(no subject)
Van Hibbert
American Creativity
Nightmare Comedy
War is serious business. The Cold War in particular was no laughing matter, for the threat of a nuclear apocalypse manifested in widespread panic and paranoia. With the escalation of global conflicts, the film industry rode the wave, and war films were revived in the box office. These films were often dramatic tales of earnest war heroes who sacrificed everything and were ultimately rewarded. These dramas served as propaganda for and against the many wars that were waged between 1950 and 1970. Anti-war films were especially commonplace after the Vietnam War, which left the viewer with horrific images once only reserved for the memories of shell-shocked veterans. There were also directors who saw these horrors, and chose to use humor to express the sheer terror of a world gone mad. After all, isn't laughter a healthy approach when coping with the bleakest aspects of life ? Two fine examples of comedic approaches to the anti-war film genre are Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love the Bomb and Mike Nichols' screen adaptation of Joseph Heller's Catch-22. Despite focusing on different conflicts in separate time periods, these films share a common thread of absurdity, and the inescapable madness of war; as Kubrick himself may have said, they are quintessentially “nightmare comedies”.
The first of the two films, Dr. Strangelove, was officially released in 1964 - a year after the assassination of JFK. American audiences were not prepared for this kind of movie any sooner. The sky was falling, and who wanted to be reminded of the imbecility of military leaders when mourning over the loss of their Commander in Chief? After all, the apocalyptic scenario played out in Kubrick and Terry Souther's screenplay was also happening in reality with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The screenplay went beyond the hypothetical nature of the Peter George novel it was based on, and became hot button satire of current events. In the 1960s, fear of communist conspiracies and brinkmanship between the U.S. And U.S.S.R. was definitely relevant. So not only does the plot of Dr. Strangelove mirror events during the summer of 1962 (“the most dangerous two weeks in history”), wherein miscommunications between world powers creates potential for “guaranteed mutual destruction”, the characters parody military leaders of the time. Ironically, when the film was shown, Colombia Pictures included this disclaimer: “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. Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the characters portrayed in this film are meant to represent any real persons living or dead.” Furthermore, the disclaimer itself is reminiscent of a scene in the film where General Turgidson (played by a cartoonish George C. Scott) claims that the airforce's “Human Reliability Program” would make it impossible for a field commander to exceed his authority, and that he doesn't “think it's quite fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip-up.”
Between General Turgidson's juvenile manner and General Jack Ripper's sexual hang-ups (which influence him in single-handedly provoking nuclear combat with the Soviet Union), it is clear that Kubrick meant make a comment on men and militarism. There is only one female actor in the whole film (Tracy Reed), and she is featured in a playboy centerfold ogled by a distracted B-52 bombardier no less. Three main roles were undertook by the prolific Peter Sellers, whose ability to improvise dialog lead to hilarious retroscripting by Kubrick and Souther. There is a scene where Sellers, as the egg-headed President of the United States, carries on a telephone conversation so expressively that he is the only actor required in the conversational scene. He also plays a stuffy British officer as if it were second-nature to him, and last but not least, excels at his part as the sinister nazi weapons expert who the film is named after. It is now difficult to imagine the scientists behind the hydrogen bomb or the Manhattan project without thinking of a grinning goon in a wheelchair wearing black leather gloves.
Already the story and hysterical characters serve to make Dr. Strangelove a memorable film, but what makes it worthy of being preserved in the National Film Registry must be the sophisticated direction and meticulous set designs, which are synonymous with Stanley Kubrick. Despite working under a tight restrictions, Kubrick was able to produce an aesthetically and technically advanced piece of cinema. He did such thorough research for recreating the insides of the bomber planes that the film crew risked investigation by the FBI. The “War Room” where the President and his Chiefs of Staff hide underground is an equally impressive set, perhaps inspired by German expressionist film. Whereas the battle scenes use an active camera in a gritty documentary style, the scenes at the Pentagon use longer shots, less camera movement, and careful lighting. Kubrick also placed cuts mid-scene to induce suspense. I found that even though a different photographic style was used for each location, the fact that the film is completely black and white ties it together. It takes true artistry to create imagery is so strong as the iconic scenes in Dr. Strangelove.
