Stanley Kubrick and the Art of Political Satire
It’s difficult to know what to expect from Kubrick, and it’s difficult to imagine that he even has a comedy in his filmography. Released in 1964, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is one of the craziest and smartest comedies in cinema history, and you wouldn’t expect anything less from Stanley Kubrick. The film combines a very distinctive brand of dark humour, political criticism and geopolitical tension to create a brilliant satire about the Cold War and the threat of nuclear destruction while it was all still unfolding.
More than six decades after its release, the film remains incredibly entertaining thanks to its ability to mock the weaknesses of power structures and the dangers of military decisions made by people driven by paranoia, ego or ideology. It could easily have been another political drama about the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Instead, Stanley Kubrick chose to portray the insanity of the arms race through satire, possibly the best choice anyone could have made.
Plot Overview
The story begins when American General Jack D. Ripper orders an unauthorised nuclear strike against the Soviet Union out of pure paranoia. As American bombers head towards their target, military and political leaders scramble to prevent a global catastrophe.
From that point onwards, much of the narrative takes place inside the famous War Room, where American officials discuss strategies to avoid disaster. At the same time, the Soviets reveal the existence of an automatic nuclear retaliation device that would make the end of civilisation unavoidable if the attack goes ahead.
Dr. Strangelove's Narrative
The plot of Dr. Strangelove is strange… for lack of a better word. The entire story and sequence of events feel more like an extended television comedy sketch than a conventional film. There’s no character development, nor even a chain of events designed to move the story neatly from point A to point B. That’s probably one of the things that fascinates me most about the film: it shows that good stories are written through strong writing and not through a checklist of rules.
In a traditional screenplay, characters are expected to undergo some kind of transformation. The protagonist faces conflicts, learns something about themselves and ends the story as a different person. There’s usually an emotional journey guiding the audience from beginning to end.
In Dr. Strangelove, that simply doesn’t happen.
None of the characters has a conventional dramatic arc. General Ripper remains paranoid until the very end. President Muffley stays powerless in the face of the crisis. General Turgidson never abandons his militaristic mindset. Even Dr. Strangelove himself, who only appears in three scenes, learns nothing and never changes his beliefs.
The plot itself also avoids the structure audiences are usually taught to expect. There isn’t a mission that develops through increasingly difficult obstacles towards a resolution. Within the opening minutes, the film has already presented its central situation: a nuclear attack has been launched.
From that moment on, the narrative isn’t moving towards a solution. On the contrary. It’s moving towards the inevitable.
This creates a peculiar feeling for the audience, as though the story is trapped inside a logical snare.
For that reason, many critics have argued that the real protagonist isn’t a person at all, but the Cold War political and military system itself. Characters enter and leave scenes, yet the bureaucratic machine keeps functioning exactly as intended until it reaches its most extreme conclusion: the end of the world. A system that appears highly organised and rational ends up producing complete irrationality among its participants and proves incapable of preventing its own destruction.
I’d go even further: Dr. Strangelove has more in common with a Greek tragedy than a traditional Hollywood film.
Humour as a Political Weapon
The jokes work. They work incredibly well, actually. The essential ingredient behind the comedy is the mixture of complete seriousness and complete absurdity. The characters speak in ways that wouldn’t be realistic for a conversation between world leaders, yet you can still recognise traces of those attitudes beneath the surface of what they’re saying. This choice turns authority figures into ordinary people and shows how historical decisions can depend on individuals who are every bit as flawed, and as silly, as anyone else.
The standout scene, and perhaps the most famous, is Dr. Strangelove delivering a speech to military officials when his mechanical arm, lost during the war, suddenly starts acting on its own. Another memorable moment comes when a general ends up wrestling with a Soviet official inside the War Room like two children, right down to rolling around on the floor.
Peter Sellers: The True Heart of the Film
The central figure of the film and its greatest asset is Peter Sellers. To begin with, the man plays three completely different characters: the President, Group Captain Lionel Mandrake and, of course, Dr. Strangelove himself. His performance is so impressive that you genuinely forget you’re watching the same actor. Seriously, if you didn’t already know from the credits, it would be very difficult to realise it while watching the film.
I already knew this when I watched it for the first time, yet I still found myself trying to work out which other characters he played besides Strangelove.
Dr. Strangelove: Rationality Without Ethics
Speaking of Strangelove himself, despite having relatively little screen time, he’s the character most people remember and, in my opinion, the best one as well. He’s a former scientist connected to the German regime and is closely tied to the idea that science and technology can be placed in the hands of destructive ideologies. He’s extraordinarily pragmatic, to the point that nearly everything he says sounds morbid.
He isn’t loyal to democracy, communism or any specific ideology. While everyone else is trying to prevent nuclear catastrophe, Strangelove quickly shifts the conversation towards how humanity might survive in underground shelters. For him, the apocalypse isn’t a moral tragedy but a logistical problem. There is a complete absence of empathy in him.
