Strangelove–Group 1

Watch “Duck and Cover,” a nine-minute Civil Defense film from the 1950s, embedded below.  How would you compare its treatment of potential nuclear annihilation to the treatment in Strangelove

6 thoughts on “Strangelove–Group 1

  1. Kennedy Coleman

    In my opinion both Dr. Strangelove and “Duck and Cover” are rather ridiculous in their treatment of nuclear annihilation. Both trivialize what could have been a catastrophic event had tensions between the U.S. and the Soviets come to a head. The difference, however, is that Kubrick intended for Dr. Strangelove to be ridiculous whereas “Duck and Cover” appears to have been used as a serious educational tool for children. “Duck and Cover” begins with a silly scene of a turtle using its shell to protect itself from a nuclear bomb explosion which is, dare I say it again, ridiculous. In my opinion, though, the educational film gets even more ridiculous as it transitions away from the silly turtle into the actual advice. The idea that a school desk would protect children from nuclear warfare is asinine. Moreover, the casual treatment of nuclear warfare, as if it were a normal, everyday occurrence that Americans should be mindful of, is also ridiculous. This casual treatment of a horrifying possibility was likely to make an unimaginable yet, at the time, possible event more digestible for small children. I suppose it would not have been helpful for someone to get on screen and yell “YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!” to a group of elementary schoolers.

    Dr. Strangelove parodies this weird casual approach to nuclear warfare with a hilariously un-casual treatment of nuclear annihilation. From beginning to end, the characters in Dr. Strangelove are in a panic; a rather funny panic I might add. The idea presented in Dr. Strangelove of the Cold War boiling down to some deranged Air Force general accidentally clicking a button and unleashing nuclear annihilation is hilarious, and the film plays this joke off well with it’s coupling of a serious situation with dark, slapstick humor. Educational films like “Duck and Cover” were put out by the government to quell people’s fears of nuclear war, a fact that Dr. Strangelove makes fun of. The role of the government being to make people feel better about their impending doom, about the reality of planetary extinction at the hands of nuclear weapons, is so incredibly ridiculous. That said, perhaps Dr. Strangelove is too commenting on the inevitability of planetary extinction.

    Though the films go about it in different ways, I think both works are really exploring the same, depressing principle: the end of the world is inevitable, so stop worrying about it. This gets at the concept of mutually assured destruction which was a huge part of the Cold War and the ultimate end to the Dr. Strangelove. From an accidental airstrike by an insane general to a frantic attempt by the military and the government to undo the mistake, to a ridiculous breeding program to the end of Earth entirely, Dr. Strangelove is basically saying, this is all insane, and we’re all going to die anyway, so why even stress about it?

  2. Nathaniel Klein

    After watching nine minutes of the instructional “Duck and Cover” video, I couldn’t help but laugh. The previous posts explained the utter pointlessness of protecting yourself during an atomic bomb because a small desk is not going to stop a building from crushing you. We can’t protect ourselves from a tornado and an atom bomb the same way. Every scene in the short piece feels absurd because obviously a newspaper is not going to stop radiation poisoning. Clearly the narrator intends to give us a serious and informative story, but the piece reminds me of a video teaching children to recycle. Sure recycling is good for the environment, but the only act which will seriously combat climate change is major legislation to reduce carbon emissions or prioritize clean sources of energy. Ducking is nice, but the only way to stop nuclear bombs from killing everyone is to not build nuclear bombs. There is little the common person can do to stop it.

    However, I think it is important to understand both films within the context of their release. I would argue both achieve a similar goal of comforting the American Public through different means. Duck and cover assures people that by following a relative simple safety precaution, you can prevent the worst of the bomb. It especially speaks to children who may struggle with the confusing socio-political conflicts between Russia and the United States, but can understand the simple rule to duck and cover. To contrast this idea, Dr. Strangelove assures us that the bomb will devastate the world completely, leaving us all to perish in a nuclear wasteland. The satirical nature of the doomsday device points to the relevance of M.A.D which is the real world equivalent. To some Duck and cover reassures us the world will go on. To those that see through the lack of actual protection provided by the task of ducking and covering, Strangelove reassures us, there is nothing to do but sit back, and maybe ride a bomb into the sunset if we have the chance. Both allow us to live life as normally as possible.

  3. Aria Bowden

    Honestly, “Duck and Cover” is rather confusing to me. The video doesn’t actually seem to have the intent of protecting citizens, but making a show of doing so. The people making this video know that cowering behind a wall will not be enough to protect a child from the blast of an atomic bomb. The government is simply trying to ameliorate fear by providing people with educational videos on how to stay safe, meanwhile they know that in the case of actual nuclear war, most action is futile. Similarly to Strangelove, it seems to insinuate that only an elite few know the truth about atomic weaponry and they will be the only ones spared once it is deployed. In Strangelove, the civilians know nothing of the impending doom and play no role at all in the stories. All we see is a circle of elite white men figuring it all out themselves (and doing a terrible job). It is abundantly clear that these men are trying to devise a system in which they will be spared from the consequences of their actions but civilians who have nothing to do with anything will face the destruction. In “Duck and Cover”, all we see are civilians. We see children, teachers, firemen, and parents. Yet, we still get the sense that these civilians truly know nothing about the realities of atomic war, are not involved at all in the threat of it, but will still face the brunt of the consequences. “Duck and Cover” certainly is different than Strangelove in a lot of ways, yet still presents us with some parallels. Another piece I found interesting was the use of Bert the turtle and the rather childish refrain of “Duck and Cover.” I think, if presented in a different light, this video could totally be satire like Stranglove too. There is something comedic about the use of a monkey with dynamite threatening a turtle to teach civilians how to stay safe in case of war. There is massive oversimplification and deceit that goes on in this video that feels rather insidious. Strangelove does this comedically and satirically, but this video takes itself entirely seriously and that is far more disturbing.