While Kubrick's take on the absurdity of war mongering was masterfully executed on a small budget, Mike Nichols' anti-war farce, Catch-22, was masterfully executed on a massive budget. The fact that Catch-22 used actual B-25 bombers instead of models contributd to its commentary on war as a tremendous waste of money (those who argue that the film was a waste of money may fail to see the irony of showing a horrendous plane wreck in the distance while two military men in the foreground nonchalantly chat about ways to make profit on the war.) Released almost a decade after Dr. Strangelove, Catch-22 premiered in 1970 to an audience disillusioned by the Vietnam War. Although the film takes place on an airforce base in Italy during World War II, rather than in the heat of the jungle, it is still relevant to the era in which it was made. A sense of panic is pervasive. The central character, Captain Yossarian, knows that the war is crazy (meanwhile, most of America is realizing this about the endless Cold War) and strives to escape. He tries everything from stripping naked to feigning a head injury to end his futile missions, and is hit with convoluted logic: the “catch” is that everyone knows the war is crazy, so if you're sane enough to fake insanity to get out of fighting, it only proves that you are sane, and so you have to keep fighting. There does not seem to be a way out of the madness, which escalates as the story progresses in a non-linear manner. War, according to Catch-22, is a “no-win situation”.
Another driving force of Nichols' film is the frenetic acting, especially the panicked, hollering Alan Arkin as Yossarian. Not unlike Dr. Strangelove, the characters in Catch-22 are played over-the-top and cartoonish. For example, lieutenant Milo Minderbinder, played by Jon Voight, wheels and deals with arrogance. His superiors Catchcart (Martin Balsam) and Dreedle (Orson Welles) care more about their appearance than victory while their men drop like flies or resort to crimes against humanity. The screenplay dialog - derived from Heller's novel with skillful additions - is so absurd on its own that the actors' gesticulations and comedic timing makes those parts laugh-out-loud funny. There are, however, many scenes that are not funny - serious gruesome images spliced between visual puns and sarcastic humor make for disturbing contrast. By 1970, censorship boards had less squeeze on filmmakers, and that's why Nichols' film features graphic dismemberment as well as full frontal nudity, which makes Kubrick's early work seem tame in comparison.
Not only that, there is an absence of standards for American films - virtually no cliches or typical plot structure. Catch-22 could be mistaken for a European film in its non-conventional storytelling. It is nearly a surrealist film, beautifully executed with long well-planned shots. The direction is so clever, and the cinematography so visually pleasing, that it is hard not to watch it as a work of art. Despite the countless explosions, blood, and guts, this is no action flick. I also must make mention of the sound track because it is intensely layered with effects and noise. The blaring sound of the planes overwhelms the talking tracks, emphasizing the unpleasant reality of war machines. At other times, there is no sound at all except for the dialogue, and so the film becomes rich by the absence of noise. The only music used in the film is the military band playing “The Stars and Stripes Forever” in the final scene when Yossarian flees to Sweden for his freedom - the only sane thing to do.
After watching both of these films back-to-back, the most obvious common theme appears to be the instability and immorality of the people who make war. In Dr. Strangelove, the men in charge of dispatching nuclear weapons are either bumbling fools or fanatical reactionaries. The only voice of reason in Kubrick's film is the President, who is nevertheless bland and easily influenced by his nazi advisor. Similarly, in Catch-22, the generals are masochists who like to say, “take him out and shoot him!” and are willing to bomb their own base if it means profit. In both movies, the bombardiers, who follow insane orders with uneasiness, are portrayed more sane than their officers. Neither Dr. Strangelove or Catch-22 glorify the military; in fact, they are equally disparaging and critical of war mongers. The satirical approach to anti-war filmmaking is effective because it encourages the audience to laugh at the human folly involved in war. If more people viewed war as it is portrayed in these two films, there would be little support for foreign invasions or nuclear proliferation. The logic of fighting for peace is as baffling as the catch-22, and the continuation of proxy wars in the 21st century amongst nations capable of mass destruction is as futile as trying to strike first in “noocular combat toe-to-toe with the rooskies”. One last thought: how is it that these films are funny because they're true, and simultaneously terrifying for the same reason?
