Does Kubrick’s technique of employing dark comedy work? Could he have offered a more poignant criticism of nuclear policy with a serious treatment of the subject, or does the humorous approach appear to work better as a device to make audiences think about the relevant issues?[1]
- Vincent Lowery, “Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Teach the Film in the Classroom.” OAH Magazine of History 16, no. 4 (2002): 32-36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163548.
I think that Kubrick’s use of dark comedy to critique the war is a very effective way of conveying his message. By using such dark satire, Kubrick is able to reveal the folly behind war in an understandable way. Like James said, as the audience we want to laugh, yet the fact that it feels wrong really demonstrates the effectiveness of Kubrick’s method. Using satire helps make the audience realize the true stupidity of war rather than simply showing a gruesome reenactment as we would see in a more realistic war movie. While sympathy invoked by a realistic war movie is somewhat effective in criticizing the war, it is unlikely that the audience would be able to relate to the situations in the movie. However, a deeper sense of guilt can be invoked by employing comedy, as it is much easier for the audience to realize what they are laughing at is wrong. Similarly to Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 critiquing the Vietnam war, the use of comedy to expose the wrongs of war speak largely to the audience as it fosters in the audience a sense of shame. Like Heller, Kubrick wants to make the audience laugh, yet he wants them to feel ashamed while doing so. With fear rampant through society, Kubrick’s employment of dark comedy makes ridiculous the things that are irrational and terrible. Because war is something often viewed from a perspective of moral clarity with the view that America is always on the “right” side of the conflict, it is somewhat audacious that Kubrick would choose to use humor to reveal it’s ludicrous nature. However, I believe this is what makes Dr. Strangelove such a powerful critique of nuclear policy.
The dark comedy Kubrick employs throughout Dr. Strange Love is essential to its message. If the film had been made as a serious representation of the same events, it would have just been another war movie telling the story of brave soldiers acting questionably. Of course this approach is fine, and the film would have communicated the criticism of nuclear policy to the audience, but it would lack the same impact on the audience. It is a very strange feeling, as you watch Dr. Strangle Love, to feel the urge to laugh as such horrible things are happening, such as a terrifying lack of control over such a critical situation and nuclear bombs exploding. I actually found myself wanting to laugh many times, but it just felt wrong to do so. And the feeling I had at those moments is very memorable for me. If this is the same for others, then, rather than feeling dread all the way through like would be felt if the film was serious, the audience is constantly teased with humor, but it simply seems wrong as they are reminded it is no laughing matter. The idea of a cowboy piloting a plane haphazardly can be hilarious. But when the cowboy’s goal is to drop nuclear bombs on another country, it is absolutely terrifying. All the mistakes in this film are part of a web of comic error which is simultaneously suppressed by the awful idea that something similar to this could happen if the right people were in power and just the right mistakes were made. This makes the messages of the film very memorable. Of course, the comedy also makes the crisis seem unnecessary, poking fun at it. This film asks the question, “why should anything like this be something we have to worry about?” the largest criticism of nuclear policy here being that the conflict is completely unnecessary and absolutely thoughtless.