Fail-safe vs. Strangelove --- no contest!
Added 9/30/2009
I've never cared for DR. STRANGELOVE (1964), and Sidney Lumet's FAIL-SAFE is precisely the reason why. FAIL-SAFE is THE Cold War masterpiece, while its predecessor is a clumsy, unamusing and ill-advised Stanley Kubrick work. The chance of nuclear annihilation really exists and is not something to make light of.
In FAIL-SAFE, Henry Fonda is brilliant as President of the United States and Larry Hagman in only his second motion picture is equally superb. It's Hagman's job to interpret what the Soviet premier says to Fonda over the hotline as a group of American bombers with multiple 20 megaton bombs heads towards Moscow, but he must also give impressions of the Russian's feelings and intentions. It's grueling work, and knowing that humanity may be on the brink of extinction is clearly delineated by Hagman, who should've won a Supporting Actor Oscar for his efforts.
In fact, this remarkable drama did not receive a SINGLE Oscar nod.
Near story's end, tension and fear have built to the breaking point, then after an extended agony of suspense, Bang Bang Bang, like a champion boxer landing a trio of rapid-fire blows, events unfold one-two-three and everything ends in utter tragedy. The absolutely avoidable, unthinkable, impossible happens and following one final brilliant bit of quick multiple edits in a 20 second space, the screen goes black.
I was too young to see FAIL-SAFE at a theater, but can easily imagine the effect this ending had on audiences, for it honestly left me stunned. The contemplation of such horrific possibilities especially in these most hazardous times is enervating, sobering, depressing.
So if I have nothing but disdain for DR. STRANGELOVE, now you know WHY.
Parenthetical number preceding title is a 1 to 10 imdb viewer poll rating.
(8.0) Fail-Safe (1964) - Henry Fonda/Larry Hagman/Dan O'Herlihy/Walter Matthau/Fritz Weaver/Frank Overton/Sorrell Booke/Dom DeLuise
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A Fear Unique to Our Age
Added 7/1/2009
Rather than echo the plaudits of the reviewers before me, all of which I am in full accord, I'd like to offer another observation.
The most frightening aspect of this movie is that it speaks of a mass fear that is specific to the last two or three generations. The fear of the willful destruction of all life on this planet through the technological method. Consider the kind of neurosis and fear that gripped the last three generations. A fear that any moment the whole of human society could be instantly incinerated. This fear has been a deciding factor in the unfolding of western culture since the end of WW2, and it would be a poor student or scholar of history who fails to see this.
I quote John Fowles (from The Magus):
"The threat of nuclear catastrophe had stimulated the economic production, ensured peace (to some extent), and provided a sense of real danger behind every moment of life. The result was an amoral era in which consumerist self-gratification against a backdrop of imminent doom produces entire populations of autoerotic and autopsychotic people. Economic isolation and psychological isolation from states of poverty and human suffering will be a norm. The result is men of moderate intelligence, little analytical power, and no science; coupled with the inadequacies of the pseudo statements of low-quality art and confused value judgments, utterly incapable of meeting their evolutionary roles. He has been launched into a world with no training in self-analysis and self-orientation; and almost all the education he received is positively harmful to him. He was born, so to speak, blinded by his environments; and cannot find his way."
This is the heritage of the nuclear age.
The movie, and indeed the source of its inspiration, imposes upon the whole of the human race a single question: are we wise enough to master ourselves and the power we now possess? Are we evolved enough to face the responsibilities that the momentum of human history has imposed upon us?
One thing we must face that is truly disturbing is this. Throughout the history of the world since 1945, nuclear war has been averted on several occasions. What one must ask is weather our leaders did so owing to a moral choice and a sense of responsibility to God and His human creation, or weather they were simply motivated by a desire to preserve their station? The practical upshot of this, from their point of view, is that nuclear war would end human society; and as a result, end their political power. From a purely political perspective, this would be a terribly irresponsible thing to allow. Yet, how does this affect the rest of humanity? Does this reduce the individual to a disposable commodity, a statistic devoid of all human and spiritual value? And even worse, how many human beings irregardless of station, rank, and ideology are, almost exclusively by choice and consent, truly below a level of such consideration?
Furthermore, how did humanity devolve to the point of using science and the subtitles of nature in such a horrible manner? What kind of human being could willingly build such devices? What corruption of mind and spirit could look at the world, its resources, and peoples, and say "If I cannot possess and control it, then nobody will!" Because that is, in stark reality, the statement that every nuclear weapon ultimately makes. And why do we willingly permit such people to run our governments, industries, militia, media, educational institutions, and economy?
"Fail Safe" forces these questions down our throats, and dares us to answer them honestly. That is, if we have the courage and honesty to do so. The candid answers to these questions should terrify us more than this movie ever could.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
COULD It Happen Like This?
