TMR 308 : Dr Strangelove (1964) (TMR Movie Dialogue)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:10):
Hello everybody. Julian Charles here ofTheminds Renewed dot Com, coming to you
as usual from the depths of theLancashire countryside here in the UK, and
welcome to TMR number three hundred andeight for the fifteenth of our cultural round
tables. Although it's not actually goingto be a round table this time.
It's going to be a dialogue.And it's also not just TMR, it's

(00:32):
also Film Gold because we're going tobe having our dialogue with our good friend
Anthony Ratuno of the Film Gold podcast. So it's a swotcast and we're going
to be talking, as we normallydo, about a film or other kind
of production that has some relevance tothemes that have been explored on TMR over
the last decade or so. SoAnthony, good to have you on the

(00:54):
show again. How are you doing. I'm fine. Yeah, it's good
to be back home, Julian,because we haven't done one of these two
handers for a while. Yeah.By the way, a swopcast doesn't mean
that Julian does all the work andI nabbed the audio. It does mean
that the work does get shared.Now, everybody, absolutely, that's very
true. Very nice to be here. Yeah, it's great to be speaking

(01:14):
to you again. It feels likea long time actually to say, to
have one of these dialogues. It'sgreat. Okay, So we're going to
be talking about that extremely famous film, but wonderful film called Doctor Strange Love
and I love the subtitle how ILearned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
from nineteen sixty four, of course, by Stanley Kubrick. Political satire,

(01:37):
black comedy, perhaps the blackest comedyof all time in some ways. I
think Kubrick called it a nightmare comedy. So we're gonna be talking about a
nightmare comedy here. And you suggestedthis as a film that you particularly wanted
to do, and I was reallyhappy to do it. It's on my
list of things to do, sothat's great. Well, why i'd like
to ask you first, we know, why did you particularly want to do
this one? Why is it nearthe top of your list? Oh?

(01:59):
Many reason. It has always beena big favorite of mine, even from
when I was not necessarily a childbut a teenager. I don't think I
quite got it. I mean,obviously I didn't know as much about the
world as I hopefully do now.I think it just works so perfectly on
a couple of levels. You canjust get off on the comedy of it,
you know, if you don't wantto take it too seriously and think

(02:19):
about its role in life. Imean various reasons. Wheally, Stanley Cooper
is my favorite director. It usedto be Hitchcock, and I still love
Hitchcock and various other people, Scorsese, Coppola, but Stanley's the man,
really, and I think the ageof film analysis. And I will mention
my friend Rob Aga again. Healways gets mentioned on this, doesn't he.

(02:40):
Stanley has benefited greatly, I think, or Stanley's legacy from Rob and
various other people, because there's justso much there. Another reason was because
we did do Thirteen Days quite recently. It's obviously around the same period.
JFK is not obviously in this story, but it just works nice is a
contrast, and I don't know ifyou find this. When we're planning these

(03:02):
film round tables, the great filmsjust almost get greater in the planning and
also during the conversations. I actuallyam fairly confident that when we come out
of this today, I'll probably loveit even more than I do now.
But yeah, those are the mainreasons of many. But almost like to
say that who needs a reason really, but we've got a few there.

(03:22):
Yeah, yeah, that's true.Don't You brought up Hitchcock there? And
I was just thinking to myself,Well, Stanley Kuber of Courses, a
perfectionist, was well known, andI think actually with Hitchcock, was he
such a perfectionist He did so muchstuff. Maybe that was you know,
hit and miss at times. Idon't know. I think what Hitchcock did
was he planned very well. AndI mean obviously Kubrick planned very well,

(03:44):
but Hitchcock planned it very carefully,and his wife used to help him as
well with the stories. And thenonce the filming started he was almost a
bit bored by the filming. Andyou get this a little bit. I
think even Woody Allen said the samething years ago. The fun bit is
having the ideas right and then youthink, oh, I've got to get
a load of actors and everything andactually make this thing happen. But I

(04:06):
think Hitchcock famously was misquoted as sayingthat actors are like cattle. When he's
picked up on that, he said, no, I didn't say actors like
cattle. I say they should betreated like cattle. So I don't think
he was. I think he wasa bit more obsessive in the story and
everything. I think once he wason set, maybe he did let it

(04:27):
go a little bit and famously appearedin his own films, didn't he.
Yeah, yeah, I love that. It's a very quick word. I
think I told you once that.Sure. Dan Richter, who played Moonwatcher
in two thousand and one, hehas been on my John Lennon podcast,
plug Plug Glass own on John Lennonbecause he also was John and Ioko's friend
and personal assistant, and of thevarious things he said about Stanley, even