  4. Jonathan Hobart

    The 1950s Civil Defense film “Duck and Cover” downplays the nuclear threat that was hanging over the heads of Americans. By comparing the threat of nuclear annihilation to something like a fire, the film tries to make it seem as though the citizens will be fine if they duck and cover. As Clara pointed out, ducking and covering would have done nothing to combat the vast destruction that would occur if an atomic bomb was dropped, but it most likely did give the audience, presumably school children, some reassurance. By contrast, Strangelove entirely focused on how the insiders, in this case, high-level government officials, reacted to the threat of nuclear annihilation that was hanging over their heads. The characters in Strangelove clearly knew the threat and in no way downplayed the nuclear threat as they all knew the immense destruction that would occur. The general population had no knowledge of the threat, so there was no reason to downplay anything. I wonder how the insiders in Strangelove would interact with the general population? I presume they would downplay it but would do so to the extent as we see in “Duck and Cover”?

  5. Griffin Knapp

    I think a very interesting aspect of “Duck and Cover” is the way they both undermine and accurately portray/explain the nature of the atomic bomb. For example, in the beginning they are explaining why we must have an atomic bomb drill in school just like we have fire drills or automobile laws and safety rules. They explain how fires can be very dangerous and car accidents can hurt people. And then, when they go on to explain the effects of the atomic bomb the narrator explains how “there’s a bright flash, brighter than the sun, brighter than anything you’ve ever seen. ” This is an example of how the narrator accurately depicts the intense destruction that would happen if the bomb hit. Though, he then goes on to contradict that destructive description with saying “if you are not ready… it can hurt you in different ways. It can knock you down hard or throw you against a tree…” Clearly this is an understatement and the contrast between him saying this while the visual of an entire house and yard getting blown up is exemplary of the contradictory nature of the entire short. There is a strong dissonance between what the narrator is saying and the reality of the situation at hand.
    I think this dissonance is also present throughout Strangelove. There is a certain push and pull in the film between the scramble to figure out and stop the doomsday machine from going off (representing the gravity of nuclear warfare) and the comedic nature of many of the scenes. One scene and line I think represents this well is when Doctor Strangelove is giving his speech about the doomsday machine while smoking a cigarette. In the middle of what should be an intensely serious conference about the situation at hand, this man with a funny voice, demeanor and slew of mannerisms says this about the Russian bomb: “…because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It’s simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.” He is explaining the ultimately destructive and terrifying nature of the atomic bomb and yet it is almost a funny scene all the while. I think this really sets the tone for how Dr. Strangelove tries to get the theme of contradiction being at the heart of the atomic bomb and humanity itself.

  6. Clara Bass

    “Duck and Cover” treats nuclear war and atomic bombs like any other emergency event– casually, and calmly. It even mentions in “Duck and Cover” that procedure following an atomic bombing is something one should be aware of to the same extent as the procedure for a fire. I think its casual treatment of nuclear warfare is quite similar to the treatment of potential nuclear annihilation in Doctor Strangelove in the sense that both films allude to humanity and day-to-day life continuing fairly normally after an atomic bomb goes off. Of course in reality, that would not be the case. All the children that ducked and covered along an outside wall would be blown to smithereens in an atomic blast. In Doctor Strangelove, it seems as if there would be no time to select humans to go live underground before the Doomsday machine went off, but the characters speak about transferring humankind to underground bunkers as if they had all the time in the world. I do think that “Duck and Cover” romanticizes warfare to a much greater extent than Doctor Strangelove, as it drills the same phrase into the watcher’s head over and over without explicit warning of all the death and destruction that would come with nuclear warfare. Doctor Strangelove depicts the deaths of millions of people in its script, but uses numbers of deaths in millions so that a watcher can understand its satire when it speaks about nuclear annihilation so casually.

    I assume that Doctor Strangelove took its casual use of potential nuclear annihilation from films like “Duck and Cover,” in which narrators fail to address the literal devastation that would follow (and did follow, for Japan!) atomic bombings. Millions upon millions of deaths can’t be prevented by hiding under a table or against a wall, and videos like “Duck and Cover” almost brainwash the public into thinking deaths can be prevented by simple measures. In fact, instead of putting the responsibility of protecting themselves on the public, the government should stop engaging in warfare that would lead to the annihilation of their entire country. To me, that is definitely a theme I see through Doctor Strangelove’s ending– the ability of the government to pin the blame of a lack of public safety on everything but their own actions.

Leave a Reply