Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

OK so once upon a time (1958) a man named Peter George wrote a novel called Red Alert. It was a serious novel about the possibility that the madness of one low level military general could lead to all out nuclear war. Stanley Kubrick was intrigued by the novel and it's concept, but the more he thought about it the less possible it seemed to take the disastrous circumstances seriously. Consequently, for a serious interpretation of the book, one must turn to the rather turgid movie Fail-Safe. Kubrick instead decided to present the blatant absurdity that mankind could choose to annihilate itself.

Synopsis:

The action begins with General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) being informed of the crazy actions of Brigadier General Jack Ripper played by Sterling Hayden (yes even character names are absurd in this movie). He has issued an order for his bombers to drop their nuclear bombs over the Soviet Union. He was able to do so thanks to a loophole that was designed to allow us to blow up the Russians even if the first assault against us managed to take out the President and other people in the chain of command. The Brig. Gen then goes incommunicado, making it impossible to obtain the recall codes without which the planes will, indeed, drop their bombs on Russia. Soon all the powers that be have been assembled in the war room (a FAR more impressive location than the White House situation room) in order to brainstorm - and I use the term very loosely -- about how to stop the attack. Not everyone, I should point out wants to stop the attack, some, notably Scott's Turgidson believe that the U.S. should take advantage of this inevitable first strike to push ahead and finish off the enemy. Others, most importantly President Merkin Muffley (one of three roles played by Peter Sellers) disagree. Can and will the attack be stopped in time???

Now nuclear war may not sound that funny but with Terry Southern's script, Kubrick's direction and the madness of Peter Sellers it is HILARIOUS! Now don't get me wrong - it isn't hilarious like the three stooges or even the hangover it's dry as dust humor and humor you have to think about a minute. But I promise it is hilarious. In addition to the mealy mouthed president, Sellers plays a rather demented nuclear scientist (Dr. Strangelove) who was clearly a Nazi before he joined the U.S. team (not unlike many of our actual nuclear scientists and rocket scientists in the 60s), and he plays the only truly sane character in the movie, Group Captain Lionel Mandrake who spends most of the movie trying to pry the recall codes from the mouth of the brilliantly insane Sterling Hayden. There is the Russian Ambassador played by Peter Bull who not only has his own role to portray but also gets to relay the words of Soviet Premier Kissoff who has been raised on the red phone as part of the effort to avert disaster. The interaction of all these men (and they are all men with the exception of brief moments with Buck Turgidson's secretary/girlfriend there are no women in the movie) most of whom seem determined to prove their manhood, by destroying their lives and everyone else's, is hilarious because it is just so stupid.  This really is a movie you will find people reference regularly, meaning it's worth seeing just so you know what they are talking about. Fortunately, it's also very fun to watch.

Henry V (1989) or (1944)

Actually the technical title of Olivier's Henry V - the 1944 movie is The Chronical History of King Henry the Fift with his Battel fought at Agincourt in France but that is just too much of a mouthful for me to deal with so I will treat both as being titled Henry V. I just returned from Forest Park in St. Louis where I was rained out from seeing Henry IV so I had Shakespeare on the brain. While there are no really famous movies of Henry IV these two versions of Henry V are both excellent and well worth seeing.

Synopsis:

When he is Prince Hal in Henry IV this member of the British Royalty was very worrisome to his relatives - running around with a bad crowd, drink, debauchery and even some law breaking. Now however, his father has passed and Prince Hal is Henry V faced with an important decision. Should he go to war with France winning back the territory originally held by his Norman ancestors - thereby continuing what would become known as the 100 years war? He decides that God is indeed on his side and the side of his ancestors and so he raises an army and invades.

Meanwhile in a MUCH seedier part of London, Sir John Falstaff, Henry's close friend in Henry IV, dies. The other former friends of the younger Prince Hal decide to follow their former friend to war. Meanwhile, in France, Charles VI and his son the Dauphin disagree about how big a threat is posed by Henry V. The Dauphin still views Henry as the playboy from Henry IV, while his father takes the threat more seriously. Next the action moves to the battlefield in France. We see not only the battle, but all of the doubts and worries that fill the minds of the various players the night before.

After the battle, (Spoiler alert if you don't know history) in which the British win handily over the numerically superior French forces, Henry and the daughter of the French King Charles VI meet and decide to marry, meaning that Henry's heir will be heir to France as well.

