Analysis of the Film Dr. Strangelove - Essay Example

In this essay I analyze the movie based on the various points of criticism that it faced. Mockery of nuclear warfare and its seriousness When analyzing a film it is important to take into account the content and the period, which brought the idea about. Despite strong criticism than Stanley Kubrick made a mockery out of nuclear warfare and over simplified the entire process of war and the politics of it. It is hard to ignore that the political climate at the time leaned dangerously towards the concept of “accidental war” which was the crux of Peter George’s novel.

Though the actual scenario is far from the truth and not a possibility the concept did create doubts in the minds of people. America at the time of the release was going through conflicting times and the people were divided in their opinion of the Government policies. President Kennedy was in the process of signing a treaty with the Soviet Union premier Nikita Khrushchev that called for the ban of atmospheric nuclear testing. It may be an obsolete thought now, but in 1964, the imagery, however, lighthearted of a power hungry Brigadier general who actually made a war happen seemed convincing.

Was the issue of an imminent nuclear war really a laughing matter for Stanley Kubrick? I do not think so. One major factor that I will attribute to all of his films is the amount of research and thought that he put into the art of filmmaking. Stanley Kubrick was in no way in the industry for want of nothing better to do. His movies have always made an impact on people and had a clear-cut message to send across. The film was the result of an in-depth analysis of the nuclear war and its danger.

He put this strong message across very effectively with the use of satire and his excellent casting. Peter sellers gave a stellar performance in all of his 3 roles as Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, President Mirkin Muffley and, the paraplegic scientist Dr. Strangelove himself. Sterling Hayden, George C Scott and Slim Pickens played the roles of General Jack D. Ripper, General Turgidson and the crazily lunatic power hungry Major Kong respectively, to perfection. Simplistic approach to a complex situation.

There is nothing simple about the movie. The only thing that can be considered simplistic is the analysis hinted at. The movie blatantly points out that military and political powers used war as a tool to give vent to their personal repressions, very obviously hinting towards how men with sexual tensions in their personal life tend to use war as a tool to show their manliness. In this respect the film itself offers no solution to the situation. It is not clear whether Kubrick set out to expose the current climate or propose any solution to it.

It was a very subjective and biased analysis of the nations’ foreign policies. If Kubrick’s intention was just to ridicule the situation and expose the callousness in which the powers treated the matter, he more than succeeded. And he did so by taking quite a few liberties and creative licenses. A classic example is the scene where the President intervenes in the scuffle between the Soviet ambassador and General Turgidson by saying "Gentlemen, no fighting in the War Room!” A classic attempt at fantastic comedy tinged with irony earmarked the concept behind the movie.

It markedly pointed towards the unthinking and extremely detached view in which people in power viewed war as a whole. The movie no doubt is a gross exaggeration