(04:49):
though we talk about John Lennon,I got him to talk about Stanley.
He said Stanley was a nice guy. And part of the perfectionism was you
do a good take, and wherea lot of directors would say, oh,
that was good, fine, putthat in the can couprick would say
that was really good, Dan,but should we just try one more because
maybe it could be better. Idon't think he drove down mad, but

(05:11):
I think he might have driven otherpeople mad. It just depends, doesn't
it. You know, if you'reworking with an actor who doesn't want to
do that, then that might rubyou up the wrong way. For the
results speak for themselves. Yeah,I was George c Scott in this film.
I understand that Kubrick got him todo lots of takes pretending they were
practice takes, and then I sortof kid of him and use those practice
takes as the real thing. Butthat's right, Yeah, the cartoony ones.

(05:34):
Yeah, which I just think it'sperfect. I mean, he also
went up, so I'm sure youknow this. He would won up actors
by taking them on at chess.Georgie Scott was actually a fairly decent chess
player, but Coubrick sort of gotit was his way of getting the upper
hand. Yeah. Nice. Okay, Well, there's no new swimming in
this so Frank and Mark don't needto feel disappointed and not being in this

(05:56):
conversation. So I'm wondering, Anthony, if you could perhaps give us a
bit of a plot summary. Imean, people will know this film vast
majority ninety nine point nine percent.People will know this film really well,
but it's good to have a bitof a reminder. Could you just give
us a short rundown or bit.Yeah. The plot itself, it's basically
about General Jack d Ripper, fantasticname, don't even need to say that

(06:18):
of burpleson purpleson Air Force Bace andthere. Sure we'll talk more about names
later on. He believes that theAmerican water supply is being fluoridated and it's
a Soviet plot to poison Americans.And there's a mechanism whereby you could do
a nuclear attack on the Soviet Unionwithout the knowledge of this superiors, known
as Plan R, which apparently probablydid exist. And I'm going to say

(06:42):
allegedly a few times when I talkabout stuff I've discovered about this, but
apparently it was a real thing.And apparently JFK at the time President just
before this came out, obviously didn'tknow about that, So that was kind
of a real thing. Buck Turgerdsonplayed by George C. Scott, is
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff, and only Ripper knows the code

(07:05):
apparently to recall the B fifty two's, and he shut down communication. So
I suppose the idea is that almostthat he wants it to happen in a
funny way. You know that he'sblocking attempts not for this to happen anyway.
So you've got also a group CaptainMan Drake, which is one of
Peter Sellers's roles. He's being heldat the air base by Ripper. He

(07:29):
believes he knows the recall codes ifhe could get a message to the outside
world. Meanwhile, in the warroom where you can't fight, as we
know, you've got President Murkin,Muffley Turgitson, and Dr Strangelove who suddenly
appears And I love that moment wheresuddenly Murk and Muffley played by Peter Sellers
says Dr Strange Love and everyone turnsand goes who's Dr Strange Love? And

(07:53):
that's Peter Sellers as well. Sothey're discussing measures to try and stop the
attack and try and stop and allout nuclear war. The Soviet ambassador is
brought into the war room and there'ssome fantastic bit of wrestling with him and
the Turgardson and the scenes of thePresident and Dmitri the Soviet premiere are just

(08:16):
amazing. But I'm sure we'll talkabout that later, right. So this
is Dimitri on the end of thephone, isn't it. Where he's talking
to Dimitri kiss off. Yeah,just kiss off. Ye lovely names.
I think all the names are alreadyhere. We probably don't even mention it.
Then it's discovered that the Soviets havethis what's called the doomsday device,
So if any of their key targetsare hit, this device will go off

(08:39):
and then you'll have the end ofthe world or as good as Meanwhile,
you've got Major Kong, who's oneof the main characters, is the bomber
pilot. Now it ends with himabsolutely riding the bomb. So can you
just help me with this bit,Julian the very end. What happens with
Major Kong at the end, Well, they managed to Yeah, it's because

(09:00):
and does in fact work out whatthe three digit code is from the doodlings
that Jack Ripper has made. Becauseof course Jack Ripper he heals himself,
doesn't he takes the code with himto the grave, but he works it
out from he's constantly jotting down Peaceon Earth, and so it turns out
to be Poe anyway, So theymanaged to use this code then to recall
the bombers. But the one whereMajor Kong is in charge, that particular

