironic since the world is already ending? what is the russian doing in the end scene? some posts I read said he is activating the doomsday device himself, others say he had another spy camera, but since the world is ending, whats the point? or is that suppose to be another ironic sentiment? why is the movie called dr. Strangelove? the character gets very little screen time (mostly at the end)? I guess he is the one who is delivering the last joky narrative at the end of the movie, but I don't get why the whole movie is named after him. Also, why is the alternate title how i learned to love the bomb? and who is the "I" in the sentence? I did like the cinematic aspect of the film and the acting is great too but many people say its the funniest movie ever made, etc. and I'm still trying to figure it all out. Any help is greatly appreciated. 🙏🙏🙏.
This movie is so much deeper than the arms race. It’s about male ego. Men that feel sexually inadequate hawk for war. Conservative men in particular. Potentially closeted gay conservative men even more particularly.
does this have a scientific basis?
Before there was Dr Strange there was Dr Strangelove 😂
Allegedly Kubrick had planned to make a straight drama about nuclear war, but quickly realised just how silly the whole thing was. A couple of the things you highlight as comedic devices were 100% true to post war US military - The slogan of Strategic Air Command *was* "Peace is Our Profession", war planners *did* coin and casually thrown around the term "megadeaths".
I believe it. that book that Buck Turgeson holds is real (iirc) or based on a real book, which I remember discussing in a college class on nuclear deterrence.
Definitely a great movie. Definitely.
Dr Strangelove is still the best movie ever made. I disagree with the host's only criticism of juvenality. This was a statement of the truth of Mans status in the cosmic order. Nothing Kubrick did was by accident, everything was intentional. And further than that, Kubrick has been proven correct with the passage of time. What has changed since the films release to the wurld? We are held ransom to the same forces of oppression from the same people who are the oppressors. The films statement of poisoning the water is correct. The water is poisoned today, along with the food, the Sky, even the sky has been poisoned by Chemtrails daily for 15 yrs now, & Spiritually Juvenal Man, ignores these truths as though the Titanic is going to be safe because its a large vessel. Kubrick used Satire & ridicule of the oppressors themselves as the only weapon to be used in urging the sleeping populace to realize the truth & cease to man the machines of destruction provided by those offering bread & water instead of complete cosmic expansion.
as a description of reality, the film is superb. As a prescription of reality, which all films are to some degree, it does not offer a way out or hope. that is my point in the video.
Have you seen 'Catch 22'? A brilliantly funny movie about the military industrial complex.
Have not seen the movie, though have read the book a couple of times. Do they set the movie in WW2?
We are in 2,024 is it changing ??????
What gets lost is the dangerous insanity of "groupthink'. The scenes in the War room illustrate how the main objective can get lost while "intelligent" men discuss superfluous nonsense as if it were the most important thing. The bombs will begin to drop very soon and all they can get their minds around is not letting the Soviets get a "mine shaft gap"? "10 to 20 million killed, tops. Depending on the breaks." The only person in the movie who can grasp the horrible enormity of it all is Colonel Mandrake and no one is listening to him. I was in high school in the late '60s and they made the whole student body watch it in the school auditorium.
"Some men just want to watch the world burn"
Have you ever reviewed the 1963 movie Ladybug Ladybug. It is a frightening cold war film with a shocking final shot.
no, though thanks for the recommendation.
In reality, the ending of this movie was put off for about 60 years.
Why should Kubrick give us an answer ?
Truth beats modern cynicism.
Watch Peter Bull. The Soviet Ambassador. He resists the urge to laugh at Sellers manic Dr Strangelove. A an old friend of Sellers. He just keeps a straight face.
excellent, thank you.
@@LearningaboutMovies Thanks. Graham Stark. PS best mate. Woken midnight. New Ferrari. GS in Pink Panther films. Met him charity auction. Gent. BW.
I recall watching this movie when it came out in 1964, and have watched it again recently. Perhaps the lapse of time and the different social milieu from today made me remember the film as being better than it actually was. The context of the cold war, the anti-bomb protest movements and the Vietnam conflict- wrapped up in the military-industrial complex- provided a strong focus for the film’s clever satire, taken up by later directors of films such as Catch-22. The eponymous Dr Strangelove’s comical mimicking of Nazi-recruited NASA scientists and his promise of selective post-nuclear survival would now be described as a “great reset”- and as a figure- his contemporary counterpart might be found by anti-globalists in the form of the Teutonic Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum. Tapping into the theme provided by cold war spy genres - notably Ian Fleming’s Dr No- Kubrick’s film provided a sober and relevant reminder of the dangers of miscalculations and folly that could unleash nuclear war. But it also provided a simpler though no less deadly scenario for international conflict in what was then a bipolar world dominated by USA and Russia, without the complexity and subversion of contemporary cyberwar ( including social media manipulation and identity politics aggression) and international terrorism. What continues to appeal are the film's stylistic qualities: the closeups of the characters, the unhurried ironic monologues and the general absence of intrusive deafening incidental music that dominates many movies today. However, it is very much infused with the 1960s zeitgeist, and by today's standards, the film seems to me to be disingenuous and puerile in places due to its sexual allusions to phallic objects ( the aerial refuelling in the opening credits); and its sexist references to Colonel Turgidson’s scantily-clad mistress whose token likeness reappears in the bomber crew’s Playboy centerfold. In this satire, when you add Dr Strangelove’s assurance of harems of 10 women to every man, the perverse consequences of nuclear war do not seem so bad after all, at least for the surviving studs. But in 2021, times have obviously changed and the film raises an implicit question: would this satire with its gender roles and underlying themes of sexuality be permissible today in view of constraints of political correctness and feminism? I doubt it. But it was never intended to be updated as part of a serial franchise like the Bond films which in later iterations saw the new boss, M, cast as a female figure who on one occasion reproached Bond ( played by Pierce Brosnan, I recall) as a sexist cold war relic. Ouch. Time to grow up- or so the Bond producers would have us believe.
thank you. It's not as permissible, though certain people could get away with it.
anybody else find the weapons specialist to be a little suspicious?
I don’t think Kubrick is offering a solution because there is no solution to nuclear proliferation. Like what alternative is he gonna offer? I think any notion that nuclear powers would ever give up their weapons would be childish, hence why Kubrick didn’t explore a solution.
It should be best movie of all time. I think Citizen Kane is behind Strangelove.