Added 6/30/2009
FAIL SAFE catches the mood of the fear of the sixties and viewings today confirm that fear has not waned. Director Sidney Lumet takes the bestselling novel by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler and presents a nightmare scenario of a nuclear holocaust that the concluding disclaimer of its unlikelihood cannot erase. This is one of those movies that invite repeat viewings with each one revealing an unappreciated aspect of the symbiosis between cast, crew, and filming technology.
There is a tendency to judge FAIL SAFE with the similar themed DOCTOR STRANGELOVE, but the comic undertones of the latter are replaced by a stark grimness that is heightened by the grainy black and white filming that shows the cast caught in a claustrophobic series of vignettes that range from the War Room of the Pentagon to the President's private room to the cockpit of a jet bomber. Lumet uses shifting camera angles to unexpectedly heighten tension during key scenes. Even seemingly innocent scenes benefit from this shift. Remember when Buck the translator (Larry Hagman) enters an elevator only to see the back of a man who turns his head to reveal that he is the President (Henry Fonda)? Or when Colonel Cascio (Fritz Weaver) rises from his chair which is discretely below camera range to reveal his horror at having been ordered to reveal to the Soviets classified secrets that he cannot force himself to divulge? Scenes such as these typically are framed within a box of some sort. Even when the box is huge such as the War Room or cramped such as in one of the cockpits of the attacking jets the feeling of increasing tension crackles.
FAIL SAFE is mostly a series of "small" scenes that are strung together with the cast limited to that scene. The most powerful man on earth, (the President) is seen almost entirely esconced in his tiny private office. His advisors, led by Professor Grotechelle (Walter Matthau), operate within the much larger context of the War Room, but they are helpless to do no more than advise a man who in all probability has already made up his mind. And then there are the pilots led by Colonel Grady (Edward Binns) who are right there in the front lines but can do nothing but follow a preprogrammed course of mutually assured destruction.
What emerges from a multiple series of viewings is the unsettling notion that the horrific events of the destruction of Moscow and New York are made horrific not so much by simply noting their destruction, but by using the full power of the film media to subliminally insinuate in the minds of the audience that mass destruction is more of a function of the senses than of reality.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Better than original
Added 5/15/2009
Viewed Fail-Safe a few days after Dr. Strangelove and found the movie actually better than I remembered from before.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Fantastic Movie... Must see
Added 3/27/2009
If you are into Pol-Sci, this is a must see. If you like nuclear war movies must see. I can go on. The 1964 version is so far supiriour to the remake of the same title. It is like you are living the cold war, even if you were not alive then. Like me for example I'm only 28, but it was so intense.
Unfortinenetly, I have to order another copy, because, the one I got from Amazon would not, could not read or load. There is no way I'm going to wait a month for a refund, so I'm just going to order another one.
Yes it is that good. stay away from the Goerge Clooney one.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Fail-safe vs. Strangelove --- no contest!
Added 9/30/2009
I've never cared for DR. STRANGELOVE (1964), and Sidney Lumet's FAIL-SAFE is precisely the reason why. FAIL-SAFE is THE Cold War masterpiece, while its predecessor is a clumsy, unamusing and ill-advised Stanley Kubrick work. The chance of nuclear annihilation really exists and is not something to make light of.
In FAIL-SAFE, Henry Fonda is brilliant as President of the United States and Larry Hagman in only his second motion picture is equally superb. It's Hagman's job to interpret what the Soviet premier says to Fonda over the hotline as a group of American bombers with multiple 20 megaton bombs heads towards Moscow, but he must also give impressions of the Russian's feelings and intentions. It's grueling work, and knowing that humanity may be on the brink of extinction is clearly delineated by Hagman, who should've won a Supporting Actor Oscar for his efforts.
In fact, this remarkable drama did not receive a SINGLE Oscar nod.
Near story's end, tension and fear have built to the breaking point, then after an extended agony of suspense, Bang Bang Bang, like a champion boxer landing a trio of rapid-fire blows, events unfold one-two-three and everything ends in utter tragedy. The absolutely avoidable, unthinkable, impossible happens and following one final brilliant bit of quick multiple edits in a 20 second space, the screen goes black.
I was too young to see FAIL-SAFE at a theater, but can easily imagine the effect this ending had on audiences, for it honestly left me stunned. The contemplation of such horrific possibilities especially in these most hazardous times is enervating, sobering, depressing.
So if I have nothing but disdain for DR. STRANGELOVE, now you know WHY.
Parenthetical number preceding title is a 1 to 10 imdb viewer poll rating.
(8.0) Fail-Safe (1964) - Henry Fonda/Larry Hagman/Dan O'Herlihy/Walter Matthau/Fritz Weaver/Frank Overton/Sorrell Booke/Dom DeLuise
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A Fear Unique to Our Age
Added 7/1/2009
Rather than echo the plaudits of the reviewers before me, all of which I am in full accord, I'd like to offer another observation.