(09:22):
bomber has got so much damage thatthey don't get the recall notice. So
they carry on dutifully to target.Well, they find a different target,
but it's inside the Soviet Union andI think it's an ICBM base. They
fly low and because they're so damage, they can't get this bomb to release.
So Major Kong goes down there andsits on the bomb and opens up
the doors and sort of rodeos itdown to Target's more of the plot that

(09:48):
you'd like to fill in there,just to ploy itself. Oh, I
don't know. I think that's enoughto remind people. I reckon think they're
the main points, weren't they?Yeah, because I think as we go
through will we'll hit on so muchof it? Yeah? Yeah, yeah,
yes, Okay, so where dowe go from here? Let's just
go through some of the bits andpieces then. Okay, So Doctor Strange

(10:09):
Love, I want to say howI learned to stop worrying and love the
bomb as the subtitle, which israther odd. Not a lot of films
have subtitles, do they. Butthey did have original other possibilities which I
thought were rather good. Dr Doomsdayor how to start World War Three without
even trying? I quite like thatActually, that's a brilliant one. I

(10:30):
love that. Yeah. And thisone, I don't know that I can
say this one, I am,but I guess I will have to say
it carefully. Or Doctor Strange.This one, Doctor Strange loves secret uses
of yours and sorry, I'll saythat again. Dr Strange loves secret uses
of urinus. That's it. Orwonderful bomb, wonderful bomb. It's a

(10:56):
wonderful life. I guess it's awonderful bomb. Yeah, that's it.
It's a wonderful bomb that would yeah, yeah, yeah, I like that.
So it's directed and produced a courseby Stanley Kubrick, and the screenplay
partly by Kubrick, but also bya satyrist called Terry Southern and a guy
called Peter George, who was infact the author of the novel upon which

(11:16):
it's based, called Red Alert,although originally published it under a pseudonym non
de plume Peter Bryant, with adifferent title Comorable. The title was but
and because it stars famously Peter sellers, as you said, doing three parts,
we'll talk about it. But Ithink he originally was supposed to be
doing four parts. George C.Scott Sterling Hayden, Slim Pickens and Some

(11:37):
Mothers Tracy Reed, Keenan Wynn musicby Laurie Johnson. We'll talk about in
a bit and filmed in black andwhite, which I think really was absolutely
essential. I can't imagine it beingin color. Does it even crossed your
mind what it would be like incolor? Yeah? You get this a
lot with films, don't you.I think sometimes we get so used to

(11:58):
something in being black and white.Let me take Psycho for example, because
they did do a color remake.Did it make that much difference? I'm
not sure. I can't imagine.I just think it gives it such a
timeless kind of almost like a documentary, almost a newsreel sort of quality that
I think it would have been damagedby being in color. Maybe. Yeah,
I suppose it pegs it to thetime, doesn't it. But that's

(12:18):
that's that's a good thing. It'snot a bad thing at all. Let's
talk about Peter Sellers then. Ilove Peter Sellers. I love the Goons,
of course. He was Group CaptainLionel Mandrake, this RAF Exchange officer.
He was also the US President MrkinMuffly and Doctor Strangelove the war experts,

(12:39):
the ex Nazi war expert. Heused perfect wasn't he to do these
parts? So, I mean asa lionel Man Drake it was a stiff
upper lift Terry Thomas type of character. Was a I think he knew Terry
Thomas, think they were friends,so maybe there was a bit of that.
I think the story was he wasin the RAF. Wasn't it not
surprisingly you to mimic his superior Soit was essentially it could have almost been

(13:03):
a bit of revenge for him ina way. So that was the easy
one. I think, Yes,probably was. Yeah. Movely was based
apparently on Adelais Stevenson, who hementioned when we did Thirteen Days the Youn
Ambassador. As we said in thelast show, you know, the show
about JFK. He was heavily criticized, wasn't he, particularly by the Republicans

(13:26):
as being ineffectual? All that sortof thing. So I think Peter Cell
has played it very much that way. He was very tedious, wasn't he
very boring? Yeah? Played itstraight. That's why all the stuff with
Demitri is so brilliant, because onething I've learned about comedy is that when
you've got someone playing it straight andsaying ridiculous things or in a ridiculous context.

(13:46):
It works so well. You can'thave everyone, yes, playing it
as a comedy. It weirdly doesn'twork, does it? No? Absolutely,
And in fact, I've got aquote here I can find it.
This is the trouble, isn't it? Yeah? From the great Roger Ebert
Doctor Stranger. The humor is generatedby a basic comedy principle. People trying
to be funny are never as funnyas people trying to be serious and failing.

