Four years before he made what’s commonly regarded as the best science fiction movie of all time and sixteen years before he made what’s commonly regarded as the best horror film of all time, Stanley Kubrick made what’s commonly regarded as the best comedy of all time.

Now we should all be a little jealous of how talented this dude is, but beyond that, we could also argue that out of the three genres, this one presents the biggest challenge.

2001 will be renowned for how awe-inspiring it is, and The Shining will be renowned for how scary it is; however, those qualities aren’t quite as challenging as comedy is. 

Comedy is hard to nail, not just because having the laughs come together is so difficult–you have to have a funny script with funny actors with an editor versed in comedic timing–but because it’s so damn subjective. People have different yums and yucks here, and what’s hilarious to one person, might be dumb or pretentious to someone else. Go too specific, and a lot of people might not get it; go too broad, and a lot of people might find it too obvious.

Add on top of that, Kubrick is doing satire here, a form notoriously difficult because it’s commenting on something in a clever way and also trying not to alienate the audience.

Yet, because he’s a damn genius, Kubrick does this. So let’s all ride the atom bomb of analysis down as we look at 1964’s Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb written and directed by Stanley Kubrick.

The message is everything

I always look at a film’s message, as I think it’s one of the most important aspects of any film. But in satire, it’s especially crucial. The message of the film is what’s being satirized; therefore, all of the film’s comedy depends on it.

And in the case of Dr. Strangelove, the message is “human nature and advanced technology are a dangerous combination.”

If we want to be more specific, we can say “men and advanced weaponry are dangerous,” but however we phrase it, the message is clear.

The world ends, which is probably the bleakest outcome possible–especially for a comedy. And it ends because the people with power within the film are enemy-focused, paranoid, impulsive and willing to take dangerous risks. Combine these terrible human qualities with weapons of mass mass destruction, and you get what seems like could be the inevitable conclusion of the world going bye-bye.

This sounds like it could be a very serious movie, and it was originally intended to be, but Kubrick finds the macabre humor in how silly it all is. Evidenced by lines like “there’s no fighting in the war room” and Dr. Strangelove’s war with his hand, Kubrick really points out the irony of how humanity’s sophistication is at war with its carnal desires.

It’s no mistake that Jack Ripper is so obsessed with bodily fluids or Buck Turginson talks to his lover like she’s a rocket or Slim Pickins very phalically rides a bomb down to world destruction. These are all men operating with caveman instincts but also with the tools of an incredibly advanced society. And there’s something inherently funny about that.

Satire 101

As anyone who’s attempted satire will tell you: it’s not easy.

There’s a recent film that tries its hand at it and I can tell it wants so badly to be Dr. Strangelove, but it can’t quite pull it off (don’t look up what that movie might be–better not to know). When these movies attempt it, they’re using doing something wrong, and doing something wrong in satire really stands out.

Dr. Strangelove, though, is like a masterclass in how to do it right. Here are what I believe are the main takeaways from it on how to do satire correctly.

Find truth

First and foremost, satire must be looking at a real issue out in the world. So far so good, as even a lot of bad satires do this correctly.

In the case of Dr. Strangelove, this truth is how potentially dangerous war can be (especially with the way the systems are set up), and how devastating our weapons can be. 

But the next part of this is that it must look at this truth as honestly as possible. You can’t just try to force characters to behave in certain ways to prove some sort of point, there has to be a sense of reality there.

As over the top as some of these characters might be, we really get a sense of where they’re coming from. Ripper and Turginson and the Russian ambassador might be exaggerations, but they are also still like people and have real world counterparts. Even Dr. Strangelove, the most over the top character, draws from real life.

Be evenhanded

The problem I see in a lot of satire, is they tend to paint only one group of people as ridiculous and, in a preachy way, makes them the sole bad guys. This might do something for the audience who hates that “ridiculous bad guy” group, but the film will be either preaching to the choir or falling on deaf ears.

Dr. Strangelove does not do this. It makes fun of all things and people equally, fairly noting how the blame of this situation resides in them all. The film satires communism (with the Doomsday Device), nazism (with Strangelove’s evil hand and his eugenics plan) and American Exceptionalism (with the generals putting US success over the lives of humanity). 

President Merkin and Colonel Mandrake might be the most reasonable characters, but they’re not free from satire either, as multiple failures could be blamed on their passivity and how they’re steamrolled by Dimitry and Ripper respectively.

The pilots in the B-52 are great at their job and they succeed, with the victorious tune of “Johnny’ Comes Marching Home” forever playing in the background, but their skills, success and complicity in blindly following orders results in the world blowing up

No matter what your politics are, you can’t really feel like the film is coming after you.

Don’t be holier than thou

Related to the above, one of the worst things you can do as a satirist is come at the audience with a holier than thou attitude. This is a surefire way to get an audience to give you the finger in return and not listen to a word that you say.

Kubrick does not do this. He never comes off like he thinks he’s so much better than his characters. 

By not pointing fingers and scolding, he shows that he’s part of the same crazy world that they are in. How he avoids this is by not making the characters too cartoony and not making them evil.

Ripper is doing a terrible thing, but you can tell that he believes he’s doing the right thing (he truly believes he knows better than the president). The Russians make a terrible contraption that harms everyone, but they believe that a deterrent like that is the best solution. Slim Pickens and crew believe they’re being heroes. Bat Guana doesn’t want to damage private property or go against Coca-Cola. Dr. Strangelove struggles to not let his evil hand take over.

Kubrick, to some degree, honors and cares about all his characters. He leaves the audience to do the scolding if they choose to scold anything, and this, in turn, allows for this to be an effective film instead of a sermon.

Is this movie bleak? Without a doubt. The world blows up.

But the satire does something magical to it: it makes us laugh at the bleakness.

As a big believer in the importance of laughter and being able to bring humor to even the worst things and things we don’t want to look at, I feel this film is doing something important.

When we laugh at something, we’re able to step outside of it. And when we step outside of it, we’re able to get a fresh perspective. And when we get a fresh perspective, we might be able to make some changes.

So, I do feel there’s a lot of positivity within this film. No one is evil in it, they’re just doing things through faulty perspectives. And because this movie is so fair and does such a good job of not alienating people, it has potential to do that trick.

And who knows! Maybe it worked. Afterall, we haven’t blown ourselves up…yet.

We’ll meet again.

Thanks for reading!

Check out our streaming service: https://www.cideshow.com/subscribe/

You can also follow us on Twitter and Instagram.