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?
7 thoughts on “Strangelove–Group 2”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is clear that Doctor Strangelove and Duck and Cover take pretty opposite approaches in there dealings with a simple matter. Duck and cover almost comically mocks the way that hiding on all fours with and covering your head would be sufficient coverage in the event of a nuclear disaster through the turtle, yet the video is supposedly a serious message to educate young people. It is interesting to note that for many natural disasters like earthquakes and lightning storms that actually is the correct way to protect yourself. Duck and Cover doesn’t exactly make light of the situation, but in the event of impending death I guess it would be better to die in ignorance than to know a nuclear bomb was coming along with your impending doom.
Conversely in Doctor Strangelove the threat of a bomb is almost comically mocked. The citizens had no pressure to prepare and not worries in the event of nuclear armageddon and even the president of the nation was at ease. They know a bombing would end the world, but find comfort that there nukes would fire back and blow everyone else up too. The whole satirical description is bizarre.
‘Duck and Cover’ is I think a really effective method of protecting yourself. Let’s say that you are in class and see that flash of light, a nuclear attack without warning, you will have maybe a split second or so before your flesh melts off your body. So, my point is that ‘Duck and Cover’ is a very effective way of dying: if you’re going to disintegrate why not do it in a somewhat fetal position? Poetically it makes sense, emotionally as well. On the one hand you have Dr. Strangelove, an absurdist satire, and on the other a very “official” video with all of the authoritative backing of the state. One is a complete joke, the other very serious, think of Beckett and Ionesco to figure out which is which. Duck and Cover does not overtly acknowledge nuclear annihilation, to be ‘forewarned is forearmed’ in any case, but its naive assurance and confidence that ‘you can do something, you can prepare,’ the myth of control it perpetuates implicitly confirms our helplessness in the face of nuclear weaponry.
Duck and Cover looks to educate children about how to act in the event of a nuclear strike, however it does not seem so realistic. It sort of gives off false hope that in the case of nuclear Armageddon, you can survive by merely ducking and covering. It probably does not live up to or recognizes the real dangers posed by nuclear threat and by presenting this to the public there may be a misunderstanding about how devastating nuclear war can actually be if people believe these tactics can save them. Similarly in Strangelove, it seems ridiculous that in times of hopelessness and inevitable annihilation, the men in the war room were beginning to plot for post-nuclear life in a deep mine where they would be 10 women to each men. It seems like not many men were on board with the idea until they mentioned the women to men ratio. Both cases seem to dilute the seriousness of nuclear war but Strangelove does it in a purposeful comedic way while duck and cover seems to look to calm American’s fears about a real life nuclear strike.
Doctor Strangelove portrays a truer reality of how deadly and destructive dropping a nuclear bomb is than the duck and cover video. In Doctor Strangelove it is clear that the world would essentially end if America were to bomb Russia. This is because it would trigger a nuclear war devastating the whole planet. The difference in the duck and cover film is that the video is essentially trying to provide hope to school children. The idea that at any instant a nuclear bomb could be dropped on the U.S. is terrifying especially considering that if you are near the bomb you are essentially instantly dead or you will soon be dead from radioactive poisoning. Duck and cover was created to ease this anxiety of potential impending death at any moment. Although, the actual duck and cover method wont save you thinking it will provides a lot of comfort. The thought that if you act quickly enough you will be survive a nuclear bomb is very reassuring. Whereas the film Doctor Strangelove is brutally honest about the true destruction of a nuclear bomb.
While the two films differ in their presentation of how to face the possibility of nuclear annihilation, with one being serious and the other being satire, there was some similarity in how propaganda is presented. In the Civil Defense film, the threat of nuclear weapons is trivialized and personified by the cartoon turtle, who, like most cartoon characters, escapes danger unscathed. The portrayal is meant to convince children that the effects of nuclear war are avoidable, and that listening the trusting male voiceover will guarantee safety. Providing these illusions of safety was necessary to prevent panic and curry favor with the public. In Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick employs satirical images of similar propaganda throughout the film. Most notably is the lofty slogan “Peace is our Profession” found throughout the military bases. The absurd phrasing highlights how the American government seeks to convince people that its cultivation of weapons of mass destruction is to prevent war. A similar absurdity is found in the civil defense film where the responsibility of the citizens to “duck and cover” is deemed necessary to preserve their safety, rather than the actions of the government that is meant to protect them. Also, in Strangelove the magnitude of the bombs is described in the war room and by the narrator; information relating to the nature of destruction is absent from the civil defense film, a necessary omission to prevent panic.
The treatment of nuclear annihilation between these tow pieces of media is very different, in my opinion.
The attached youtube video comes from the US government, and is a means of, what I perceive to be, legitimate education for young children. It is meant to be taken seriously. The video does open up with a somewhat comedic scene of a turtle ducking for cover, however my sense is that this was just a device to hook younger viewers into watching. Furthermore, I don’t feel that the depiction of the turtle does not trivialize the war or the politics surrounding it (as does Strangelove). The video progresses through a classroom setting, demonstrating further that it is meant to educational, and that it is treating the topic of the Cold War seriously.
Strangelove, on the other hand, was a clearly satirical piece. Looking back on prior world history classes, I get the sense that the film satirizes the notion of mutually assured destruction. The notion that politicians and government officials could draft up doctrines that seal the fate of the entire human race, to me, feels a bit egotistical. Apparently Kubrick (the director) felt the same way as I. One of the major devices of satirization employed by Kubrick was erotic references. Throughout the film, I noted that many of the missiles had phallic shapes. I felt that this was a means of satirizing the cold war by comparing the ideologies of major proponents to misguided sexual euphoria. Another, similar, and frequent example of this was the way in which ‘bombing russia’ was either directly or indirectly compared to intercourse.
To summarize, the video treats the topic very seriously, and presents it in a fashion that legitimizes many of the ideologies related to the Cold War. Strangelove on the other hand, while being satirical in nature, legitimizes the threats, but in a much different fashion. The director seems to be suggesting that individuals playing god pose a larger threat to society than do actual nuclear bombs. The two respective films take different stances on why the cold war is a danger to society.
In Doctor Strangelove, throughout the film there is a comedic aspect to the dialogue and interactions that defuses the severity of the situation at hand. Also, when President Muffley called the Soviets before the bombs actually arrived, the conversation was hilarious! By making the situation more light-hearted, then the citizens would not be as serious in their preparations if a nuclear attack was to actually happen. This relates to the “Duck and Cover” film produced by the Civil Defense because while serious protocols being explained, there were still some lighthearted elements. First being that a turtle, which had its own theme song “Burt, The Turtle …” is the example of how to protect yourself from the atomic bomb. The concept of ducking and covering like a turtle makes sense, but there is still some comedic relief to the idea that we all have to pretend to be turtles in order to save our lives.
Also, in both Doctor Strangelove and “Duck and Cover”, there is no understanding of the actual severity of the bomb. The bomb is made out to be a weapon that wouldn’t actually kill you if you’re in some relative proximity of it, as long as you are “ducking and covering your body” and hiding in an enclosed area. They make it out to be “worse than a sunburn” in the “Duck and Cover” film, which is far less severe than death. There is not enough knowledge about the severity of the bombs, which leads me to believe that is the reasoning behind some of the lighthearted language used.