(14:07):
Yeah, And he says, aman wearing a funny hat is not
funny, But a man who doesn'tknow he's wearing a funny hat. Ah,
Now you've got something absolutely so.And this is the characters in Doctor
Strangelove do not know their hats arefunny. Well, Monty Python, they
used to do that, wouldn't They'dhave an authority figure and the camera had
panned round and you know he hasn'tgot any trousers on or something like that.

(14:30):
But it's that juxtaposition of someone,as you said, being perfectly serious.
Yeah. Yeah. One thing aboutthis character. Muffly Sella's originally played
in as an asthmatic, so presumablyin between, you know, having this
conversation with the Russian premiere, hewas taking blast and he's inhaler. I
think would have worked. I mean, you know, if they'd done that,
we might have been here, youknow, sixty years later saying what

(14:54):
a great idea that was. Idon't think it was a bad idea at
all. Well, I heard thatit was likely he had a permanent cold
sort of thing, and then peoplewere laughing too much, so he couldn't
carry on doing that. That's whati'd read. Well, that was we
did try it, but yeah,that was a problem for the whole thing.
I mean, you can see I'msure you know this as well.
You can see the Russian ambassador PeterBull laughing when he's doing the Strange love
stuff. If anyone didn't notice that, folks go back and watch it.

(15:18):
When doctor Strange loves doing his stuff, Peter Bulls laughing. Couldn't stuff it.
He was brilliant. Actually. Ilove the way he was really really
serious in giving Murkin Muffly Strange lookswhen he's on the telephone to dmitriy kiss
Off, just looking at him likeI can't believe this idiot is saying what
he says lovely. I really enjoyedthat. Can we just say that the

(15:39):
murkin muffly? Because the name.It's all about names here, isn't it
that every name is sort of playedupon a murkin? I believe isn't an
erotic pubic wig? Oh? Ididn't know. Well that adds to the
sexual subtext. It does. Anda muffler is obviously used to reduce noise
from an exhaust pipe, and Iimmediately thought, well, is this kind

(16:00):
of trying to muffle the hot airthat comes out of his mouth? Well,
you know, as a politician,as a language teacher, I tell
my students that words have a certainenergy and even if they're not direct references,
So something about yeah, muffler,it's almost like he's being deflected from
the truth or it could you know, something like that. There's definitely something
in that name. There is,but it's not as clear maybe as Jack

(16:22):
de Ripper or you know one ofthose other names. No, that's right.
Well, mandrake root apparently was usedherbally to treat mania and convulsions,
a very good and I just wondered, because of course ripper is manic isn't
he? So is that is he'ssort of trying to control Ripper because he
is, isn't he? In thestory He's trying to control this madmanning and

(16:42):
get the three digit code from him. So maybe there's something in that.
Yeah, I mean I was thinkingof mandrax, which was a popular drug
in the sixties. It wouldn't reallyfit with the character, so I think
you're probably right there. Muffly,of course, does deliver the most famous
line in the film. Do youmind if I do this? No?
Go ahead? You can't fight inhere? This is a Warum yeah,

(17:04):
beautiful course you know lat me finishedDmitri? Can you turn the music down?
The Dmitri as well? Do youremember that there are lots of lovely
lines, well crafted lines in thisIt's fantastic. Yeah. As you know.
Last night I actually did a reviewof Dog Day Afternoon with al Patuno.
Oh, fantastic film. I amso jealous of that, so jealous,

(17:26):
jealous. I was one of myfavorite films. I love it.
One thing in that just tricked mymemory. With Strange Love is one of
the hostages. She gets a phonecall from her husband asking her what time
she's going to be home. Soshe says to al Patuno, any idea
what time it's going to be finished, and he's like, well, I
don't know, and she actually saysto her husband. You hear us say
to her husband on the phone,Yeah, I'll just cook whatever's in the

(17:48):
fridge. And I just thought it'sanother use of how everyday things are getting
in the way of this sort ofextreme situation. Yeah, for anybody who's
not seen that film, it's aboutthree apps who try to do a bank
robbery and they're just too polite andthey're they're completely inept and they don't know
how to deal with these hostages,and so they become friends to them essentially.
Yes, that's right, and it'sbased on reality. It's a fantastic

(18:11):
film. Yeah. Yeah, it'salways hard to know where ideas start.
I'm sure Dr Strangers didn't invent theidea that everyday stuff can get in the
way of extreme situations, but it'sjust a good example. Yeah, we
could talk about back in a minuteif you want, but oh, we
will do yeah, and we'll talkingabout Street. Sorry on he's got this
girlfriend and while he's in the warroom and they're discussing, you know,

