Anyway, with that thought in mind, I figured the best way for me to go about doing this would be to pick out certain parts of the article that I really felt strongly about as well as certain aspects of the film which maybe the article mentioned but did not go into as deeply as it possible could have. The first part of the article that I would like to bring attention to would be located on the third page, basically the last two paragraphs, but here it is for those who do not wish to click back:
According to Geoffrey Hodgson, the ideology contained two cornerstone assumptions: that the structure of American society was basically sound, and that Communism was a clear danger to the survival of the United States and its allies. From these two beliefs evolved a widely accepted view of America. That view argued its position in roughly this fashion: the American economic system has developed, softening the inequities and brutalities of an earlier capitalism, becoming more democratic, and offering abundance to a wider portion of the population than ever before. The key to both democracy and abundance is production and technological advance; economic growth provides the opportunity to meet social needs, to defuse class conflict, and to bring blue-collar workers into the middle class. Social problems are thus less explosive and can be solved rationally. It is necessary only to locate each problem, design a program to attack it, and provide the experts and technological know-how necessary to solve the problem. The only threat to this domestic harmony, the argument continued, is the specter of Communism. The "Free World," led by the United States, must brace itself for a long struggle against Communism and willingly support a strong defense system, for power is the only language that the Communists can understand. If America accepts this responsibility to fight Communism, while also proclaiming the virtues of American economic, social, and political democracy to the rest of the world, the country will remain strong and sound. Hodgson sums up the paradigm well when he writes: "Confident to the verge of complacency about the perfectibility of American society, anxious to the point of paranoia about the threat of Communism-those were the two faces of the consensus mood."
I thought that these two paragraphs really deserved a second glance chiefly because of what it says about "designing a program to attack problems". the language used here is equally as interesting as the content, with words like "attack" and "design" the latter hinting at a technological aspect of society to be coupled with its "democracy and abundance" while "attack" associates directly to violence, something that, at least in my mind, the democratic stability mentioned here should be trying to avoid. My thoughts after reading this section boil down to the idea that ruling a group or even the masses with a fear based agenda is one of the easiest things to accomplish. Hodgson is saying that the two most important things to us Americans is democracy and abundance, taken a step further, production and technological advance, which is more plainly, Capitalism. The best way to "sell" (no pun intended) Capitalism to us then would be to pit something directly against it, something that is alien and already scary to Americans, that something of course being Communism. so basically we are sold on Capitalism out of our fear of Communism, and then further perpetuated by Capitalism out of that same, seemingly endless fear. What this all has to do with the movie Dr. Strangelove of course is much more simple than any of this, because what this film does is take that fear and turn it on its nose so that us the viewers can see that this fear is a "design" and that the people who designed it such are likely as pathetic individuals as President Muffley is portrayed as being.
Moving on, page 12 of the article mentions the survival kit that the soldiers on-board the B-52 go through prior to bombing their target. Other than this part of the movie being one of the more humorous scenes, I felt much more was being said. While the article talks of it's humor lying in the idea that the survival kit being useless simply because of the fact that they were unintentionally going to nuke themselves, I couldn't help but think of all of the useless junk that was being marketed to Americans at the time. These things being the fallout shelters, or the nuclear radiation proof suit that the kid in Atomic Cafe was wearing while riding his bike, or even as it says on page 4 of the article, the cure for radiation sickness being hot tea and baking soda. So maybe the message here was supposed to be that if the government was going to issue gum and cigarettes to their troops as part of a survival kit, how useful would the things that they provide the population with be if useful at all?
So anyway, like I said before, after reading the article, it was difficult for me to give significant interpretation on my own, but regardless, great movie, I'll probably be watching it again in the next hour or so. What do you guys think? Hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend!
-Nic
I really enjoyed your focus on the survival kit. Your capitalist reading on this movie made me think about how these symbols reflected the capitalist system. Perhaps the objects in the survival kit represented what capitalism is found upon. The fact that these objects were included show the influence of industry on politics and the ceaseless advertisement for what we "need" to buy such as gum, which in actuality we don't need. So this could be capitalism's survival kit, which you alluded to. I agree, I feel like the sarcasm in this film makes its message very accessible. Its a fun watch but hard to create an interesting interpretation.
ReplyDeleteEven if the B-52 crew somehow survived and crash landed in Russia that survival kit would have gotten them nowhere fast. The movie made mention that a small amount of gold was located in the kit as a means of currency. They would have been hunted down like dogs and those survival kits wouldn't have allowed them a safe return to the states. The movie demonstrated American military men as paranoid anti-communists that had reached almost complete insanity. The segment from the reading that you included in your blog mentions that people in society felt comfortable with how America had been running up to the time and that paranoia stemmed by communism was then a major threat. The movie and the reading depicts militaristic figures such as General Ripper talking about communist plots against our country such as the fluoridation of water. He argues that this communist scheme was started in 1946 the same year in which a worldwide communist conspiracy toom place. This theory that fluoridation was a soviet plot against the united states is completely crazy, but also one of the factors that sets the general off on this individual crusade against russia. General Turgidson's character is also very paranoid when it comes to communists as he wrestles the russian premier down for his camera. He is dumbfounded over the fact that the president has allowed a russian into the sacred war room, exposing american intelligence. He even suggest that it would be wise to launch a complete offensive against russia instead of recalling the planes, eliminating the threat of communism all together. These anti-communist sentiments and the overwhelming amount of paranoia shared by these men reflects the communist effect of americans at the time. The movie was great, best film of the class so far!
ReplyDeleteI very much enjoyed this film as well. It was great to see a comic interpretation of the Cold War and make light of the hysteria. The scene with the survival kit was one of my favorites and I very much agree with your interpretation of it. I didn't realize when watching that it could mocking consumerism but it makes perfect sense with what was found within the survival kit.
ReplyDeleteIt was also cool to see a Stanley Kubrick comedy. The only one to my knowledge. I've seen Full Metal Jacket, The Shining and A Clockwork Orange. All great films and all vastly different from Dr. Strangelove. Sorry for this lame comment. I'm not really creating an argument or adding to the analysis of the film. All I can say is that I enjoyed the film and I agree with everyone's observations.
The survival kit seems to be a memorable clip of the movie, and I agree with the idea that it portrays consumerism that you guys have pointed out. A second interpretation is that the items found in the kit are geared more towards mental survival and pleasure. Gum and ciggarettes? Clearly these items will not aid in expanding the life of the holder, but what they can do is provide a more enjoyable last moment of life for whoever is so unfortunate as to crash land into a communist driven country such as russia. The items in the kit seem to communicate a feeling of lost hope. Communism is so unstoppable that you are given gum and smokes in defense of it.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think you did a pretty good job of synthesizing the reading with your watching, Nic. You teased out the major themes nicely, and touched on Kubrick's satirical intent.
ReplyDeleteThe ensuing discussion is also interesting, and I like how you are reading each other. I think the survival kit was supposed to be satirical partly because it contained things like lipstick and stockings--things you'd give a woman during wartime that you'd just hooked up with, as if crash-landing was some kind of shore leave. And it's not even so much that the men would be hounded down. They would be, and were, dead, because that's pretty much what nuclear war does--there wouldn't be any survival to use the kit for---we know that, but the dutiful soldiers don't.