American Creativity
Nightmare Comedy
War is serious business. The Cold War in particular was no laughing matter, for the threat of a nuclear apocalypse manifested in widespread panic and paranoia. With the escalation of global conflicts, the film industry rode the wave, and war films were revived in the box office. These films were often dramatic tales of earnest war heroes who sacrificed everything and were ultimately rewarded. These dramas served as propaganda for and against the many wars that were waged between 1950 and 1970. Anti-war films were especially commonplace after the Vietnam War, which left the viewer with horrific images once only reserved for the memories of shell-shocked veterans. There were also directors who saw these horrors, and chose to use humor to express the sheer terror of a world gone mad. After all, isn't laughter a healthy approach when coping with the bleakest aspects of life ? Two fine examples of comedic approaches to the anti-war film genre are Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love the Bomb and Mike Nichols' screen adaptation of Joseph Heller's Catch-22. Despite focusing on different conflicts in separate time periods, these films share a common thread of absurdity, and the inescapable madness of war; as Kubrick himself may have said, they are quintessentially “nightmare comedies”.
The first of the two films, Dr. Strangelove, was officially released in 1964 - a year after the assassination of JFK. American audiences were not prepared for this kind of movie any sooner. The sky was falling, and who wanted to be reminded of the imbecility of military leaders when mourning over the loss of their Commander in Chief? After all, the apocalyptic scenario played out in Kubrick and Terry Souther's screenplay was also happening in reality with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The screenplay went beyond the hypothetical nature of the Peter George novel it was based on, and became hot button satire of current events. In the 1960s, fear of communist conspiracies and brinkmanship between the U.S. And U.S.S.R. was definitely relevant. So not only does the plot of Dr. Strangelove mirror events during the summer of 1962 (“the most dangerous two weeks in history”), wherein miscommunications between world powers creates potential for “guaranteed mutual destruction”, the characters parody military leaders of the time. Ironically, when the film was shown, Colombia Pictures included this disclaimer: “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. Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the characters portrayed in this film are meant to represent any real persons living or dead.” Furthermore, the disclaimer itself is reminiscent of a scene in the film where General Turgidson (played by a cartoonish George C. Scott) claims that the airforce's “Human Reliability Program” would make it impossible for a field commander to exceed his authority, and that he doesn't “think it's quite fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip-up.”
Between General Turgidson's juvenile manner and General Jack Ripper's sexual hang-ups (which influence him in single-handedly provoking nuclear combat with the Soviet Union), it is clear that Kubrick meant make a comment on men and militarism. There is only one female actor in the whole film (Tracy Reed), and she is featured in a playboy centerfold ogled by a distracted B-52 bombardier no less. Three main roles were undertook by the prolific Peter Sellers, whose ability to improvise dialog lead to hilarious retroscripting by Kubrick and Souther. There is a scene where Sellers, as the egg-headed President of the United States, carries on a telephone conversation so expressively that he is the only actor required in the conversational scene. He also plays a stuffy British officer as if it were second-nature to him, and last but not least, excels at his part as the sinister nazi weapons expert who the film is named after. It is now difficult to imagine the scientists behind the hydrogen bomb or the Manhattan project without thinking of a grinning goon in a wheelchair wearing black leather gloves.
Already the story and hysterical characters serve to make Dr. Strangelove a memorable film, but what makes it worthy of being preserved in the National Film Registry must be the sophisticated direction and meticulous set designs, which are synonymous with Stanley Kubrick. Despite working under a tight restrictions, Kubrick was able to produce an aesthetically and technically advanced piece of cinema. He did such thorough research for recreating the insides of the bomber planes that the film crew risked investigation by the FBI. The “War Room” where the President and his Chiefs of Staff hide underground is an equally impressive set, perhaps inspired by German expressionist film. Whereas the battle scenes use an active camera in a gritty documentary style, the scenes at the Pentagon use longer shots, less camera movement, and careful lighting. Kubrick also placed cuts mid-scene to induce suspense. I found that even though a different photographic style was used for each location, the fact that the film is completely black and white ties it together. It takes true artistry to create imagery is so strong as the iconic scenes in Dr. Strangelove.