This is one of Shakespeare's best known history plays and both movies really do it justice. They are both faithful to the text (for the most part, there is always need for some cutting when Shakespeare is filmed to avoid a four hour movie) Despite Olivier's iconic status when it comes to filming Shakespeare, I personally prefer the 1989 version filmed by Kenneth Branagh. He was more age appropriate for one thing (Branagh was 29 which is exactly the same age Henry was while Olivier was in his 50s.) Furthermore, Olivier's version begins as if it were being performed on stage at the Globe - a device praised by many but one I find off-putting and distracting. Either way though, the play/movie is a must see. You won't believe how many well known lines originate in the play. The casts are excellent though most of the names in the Oliver version will be unknown to today's audience, Branaugh's version includes Derek Jacobi, Ian Holm, Paul Scofield, Judi Dench and Branagh's then-wife, Emma Thompson.The direction of both could not be better as each is a demonstrated master of film directing.

Reds (1981)

Reds was released in December of 1981. That Spring semester the enrollment in Soviet History doubled at Yale. Why, because the Soviet Union has never seemed so sexy before or since than it was in this movie.  A sweeping, beautifully filmed, magnificently acted, tour de force this movie is a must see no matter what your politics are.

Reds is based on the true story of Jack Reed (Warren Beatty), writer journalist and political activist who went to Russia in 1917 to cover the Russian Revolution in person. The movie is based partially on his memoir of that trip, Ten Days that Shook the World. It doesn't limit itself to that trip, however, we see Reed before and after those fateful ten days. The movie examines his role in founding the Communist Party in America and his other trips to and involvement with the early Soviet Union,  ultimately resulting in his being the only American buried in the Kremlin. The movie also focuses on the people in Reed's life beginning with is girlfriend/wife Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). Their relationship and hers with others including Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson) is where the sexy comes into the movie. The community they were part of in Greenwich village is filled with fascinating characters like famous/infamous anarchist Emma Goldman (Maureen Stapleton), some of whom were interviewed about that time by Beatty and those interviews are interspersed with the scripted drama in the film. Among the testifiers from the period are people like Henry Miller, Adela Rogers St. Johns, Rebecca West and George Jessel. Their comments alone and the chance to actually see them instead of reading about them or by them make the movie worth seeing all by itself.

 Beatty was nominated for writing, acting, directing and producing this picture a feat that he alone has equaled with Heaven Can Wait (although Orson Welles came close with Citizen Kane).  The movie won three Oscars, for Beatty's direction, Maureen's supporting actress performance, and for Vitorio Storaro's cinematography. I would argue that all three were well deserved.  Why didn't it win best picture? Good question, an upset from tiny but brilliant Chariots of Fire is why, but don't let take away from the impressive quality of Reds. From the minute details of the relationships to the vast sweep of landscapes as varied as those covered by the Soviet Union itself it succeeds at all levels.  If all you know of the Soviet Union is Reagan's rhetoric, you owe it to yourself to see how idealistically it came into being - even if those ideals were compromised almost immediately.

Duck Soup (1933)

This is about as far as you can get from The Godfather but it may have one thing in common - not enough female fans. I think that a lot of women hear Marx Brothers and think guy thing like The Three Stooges. But the Marx Brothers had an intelligence behind their low brow humor that the Stooges never did. Certainly everyone should see at least one Marx Brothers movie so you can judge for yourself and my personal recommendation is Duck Soup. Some Film experts prefer the better plotted and written movies that they made under the tutelage of Irving Thalberg at MGM, but I still think that plot is as superfluous to a Marx Brothers movie as it is to an Astaire and Rogers musical. We really only care about the jokes, and Duck Soup is as chock full of one liners and sight gags as any movie you'll ever see.

Still, the plot, such as it is, is particularly timely in its anti-war message. The tiny European nation of Fredonia is rescued from bankruptcy by wealthy widow Mrs. Teasdale (played by the perennial Groucho foil Margaret Dumont). Her loan, however, is conditional on Rufus T. Firefly's (Groucho) being made President. Firefly is clearly mad, and immediately gets into a fight with the ambassador from neighboring Sylvania over the affections of Mrs. Teasdale. Their fight quickly escalates into war!

Francois Truffaut once said that Duck Soup was the best anti-war film ever because it refuses to take war seriously. I personally agree and I agree that movies and other cultural phenomena can have an enormous effect on people's view of any subject. But politics aside, this is mostly just hilarious nonsense. Harpo is at his slapstick best. Groucho does some hilarious songs and has numerous lines that can bring real laughter, not just wry smiles.  Check it out ladies I promise it's worth it.