war | Tanya's Astro Blog

1964 – Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

It’s a political black comedy satire co-written, produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick. It is loosely based on the novel Red Alert by Peter George. It stars mainly Peter Sellers in three roles: Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley and the titular Dr. Strangelove. Its story deals with trying to contain the damage by an US general going rogue and ordering a preemtive nuclear attack on the Soviets without knowing that this will set off a doomsday device killing all life on Earth. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

During my PhD studies, I completed them mostly in the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. While our little unsecured corner of the lab dealing with astronomy had little to do with atomic bombs, it was nevertheless a daily surreal experience. Together with my bright red foreigner badge, I had to carry around a little Geiger counter to make sure I wasn’t contaminated by nuclear waste. Similarly, we were constantly monitored on our online activity, our cars were randomly searched, we had to carry out bi-annual security trainings and right until I left in 2008, it was forbidden to have a phone with a camera on site. The site was also weirder than our sister Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, since our founding director was mainly the “crazy” and ostracized Edward Teller (the father of the hydrogen bomb) rather than the more nuanced Ernest Lawrence, even though both laboratories are named after the latter.

Everybody in the lab knew that Dr. Strangelove was a mixture of Wernher von Braun, but especially Edward Teller. His extreme stance in support of ever bigger and more powerful nuclear weapons and later of Star Wars was legend around the lab. When I was applying to work at the lab and was being background checked, one of his last speeches basically boiled down to: “Let’s bomb the islamists out of existence after September 11th!”. The town of Livermore embodied this strange discord – cowboys, nerds, military and hippies all living next to each other. By the time I finally began working at the lab (right around Teller’s death, hehe), I justified my joining with the fact that actual nuclear testing was banned (only simulations) and that the National Ignition Facility run by the lab could one day solve the energy crisis. Still, the movie and its message were always present at the lab, its satirical message serving as a reminder that maybe we were the baddies. I had to chuckle when my summer student named her research summary: “Quasar searches or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the Bob!” (Bob was my advisor’s name).

It is then ironic when I tell you that I had not seen the movie before. I knew so many of the jokes (“no fighting in the war room!”), so many of the images and yet I had never seen the whole thing. So now I finally sat down and watched the whole thing, rather quickly since it’s only 95 minutes long. Already the opening credits, which I didn’t know had me laughing, since the fuelling of a plane mid-air was presented so phallically.

So, what can I say? Brilliant! The phone calls between the American president Muffley and his Russian counterpart, Dimitri are the sweetest and funniest: “I’m sorry too, Dimitri. I’m very sorry. All right, you’re sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are Dimitri, don’t say that you’re more sorry than I am because I’m capable of being just as sorry as you are! So we’re both sorry, alright?”. The motivation of the general (Jack Ripper, haha) to start the attack because he’s convinced that the Russians are contaminating the water via fluoridation sounds very similar to arguments you hear today against vaccinations, so the movie is as prescient as ever – we often have some truly crazy people at the top. And yet, I can’t give it full marks, but only because I knew so much of it. It’s as if you listen to a story about the Holocaust; the first time you learn of it, it’s shocking. But by the 7th Holocaust Oscar Bait movie, you might roll your eyes just a tiny bit. So nothing against this satire, I have heard all and even better jokes criticizing the nuclear arms race at the lab already.

1957 – Paths of Glory

It’s an American anti-war film, directed by Stanley Kubrick when he was just 28 years old (wow). The screenplay he co-wrote with Calder Willingham and Jim Thompson is adapted from the 1935 novel of the same name, which in turn is based on the true Souain corporals affair that happened during WWI. The film mainly stars Kirk Douglas as Colonel Dax, the commanding officer of soldiers who refuse to continue to act out a suicide attack. I watched it on YouTube (free in Germany) here.

Is it even possible to make an anti-war film? That was the question media commentator Broey Deschanel asked herself in this video essay in a reaction to Alex Garland’s Warfare from last year. It’s supposed to be gritty, raw and show war exactly how it is, and in doing so critique its pointlessness. The essay goes on to cite many more examples, e.g. All Quiet on the Western Front or Platoon, but argues that war from the soldier’s point of view always comes with a caveat, with a point of view, there may be deceit on how these soldiers came to war, but never 100% innocence. Only movies like Grave of the Fireflies can truly be anti-war, since they depict the consequences of war on children.

Fair point, but this movie is pretty damning in its critique, especially for an almost 70-year-old movie. When I started watching it, with the typical trench warfare scenes we are accustomed to and which are marvelously depicted in 1917, for example, I thought it was going to be the typical “war is hell” type of story. I wondered why the prologue with the two generals was there in the beginning, it didn’t seem anti-war at all.

But then around a third of the movie in, it dawns on you that it’s not about the horrible trench fighting at all, but an indictment of the rulers at the top. They treat battles like pieces on a board, casualties are rattled off as percentages to be moved around – all before they go back to their civilized parties and gatherings. If some inconvenience is discovered it gets buried under legalese or the offended party gets bought off with a promotion. All the while the simple soldier is just fodder, where your fate is decided by the (un)luck of the draw quite literally.

I liked this movie so much. So quiet in its portrayal of injustice, yet so adept at simply showing it. Add to that an amazing battle scene, where a part of a company is seen storming onto the barbed wire battlefield, most soldiers knowing it is a suicide mission, a mistake, with the chances of success slim at best. The desperation of the three soldiers, who are chosen for all the wrong reasons to take the fall for the blunder of the general is also shocking to see. That Kubrick guy has a bright future ahead of him, but even this, his first so-called masterpiece is really that!

Add to that the nagging discomfort that it is based on true events – a French general really did order his artillery to fire on his own trenches after demoralized soldiers refused to leave them and he ordered the execution of seemingly random soldiers of the company resulting in the death by firing squad of four of them (in the movie it’s three). Only 2 hours later would their sentences have been commuted and 19 years later they were fully exonerated. The whole ordeal changed the way military courts were held in France. And this movie was banned in Switzerland and France until the 70s. It shows you how even 40 years later, the establishment would rather get rid of uncomfortable situations than address the mistakes made by the senior commanders and upper class rulers.

So is it a truly 100% anti-war film as the thesis above proclaimed there aren’t any? No, it valorizes the soldier too much to be truly that, but it’s quite effective otherwise and in that I commend it!