Filmmakers often use apocalyptic end-of-the-world themes to draw in audiences. If the world isn’t being destroyed by aliens, Thanos isn’t zapping half of the universe’s population into non-existence. Filmmakers are ending civilization under mushroom clouds.
Fail-Safe is a terrific nuke movie. Although many think Dr. Strangelove was a parody of Fail-Safe, both premiered in 1964, with Dr. Strangelove being released first. Both are on my list of favorite movies. George C. Scott as General Buck Turgidson, explaining how we could win if we just hit the commies first, is a pretty funny scene. In the clip below, Turgidson is explaining that, if the pilot is good, the bomber will get through commie defenses.
It’s a dark comedy that offers the same conclusion as Fail-Safe. There are no winners in a nuclear exchange. Planet of the Apes ends with the iconic image of the Statue of Liberty buried in rock and sand. We blew ourselves up.
In Wargames, “WOPR” learns, just in time, that a nuclear war is like tic-tac-toe – there’s no winner. “Best not play”.
In other words, nuclear war is bad. Very bad.
At White Sands, once the test was successful, Oppenheimer reasoned that he was the “destroyer of worlds.” At the time, America was a nuclear party of one. We were the good guys, so there was little reason to worry about the world being destroyed. A communist spy changed that. The Soviets joined the party, and the Cold War was on. There are now nine countries with nuclear weapons. Are any of those nine willing to use them? In a first strike scenario, it is highly unlikely. The U.S. wouldn’t. Maybe North Korea would, but that would end the Hermit King and his kingdom.
By the beginning of Eisenhower’s presidency, a nuclear exchange was a theoretical possibility. Unlikely, but possible. Eisenhower believed that owning lots of nukes and the threat of using them would be enough of a deterrence. Mutually Assured Destruction. He also reasoned that a drawdown on conventional weapons and manpower was logical because the threat of a nuclear exchange would render the thought of war untenable and unwinnable.
Nuclear winter scenarios are fodder for writers and filmmakers, but are we on the precipice of a nuclear war? The simple answer is, No. Nonetheless, filmmakers are still making movies with “end of the world” themes. The latest iteration is called “House of Dynamite”.
Kathryn Bigelow, once married to James Cameron, directed the film. A real corker of an idea – the world is on the edge of nuclear war. Apparently, a bad-actor nation (they think it is North Korea) has launched an ICBM, and it is headed for Chicago. I haven’t a clue how “we” know the trajectory, but don’t know the launch origin of the ICBM. One reviewer praised Bigelow for her groundbreaking use of personal backstories of characters and the film’s “realism”. Pro tip: Fail Safe did that 60 years ago.
Bigelow wants us to know that we need to de-nuke the world before it’s too late. Well, that’s another original thought, Kathryn. No one has thought of that before. She hopes her film will be a tipping point toward disarmament. With her blessing, nations will start rolling their stockpiles to dumpsters in her perfect world.
“Hope against hope, maybe we will reduce the nuclear stockpile someday,” she added, “but in the meantime, we are really living in a house of dynamite.”
“We need to be much more informed, and that would be my greatest hope — that we actually initiate a conversation about nuclear weapons and non-proliferation in a more perfect world.”
Stunning. Bigelow sounds like a contestant in a beauty pageant. Her film will inform the world that nukes are bad. Very bad, and we need to de-nuke because, like, nukes are bad. Very bad. She wants world peace. Thanks, Miss California.
The film debuted at the Venice Film Festival. Bigelow’s movie received an 11-minute standing ovation. Who gets an 11-minute standing ovation? Kim Jong Un and Kathryn Bigelow. Her crew of actors clasped their hands and bowed, soaking in the adulation.
Angel Reese, the WNBA’s star bricklayer, makes a cameo appearance in the film. Idris Elba, a black British actor, plays the American President. A few months ago, Elba suggested that if the UK would just take the pointy points off knives, knife crime would be reduced. Shaving down the point on a kitchen knife, like “toddler-proofing” a coffee table, is some next-level silliness. But he plays the ever-wise US President.
Bigelow added:
“The film is an invitation to decide what to do about all these weapons. How is annihilating the world a good defensive measure?”
Well, it’s not the annihilating part, it’s the threat part. If you hit me, I’ll annihilate you. Maybe I’ll get an Oscar nomination for that clarification. Perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize.
She also added:
[S]he was motivated by a desire to “get that information out there.”
Breaking news, Bigelow: You aren’t breaking news. News of nukes has been “out there” for 80 years.
Until the Mullahs in Iran and the Hermit King and commie countries suddenly decide that nukes are not in their best interest, the West cannot and will not disarm. In fact, the only safeguard against nuclear blackmail is the West holding onto its nuclear stockpiles.
Cast members said that after watching themselves on film, they “couldn’t sleep for a week”. Does anyone think that Idris Elba could describe the difference between a tactical nuke and a strategic nuke? I kind of doubt it. But he knows a paring knife is pointy and should be banned.
The film seems to track the new Hollywood guidelines on diversity. The US President is a black British man. Check. The Situation Room has a woman officer in charge. Check. She’s a 40-year-old Captain, running the Situation Room Communications? A Captain at 40? Never mind.
Who plays the required gay character remains a mystery. We have to wait to see. It opens in the UK in early October. General release is a few weeks later, on Netflix.
The Doomsday Clock is ticking. Can the world wait?