While Kubrick's take on the absurdity of war mongering was masterfully executed on a small budget, Mike Nichols' anti-war farce, Catch-22, was masterfully executed on a massive budget. The fact that Catch-22 used actual B-25 bombers instead of models contributd to its commentary on war as a tremendous waste of money (those who argue that the film was a waste of money may fail to see the irony of showing a horrendous plane wreck in the distance while two military men in the foreground nonchalantly chat about ways to make profit on the war.) Released almost a decade after Dr. Strangelove, Catch-22 premiered in 1970 to an audience disillusioned by the Vietnam War. Although the film takes place on an airforce base in Italy during World War II, rather than in the heat of the jungle, it is still relevant to the era in which it was made. A sense of panic is pervasive. The central character, Captain Yossarian, knows that the war is crazy (meanwhile, most of America is realizing this about the endless Cold War) and strives to escape. He tries everything from stripping naked to feigning a head injury to end his futile missions, and is hit with convoluted logic: the “catch” is that everyone knows the war is crazy, so if you're sane enough to fake insanity to get out of fighting, it only proves that you are sane, and so you have to keep fighting. There does not seem to be a way out of the madness, which escalates as the story progresses in a non-linear manner. War, according to Catch-22, is a “no-win situation”.
Another driving force of Nichols' film is the frenetic acting, especially the panicked, hollering Alan Arkin as Yossarian. Not unlike Dr. Strangelove, the characters in Catch-22 are played over-the-top and cartoonish. For example, lieutenant Milo Minderbinder, played by Jon Voight, wheels and deals with arrogance. His superiors Catchcart (Martin Balsam) and Dreedle (Orson Welles) care more about their appearance than victory while their men drop like flies or resort to crimes against humanity. The screenplay dialog - derived from Heller's novel with skillful additions - is so absurd on its own that the actors' gesticulations and comedic timing makes those parts laugh-out-loud funny. There are, however, many scenes that are not funny - serious gruesome images spliced between visual puns and sarcastic humor make for disturbing contrast. By 1970, censorship boards had less squeeze on filmmakers, and that's why Nichols' film features graphic dismemberment as well as full frontal nudity, which makes Kubrick's early work seem tame in comparison.
Not only that, there is an absence of standards for American films - virtually no cliches or typical plot structure. Catch-22 could be mistaken for a European film in its non-conventional storytelling. It is nearly a surrealist film, beautifully executed with long well-planned shots. The direction is so clever, and the cinematography so visually pleasing, that it is hard not to watch it as a work of art. Despite the countless explosions, blood, and guts, this is no action flick. I also must make mention of the sound track because it is intensely layered with effects and noise. The blaring sound of the planes overwhelms the talking tracks, emphasizing the unpleasant reality of war machines. At other times, there is no sound at all except for the dialogue, and so the film becomes rich by the absence of noise. The only music used in the film is the military band playing “The Stars and Stripes Forever” in the final scene when Yossarian flees to Sweden for his freedom - the only sane thing to do.
After watching both of these films back-to-back, the most obvious common theme appears to be the instability and immorality of the people who make war. In Dr. Strangelove, the men in charge of dispatching nuclear weapons are either bumbling fools or fanatical reactionaries. The only voice of reason in Kubrick's film is the President, who is nevertheless bland and easily influenced by his nazi advisor. Similarly, in Catch-22, the generals are masochists who like to say, “take him out and shoot him!” and are willing to bomb their own base if it means profit. In both movies, the bombardiers, who follow insane orders with uneasiness, are portrayed more sane than their officers. Neither Dr. Strangelove or Catch-22 glorify the military; in fact, they are equally disparaging and critical of war mongers. The satirical approach to anti-war filmmaking is effective because it encourages the audience to laugh at the human folly involved in war. If more people viewed war as it is portrayed in these two films, there would be little support for foreign invasions or nuclear proliferation. The logic of fighting for peace is as baffling as the catch-22, and the continuation of proxy wars in the 21st century amongst nations capable of mass destruction is as futile as trying to strike first in “noocular combat toe-to-toe with the rooskies”. One last thought: how is it that these films are funny because they're true, and simultaneously terrifying for the same reason?