President Muffley: The Most Powerful and Most Powerless Man on Earth
President Muffley represents morality without power. He’s probably the most sensible character in the film, perhaps second only to Mandrake. Calm, polite and diplomatic, he really tries to resolve the crisis peacefully. The problem is that his authority is almost an illusion. Although he is officially the most powerful man on Earth, he spends much of the film reacting to events instead of controlling them.
This is one of the film’s finest ironies, and I suspect it was entirely intentional: the only truly rational character is also the most powerless. His famous telephone conversation with the Soviet Premier captures this perfectly. Instead of sounding like a supreme commander, he comes across as a man trying to manage a ridiculous situation that has completely slipped beyond his control.
Lionel Mandrake: A Little Bit of Logic
Among all the characters, Mandrake is perhaps the closest thing the film has to a traditional protagonist. A British RAF officer assigned to work alongside the Americans, he acts as the audience’s eyes within the narrative. While everyone else seems willing to accept the absurd logic of the military system, Mandrake constantly recognises that something is strangely wrong. He’s the outsider in this story.
He’s a rational man who finds the entire situation completely ridiculous, yet he ends up trapped alongside the film’s most paranoid and unhinged character, General Ripper. Mandrake quickly realises that the general has lost his grip on reality, but he has to keep talking to him because he knows any direct confrontation could make things worse. Ripper’s paranoia becomes so extreme that he eventually fights against his own army.
He has many qualities associated with a Kafkaesque figure: a man trapped inside an irrational system, desperately trying to apply logic to a situation that abandoned logic long ago.
Dr. Strangelove's Cinematography
Dr. Strangelove has the appearance of a low-budget B film. The editing constantly moves between only three locations: the War Room, Ripper’s base and the bomber heading towards its target. Kubrick builds tension through these transitions as we gradually realise that nobody is actually going to stop the aircraft. Every cut reinforces that feeling of a race against time and impending disaster.
While politicians argue over solutions, the bomber crew continues carrying out its orders without any knowledge of the crisis. One of the film’s strengths is that Kubrick avoids the usual hysteria found in disaster films. There isn’t a huge epic score, no frantic music, no speeches about patriotism or heroism. Everything is desperately calm.
I’m probably biased when it comes to black-and-white cinematography because I love black-and-white films. In Strangelove, it’s fairly simple, with little that immediately draws attention to itself. Much of the film takes place indoors, with limited camera movement and no grand visual spectacle. Even so, the cinematography plays a hugely important role in building the atmosphere.
That simplicity creates a strange sense of authenticity.
Even when events become completely absurd, the image maintains a serious and realistic appearance. That makes the jokes even more effective because they exist within a visual world that feels entirely plausible.
The lighting also helps define the different narrative spaces.
In the War Room, strong contrasts and deeper shadows dominate.
Inside the bomber, the lighting is harsh, claustrophobic and heavily focused on the crew’s faces.
At Ripper’s military base, the cinematography adopts a brighter appearance, perhaps offering some relief from the previous scenes.
The Most Famous Room in the World
One thing I only discovered recently is that the War Room in the film isn’t based on a real War Room. I mean, obviously it isn’t real, but I could have sworn it was at least a reconstruction of the Pentagon’s actual facility. It isn’t.
To be fair, I don’t really know what the real one looks like.
The room in the film was designed by production designer Ken Adam and became one of the most iconic sets ever built for cinema. I was oddly disappointed, in a good way if that makes any sense, when I found out it wasn’t based on a real military installation. The enormous circular space, the illuminated ring-shaped table and the gigantic strategic board in the background create a tremendous sense of scale.
Thinking about it now, it makes absolutely no sense, does it? The real room is probably just a large rectangular conference table like you’d find in any ordinary office.
In the film, it’s a place where men discuss the fate of humanity while sitting around a table that resembles something from the age of medieval knights.
When people think of Dr. Strangelove, they don’t usually think of Ripper, Mandrake or Muffley first. They think of that illuminated circular table surrounded by darkness. Kubrick created a space so powerful that it became the definitive symbol of the Cold War despite never having existed.
Kubrick’s War Room is so perfect that many people still believe it was based on a genuine command centre. By many people, I mean myself.
Wrapping Up
More than sixty years after its release, Dr. Strangelove remains a unique experience. Stanley Kubrick created a film that challenges many of the traditional rules of cinematic storytelling, which is usual for his career. There are no heroes destined to save the day, and certainly no journey of self-discovery. The characters do not evolve, the plot does not lead towards a solution, and the audience realises very early on that there may be no way out.
Although the Cold War is long over, the questions raised by Kubrick remain important. How much control do we really have over this big machine we’ve built? What happens when technology advances faster than our ability to use it responsibly, or to prevent a disaster? And how secure is a society that places its future in institutions that nobody seems to fully understand?
Dr. Strangelove appears to age in the opposite direction: with each new generation, it finds new reasons to remain relevant.
More Film Reviews