The most frightening aspect of this movie is that it speaks of a mass fear that is specific to the last two or three generations. The fear of the willful destruction of all life on this planet through the technological method. Consider the kind of neurosis and fear that gripped the last three generations. A fear that any moment the whole of human society could be instantly incinerated. This fear has been a deciding factor in the unfolding of western culture since the end of WW2, and it would be a poor student or scholar of history who fails to see this.
I quote John Fowles (from The Magus):
"The threat of nuclear catastrophe had stimulated the economic production, ensured peace (to some extent), and provided a sense of real danger behind every moment of life. The result was an amoral era in which consumerist self-gratification against a backdrop of imminent doom produces entire populations of autoerotic and autopsychotic people. Economic isolation and psychological isolation from states of poverty and human suffering will be a norm. The result is men of moderate intelligence, little analytical power, and no science; coupled with the inadequacies of the pseudo statements of low-quality art and confused value judgments, utterly incapable of meeting their evolutionary roles. He has been launched into a world with no training in self-analysis and self-orientation; and almost all the education he received is positively harmful to him. He was born, so to speak, blinded by his environments; and cannot find his way."
This is the heritage of the nuclear age.
The movie, and indeed the source of its inspiration, imposes upon the whole of the human race a single question: are we wise enough to master ourselves and the power we now possess? Are we evolved enough to face the responsibilities that the momentum of human history has imposed upon us?
One thing we must face that is truly disturbing is this. Throughout the history of the world since 1945, nuclear war has been averted on several occasions. What one must ask is weather our leaders did so owing to a moral choice and a sense of responsibility to God and His human creation, or weather they were simply motivated by a desire to preserve their station? The practical upshot of this, from their point of view, is that nuclear war would end human society; and as a result, end their political power. From a purely political perspective, this would be a terribly irresponsible thing to allow. Yet, how does this affect the rest of humanity? Does this reduce the individual to a disposable commodity, a statistic devoid of all human and spiritual value? And even worse, how many human beings irregardless of station, rank, and ideology are, almost exclusively by choice and consent, truly below a level of such consideration?
Furthermore, how did humanity devolve to the point of using science and the subtitles of nature in such a horrible manner? What kind of human being could willingly build such devices? What corruption of mind and spirit could look at the world, its resources, and peoples, and say "If I cannot possess and control it, then nobody will!" Because that is, in stark reality, the statement that every nuclear weapon ultimately makes. And why do we willingly permit such people to run our governments, industries, militia, media, educational institutions, and economy?
"Fail Safe" forces these questions down our throats, and dares us to answer them honestly. That is, if we have the courage and honesty to do so. The candid answers to these questions should terrify us more than this movie ever could.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
COULD It Happen Like This?
Added 6/30/2009
FAIL SAFE catches the mood of the fear of the sixties and viewings today confirm that fear has not waned. Director Sidney Lumet takes the bestselling novel by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler and presents a nightmare scenario of a nuclear holocaust that the concluding disclaimer of its unlikelihood cannot erase. This is one of those movies that invite repeat viewings with each one revealing an unappreciated aspect of the symbiosis between cast, crew, and filming technology.
There is a tendency to judge FAIL SAFE with the similar themed DOCTOR STRANGELOVE, but the comic undertones of the latter are replaced by a stark grimness that is heightened by the grainy black and white filming that shows the cast caught in a claustrophobic series of vignettes that range from the War Room of the Pentagon to the President's private room to the cockpit of a jet bomber. Lumet uses shifting camera angles to unexpectedly heighten tension during key scenes. Even seemingly innocent scenes benefit from this shift. Remember when Buck the translator (Larry Hagman) enters an elevator only to see the back of a man who turns his head to reveal that he is the President (Henry Fonda)? Or when Colonel Cascio (Fritz Weaver) rises from his chair which is discretely below camera range to reveal his horror at having been ordered to reveal to the Soviets classified secrets that he cannot force himself to divulge? Scenes such as these typically are framed within a box of some sort. Even when the box is huge such as the War Room or cramped such as in one of the cockpits of the attacking jets the feeling of increasing tension crackles.
FAIL SAFE is mostly a series of "small" scenes that are strung together with the cast limited to that scene. The most powerful man on earth, (the President) is seen almost entirely esconced in his tiny private office. His advisors, led by Professor Grotechelle (Walter Matthau), operate within the much larger context of the War Room, but they are helpless to do no more than advise a man who in all probability has already made up his mind. And then there are the pilots led by Colonel Grady (Edward Binns) who are right there in the front lines but can do nothing but follow a preprogrammed course of mutually assured destruction.
What emerges from a multiple series of viewings is the unsettling notion that the horrific events of the destruction of Moscow and New York are made horrific not so much by simply noting their destruction, but by using the full power of the film media to subliminally insinuate in the minds of the audience that mass destruction is more of a function of the senses than of reality.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
