Edward Zwicks Blood Diamond and Stanley Kubricks Dr. Strangelove - Movie Review Example

Comparative Critic on Films Introduction Film making is one of the genres of creative art which thespians use to comment on current issues in the society. Due to this connection to real life events, many American movie scripts deal with storylines about conflict and war, a true reflection of the country’s participation in major world conflicts. Examples of such films include Edward Zwick’s Blood Diamond and Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. The two directors use different styles to comment on the same issues concerning the US and its participation in armed conflicts. They are used as platforms for political commentary on the issues of concern in the US’s relationship with other countries and its role as the world’s superpower. Blood Diamond is a 2006 story of the Civil War of Sierra Leone, which happened form the year 1991 to 2002. The plot centres on the activities rebels like the Revolutionary United Front, who have forcefully taken control of large sections of the country and are terrorizing locals. They actually enslave many of them and mete out other forms of atrocities such as forced labour in harvesting diamonds, which are the main motivation of the war (DeRouen 117). For example, local fisherman named Solomon Vandy is abducted and forced to work under a ruthless warlord named Captain Poison. His experience makes the viewer understand the physical and emotional pains locals underwent under the rebels. However, the most critical part of the plot is the role of influential foreigners in the war. It is clear that locals are just pawns in the conflict, but those who control the activities of both the rebels and the Sierra Leone government are powerful white men with business interests. Therefore, the film offers a good critic on the roles of foreign nationals and their governments in fanning civil wars across the world. Similarly, Dr. Strangelove by Stanley Kubrick is a 1964 film that offers a good critic on the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. It tells the story of a US commander, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, is leading one faction of the army and has issued a command for a nuclear attack on The Soviet Union. The superiors, including the President, make frantic efforts to stop the attack, but communication has been jammed and the planes are on their way. The suspense of the viewer is intensified when it emerges that should the strike happen, the entire world risks destruction. The film offers a critic on the way governments have made the world a dangerous place by fanning conflicts, manufacturing nuclear weapons and the continuous threats to use them against their perceived enemies. This portrayal is similar to the argument advanced by Bostrom & Kovic (1) when they state that powerful word governments are to blame for the threats humanity faces currently. Thus, one can clearly classify this film as a good piece of criticism against the role of governments in making the world more dangerous. Both films have a high political leaning, and while they may lay claim to being works of fiction, there are many factual details in the plot. One can actually argue that they were meant to comment on the real events surrounding the conflicts that they highlight, which explains why they feature these conflicts in their plots and use real names to refer to them. The war in Sierra Leone and the cold war are real events that have happened in history, and in the case of the cold war, the countries named in the film, the US and the Soviet Union, are the actual ones who played the greatest role in the war. Also, by picking some of the most well known conflicts, the writers seek to establish a link between the films and the real world events. The writers of both films want to show that powerful governments and internal conflicts between political players of these countries are responsible for the declining world peace. Tobe (164) argues that modern films are a reflection of real life events, and that some of them are true stories retold with a little emphasis on certain aspects that they wish to highlight or comment on. Thus, the film writers successfully show how governments contribute to the cold war and in the Sierra Leone war, and the drastic effects of these conflicts on human life. However, the roles of governments in the conflicts in the two films differ significantly. In Dr. Strangelove, it is the governments which are active antagonists and they are the main source of danger to not only their citizens, but the whole world. The main motivation seems to be just a satisfaction of egos, with both the US and the Soviet Union seeking to establish itself as the superpower of the world and seeing the other as the main obstacle in this endeavour. One aspect worth noting is that there are many individuals in the government of the US and even the army who are against the use of nuclear weapons, but their views are brushed aside or ignored in the interest of the government. For example, it is the President, Merkin Muffley who works hardest to avert the nuclear strike and even warns the Russians that an attack is impending. But there is a group which sees this as an opportunity to deal with the Soviets once and for all, and they are the group presented as very dangerous in the movie. Bostrom & Kovic (3) allude to the same fact when they state that governments are hostage to hardliners who make it difficult to make peace with other nations. Therefore, it can be said that this film criticizes the role played by powerful yet reckless individuals in destabilizing the world. However, in Blood Diamond, individual tycoons and international businessmen are braver and open about their greed and intention to grab both power and wealth from the poor Africans. Danny Archer is a white gun seller who fuels the conflict both for the diamonds and the market for his guns. There are many other foreigners playing an active role by sponsoring rebels or buying the diamonds from the fighters. The diamonds end up in the western countries and the merchants earn high returns from them. The criticism comes in when these western governments fail to put restrictions against the selling of diamonds sourced from war and failing to do anything physically to stop the war, thus being guilty both by commission and omission. Gberie (159) states that the powerful countries of the world demonstrated total lack of interest in the Sierra Leone war and were aware that the diamonds were ending up in their countries. Therefore, with all the resources and power, the governments of the world are guilty of standing by as thousands of people suffered or were killed for the diamonds. This film has offered a detailed critic on this complicit inactivity by these governments. Therefore, both films have successfully offered a thought – provoking critic of the ways in which western countries and their citizens are complicit in the conflicts taking place across the world. The use of hyperbole and horrific scenes helps to wake audiences into realizing that there is need for their governments to take steps to help in ending the conflicts. The scenes that show the diamonds ending up in the western market are meant as a message to the citizens of these countries, that they are guilty by their silence and also by buying the diamonds that are sourced from the war zones. Similarly, in Dr. Strangelove, the intention of the writer in showing scenes that show an extremely dangerous world is to make the citizens of those countries, especially those of the US, to realize that they should not feel safe in the supposed power of their nation. Instead, he wants them to realize that the actions of their governments are endangering the lives of everybody. Conclusion Both films are clever political criticisms of the role of governments in making the world unsafe for all people. They make the audience aware that they maybe passively funding conflicts through payment of taxes or purchase of certain products. The writers use powerful imagery and very horrific scenes to make the audience aware of the highly emotive topics. One can conclude that they are clever and accurate portrayals of the ways governments fail in their mandates to make the lives of their citizens better, and instead help in destabilizing many sections of the world. Works Cited Bostrom, Nick & Cirkovic M. Milan. Global Catastrophic Risks. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=X5jdMyJKNL4C&pg=PT453&dq=films+governments+to+blame+for+nuclear+risk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC0PXqg9beAhVhwosKHfzgD5gQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=films%20governments%20to%20blame%20for%20nuclear%20risk&f=false DeRouen, Karl D. An Introduction to Civil Wars. London: SAGE, 2014. https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=mtg5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&dq=diamonds+main+motivation+for+war&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7iJuU-tXeAhWQt4sKHfMVAwMQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=diamonds%20main%20motivation%20for%20war&f=false Gberie, Lansana. A Dirty War in West Africa: The RUF and the Destruction of Sierra Leone. London: C. Hurst & Co, 2005. https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=OeBYQAFPXxsC&pg=PA159&dq=western+governments+faled+to+stop+serria+leone+war&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd_YaQntbeAhXlJ8AKHR2BA6EQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&q=western%20governments%20faled%20to%20stop%20serria%20leone%20war&f=false Tobe, Renee. Film, Architecture and Spatial Imagination. London & New York, NY: Routledge, 2017. https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=CColDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA164&dq=film+a+reflection+of+the+real+world&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2m-WWkdbeAhXKI8AKHfF4De8Q6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=film%20a%20reflection%20of%20the%20real%20world&f=false Read More