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 4”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The two films presented offer vastly different portrayals of a potential nuclear war. In Doctor Strangelove, they represent the nuclear bomb in a very sensational way. In Duck and Cover, they do their best to downplay the effects of what in reality would cause massive casualties. In Doctor Strangelove, they do a great job of analyzing how individuals would react in the case of impending nuclear war. In the case of the Air Force crew, it was interesting to see their reaction to knowing they would be personally killing thousands of people. Despite Doctor Strangelove’s satirical attitude towards the idea that one person’s fragile mental state could potentially set off a nuclear war, they portray nuclear disaster in a far more realistic light. The comedy included in the movie contributes to downplaying the situation but, is necessary for the plot. Duck and Cover portrays the danger posed by a nuclear bomb as similar to that of a tornado. Throughout the video, they fail to warn viewers of the possibility of instant death, the most likely outcome. I agree with Chase in that the government is “just checking a box”. They know that what they are preaching is an idealized representation of nuclear war but, hope to limit the fear in America’s youth while still giving them information that may save some lives.
The movie Doctor Strangelove is a satire based on the time period of the “duck and cover” film, meant mainly to point out that no amount of complex safety systems could completely prevent nuclear annihilation. However, “duck and cover’ drills into its viewers that no matter where you are, ducking and covering near a wall will save you from the blast of a nuclear explosion, then you may continue living your life with the help of government. Duck and Cover seems like one of the governments “just check the box and move on” situations. Where, yes, they have prepared the country with exact procedural steps in case of nuclear attack but where so does that get us? hiding behind a wall? Maybe they want to give us the facade of preparation. In Doctor Strangelove, It seems that the over preparation due to fear of nuclear attack is what actually leads to a nuclear attack ironically.
Both films do seem to imply or fantasize life after the destruction of the world which seems like human instinct because we cannot grasp global destruction. I found it interesting that the slides mentioned how Strangelove seemed to normalize planetary destruction. I wonder if this normalization of the world ending has carried into more modern times such as the failed response to the pandemic or ignoring other ways of world destruction such as the climate crisis. Should we just duck and cover for those too?
Duck and Cover and Dr. Strangelove present similar absurdity in different ways. I echo a lot of what Jacob has to say in that there certainly is something comforting in the presentation of Duck and Cover. The slapstick, made-for-children format is campy, but campy in a way that’s reassuring. There is a “plan” (although ultimately not a very effective one. Really, one ducking and covering outdoors would not offer legitimate protection) for how to protect the individual self in the event of nuclear warfare, including the placement of conveniently placed government authority figures to lead people to safety. Avoiding death via bomb is made to look overly simple, perhaps to guard from the reality that by the time the bomb dropped, it would be too late. In this sense, I agree with Natalie that Duck and Cover feels like more of an effort at governmental propaganda than legitimate security. I have to add, as an aside, the image of people curling into a fetal position at the sight of a flash is inherently funny. It feels very Marx Brothers, again, perhaps to redirect from the graveness of the reality of the bomb.
Dr. Strangelove, despite its intentional comedy, is horribly unsettling. As has been said, the notion that government leaders in charge of the use and prevention of the bomb are completely powerless and incompetent is horrifying. It’s perhaps more the former that is the most terrifying. The suggestion that the powerful are indeed powerless when the bomb comes into play threatens individual and collective security. But, then again, the movie demonstrates that no one really possesses any legitimate security when the bomb is used, even the country that makes the first strike. Like with the doomsday machine, there is mutually assured destruction regardless of the degree of immediate carnage. By consequence of possessing the bomb, politicians and leaders are at its mercy. Even if they don’t intend to use it, just as President Muffley never intended to use it, the threat of destruction is still present and beyond the wills of the most powerful.
There’s a counterintuitively intentional sense of humor to both films. Duck and Cover briefly uses a layer of cartoonish comedy–the implicit silliness of funny anthropomorphic animals–to render the threat of nuclear war more palatable for the film’s young viewers. Bert the turtle is drawn like a Hanna-Barbera character; the comparison of “ducking and covering” to the lifestyle of a turtle is vaguely slapstick-like. In a way, this infantilization of atomic armageddon heightened my unease; the video unwittingly serves as a pretty telling time capsule of that bygone, semi-normalized attitude towards nuclear war. When examined with a contemporary lens, a whole other comedic layer shines–one predicated on the discordance of nuclear warfare being explained to children. It’s reminiscent of the classic comedy bit where a parent explains something very adult to a kid, albeit in a childlike way.
Dr. Strangelove on the other hand uses it scathing humor to unsettle–it’s not as keen on making its terrifying realities easier to stomach. The film cunningly pulls the rug out from under the political implications of the cold war–creating a possibly exaggerated hypothetical scenario in order to poke holes at the unexaggerated absurdities of the era’s international hostilities. Indeed, the comedy is there to make a mockery of the authoritative figures who supposedly have this incredibly delicate, endlessly anxiety-inducing situation under control–satirically chipping away at whatever grasp they claim to possess. This diametrically opposes Bert the Turtle’s employment of levity to ease the audience’s nerves–telling us, “Hey, we know what we’re doing; I mean, we’re telling you exactly what to do, aren’t we?” Strangelove finds an equally uneasy sense of humor by depicting a government wherein no one knows what they’re doing, and they have no idea what to tell people.
I think that the main difference between “Duck and Cover” and Strangelove is their treatment of the potential nuclear annihilation and the ability of the government to protect them. “Duck and Cover” like Elise said, makes the viewer believe that there is an actual way to protect yourself and your family from being completely annihilated. Whereas, the characters in Strangelove had a clearer reality of what nuclear warfare actually entailed, even if the entire film overly exaggerated everything and was filled with sexual euphemisms.
I am so curious if people in the 50s actually believed that the model portrayed in “Duck and Cover” would protect them from a nuclear bomb. What were the reviews at the time of Strangelove? I saw “Duck and Cover” as providing a false sense of security to the general public and as propaganda tool for the government to try to hold themselves in better light. Whereas Strangelove made an entire mockery out of the government and highlighted the disorganization and lack of oversight,
The most prominent differences between the “Duck and Cover” film and “Dr. Strangelove” seem to be personal agency/responsibility and faith of government preparedness. In regards to agency, the DaC film makes it seem as though you can actually do something to improve your chances of escaping nuclear warfare unharmed. On the flip side, “Dr. Strangelove” depicts a number of characters who know that nuclear warfare is going to being and bring about the end of the world, but they literally have no way of doing anything about it (which ties into government preparedness). If the government is completely at a loss in terms of how to protect their country from a Doomsday device, how on earth are individual people supposed to be capable of defending themselves, like in DaC?
Additionally, in DaC, there is an expectation that the government will provide necessary resources, like shelters and warnings, for people in order that they be safe in case of emergency. In “Strangelove,” the massive government oversights, like how only one guy has all of comm codes to the nuclear fighter jets, especially while there is a plan that exists to give supreme power to a single person, bring about the end of the world. This government is in no way capable of protecting their people or themselves from the nuclear warfare that some guy initiates due to his own paranoia. Someone was actually able to initiate nuclear warfare just because of his own paranoia! DaC speaks to the idealist competence of individuals and the government, while “Strangelove” views governmental structures as somewhat absurdist.