This is an iconic scene from the 1964 black comedy Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
The film was made as a satire about the fear surrounding nuclear warfare, and particularly about the theory of mutually assured destruction (the idea that actually using a nuclear bomb would result in both the attacker and the defender being annihilated).
In the film, an out-of-his-mind American general orders a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. The president and his advisers and other top military officials then work frantically to recall the planes, especially after they learn the Soviet Union has a "doomsday device," which will launch 50 nuclear bombs if they are attacked. They manage to find all the planes but one, the one in the clip, which does successfully launch their bomb and essentially ends the world as we know it. Itt doesn't sound funny written out like that, but it's so over-the-top that I promise it is. (The American Film Institute voted it the third funniest movie in the first 100 years of film).
With Dr. Strangelove and our readings as background, I wanted to point out the way people grapple with technical revolution in fiction, especially through humor. I think Dr. Strangelove,"The Calorie Man," and Infinity indicate three separate ways to process technological revolution in fiction:
- 1. To satirize,
- 2. To predict, or
- 3. To ignore.
As described above, Dr. Strangelove takes a very serious and then-contemporary topic (destruction via nuclear warfare) and takes it to its extreme, making it absurd. The viewer is able to see how ridiculous engaging in nuclear warfare would be, and a clear path forward emerges. However, there is also a danger that the viewers will say to themselves, "Wow, that's ridiculous" and not take any action at all.
In "The Calorie Man," the author gives a Christmas Carol-like prediction: "See our path? This highly unpleasant thing could happen in our future if we don't change our ways." Again, the reader is able to see their path forward: do something about environmental degradation and corporate agriculture or we face a dire future. The danger here is that readers will take a speculative prediction as a direct prescription and decide that nothing can be done.
Infinity is set against the backdrop of the Manhattan Project, and it doesn't really care. The film is firmly about Richard Feynman and Arline Greenbaum and everything else is secondary. Though Infinity was made long after nuclear warfare was revolutionary and was not making a political point, in its decision to show but not analyze the Manhattan Project, the film does make a statement about nuclear warfare. It tells the viewer to focus on something else, and deal with the bigger issues another time. The danger here is that, if applied to a more current issue, this technique may downplay the issue at hand to a dangerous extent.
I'll close with a quote, because I can't discuss Dr. Strangelove without it: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
Dr. Strangelove is such a great movie. I like your analysis of the three different approaches taken by these different stories. You mention the worry that, for various reasons, people won't take actions against these incredible and very real threats to billions of lives, but I wonder what actions you are afraid they won't take. To put it another way, what actions do you think people should be taking?
ReplyDeleteDo you know about the plowshare movements? The name comes from Isaiah 2:4 - "And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." - and is repeated in both Joel and Micah. It is a Christian pacifist movement that's been operating for decades advocating nuclear disarmament and participating in nonviolent actions against nuclear weapons stockpiles to raise awareness.
Currently they are campaigning against the US Trident ballistic-missile (SSBN) submarines. They believe it is illegal and immoral that we have submarines patrolling the world, each carrying up to 24 missiles, with each missile able to hold eight 100 to 455 kiloton nuclear warheads (the Hiroshima bomb was 16 kilotons), allowing for a nuclear strike anywhere in the planet in less than 15 minutes.
I'd be interested in your take on the group and if this sort of action is the kind that you would support, and if not, what you think an appropriate level of action would consist of.
I too will leave with a Strangelove quote:
"The doomsday machine? What is that?
A device which will destroy all human and animal life on earth...The doomsday machine is designed to to trigger itself automatically.
But this is absolute madness, ambassador. Why should you build such a thing?"
I think when I wrote the post, I was thinking more from the perspective of the filmmaker (i.e. what does the filmmaker want to the audience to do and how effective will their method be?) I'm not 100% sure what I think people should do, but your question is so interesting, I'm inclined to look into it.
DeleteFor me, the whole issue comes down to taking responsibility, for both the immediate action and the long-term consequences. As an off-topic example of this, a person who votes to de-fund a welfare program should actively support and fund non-governmental alternatives to the program, which will support those who relied on it.
In the context of nuclear weapons, I think the bare minimum is giving serious attention to mitigating effects from these weapons. Optimally, this sort of cost-benefit analysis would lead people to say, "Actually, I don't want to be responsible for these long-term consequences. Let's not build/use nuclear weapons."
I hadn't heard of the plowshare movement, so I looked it up. I like a lot of what they're saying, but I'm uncomfortable with some of their actions, especially their vandalism. I know it's a non-violent methodology and all, but I can't imagine ever feeling good about breaking into Oak Ridge and pouring blood around.