(18:33):
the possible end of the world.He's saying, I'll be back, So
I'll be back later, baby,don't worry. You know, no,
I'm not only interested in your physically. So we've got the character of Dr
Strangelove himself, who's this nuclear warexpert. He's an ex Nazi, kind
of stereotypical genius scientist plus a Nazi. But there's some sort of debate,

(18:55):
isn't there as to who he's basedon. Obviously, we've got characters like
von Brown, who was brought overunder Operation paper Clip the end of the
war along with sixteen hundred plus otherscientists and engineers to work on US ballistic
program. But we've also got HellmanKhan. We've also got Edward Teller,

(19:18):
Henry Kissinger. All kinds of peopleare suggested. I have to say,
from what I've read about it,it seems to me that it's centered in
the character of Ernovon Brown and maybea bit of Herman Khan, who was
an American physicist military strategist who Kubrickconsulted with several times for the film,
and they got along really well.Apparently Karn had a great sense of humor,

(19:42):
and Khan wrote a famous book calledon Thermo Nuclear War just a few
years before this film, and inthat he explored the idea of a doomsday
machine, not advising anybody to makesuch a thing, or thinking that anybody
would make such a thing, butjust exploring the idea as the kind of
logical conclusion to the doctrine of mutualishor destruction. So there's maybe I think

(20:04):
there is maybe a bit of Khnin the character of Doctor Strangelove, but
I do think it's mainly air enoughon Brown. Yeah, I guess it
depends whether we're talking about personality orcertain traits, because actually from doing research,
I mean there's little bits of lotsof people. I mean the voice,
you know, it is a bitKissinger, but I don't think Kissinger
was very famous at that time.It was influenced by Austrian American photographer Wuigi,

(20:29):
who worked for Kubrick as a specialphotographic effects consultant, and I think
on YouTube, I believe you canlisten to Wigi's voice and it's very similar.
Right. The gloves came from Kubrick. Kubert used to wear these black
gloves to avoid what was it avoidhis hands getting burned? Wasn't it something
like that when handling hot lights,and there's a little bit of a metropolis

(20:49):
in there as well as a characterin Metropolis. Herman Khan was with the
Rand Corporation. Yeah, I thinkhe was, And there's a reference in
film to the Bland Corporation later on. Yeah. I'm just thinking, I'm
sure most of your audience, Julianwould have heard of Operation paper Clip,

(21:10):
but I'll just say to the filmGold audience were maybe not in on the
old media stuff. It's worth justresearching that. Yeah, it was the
US recruited top sort of technical talent, let's say, from the Nazis at
the end of World War Two.Yeah, and Von Brown. Yeah,
I mean again, I didn't reallyknow much about this until the last few

(21:30):
years. Let's say he was thechief architect of the Saturn V or Saturn
five launch vehicle that propelled the Apollospacecraft to the Moon. I mean,
do you think most of the publicknow that. I don't know, probably
not, certainly not realized that hewas also the designer of the V two
rocket under the Nazis. Exactly,That's what I'm saying. Yeah, the
same guy, and then he workedwith Disney. Oh yeah, yeah,

(21:53):
amazing, Yes, which is aboutas fluffy as you can get. Yeah,
but I mean it hardly needs tobe said. Really, that Doctor
Stranger that was not in the novel, And Kubrick acknowledged that Sellers did a
lot of improvising. I imagine theimprovised lines as well as the whole manner.
Yes, yeah, the whole sortof thing with a glove strangling himself
and the mind fura. Yes,I mean that was that's nothing to do

(22:15):
with the novel, so I said. Kubrick was laughing as well as Peter
Ball. Kubrick was laughing as well. The guy did have a sense of
humor. He's been he's been taggedas this kind of almost like a nihilistic
character making these bleak films. ButI don't think that's right at all.
You know, this is not ableak film, definitely not. Yeah,
you're right, Sorry, I wasgoing to say that, Yeah, you're

(22:36):
right about Seller's improvising stuff. Hedid improvise that Zeke kiling hand, didn't
he? This alien hand syndrome,which apparently is a real thing, is
now sometimes unofficially called Dr Strangelove syndrome, where your hand, you know,
is uncontrollable and those strange things.But another the fact that this this hand
is still a Nazi. Yeah,and the rest of him is trying not

(22:56):
to be a Nazi. It wasthis lovely idea. I always killed my
mum when she's drinking tea and herlittle finger goes up, and I say,
oh, you're with the royal family. Apparently, think isn't it of
upper class people when they drink teatheir little finger goes up? Yes,
I just sorry. I didn't meanto mention Dog Day Afternoon again, but
funny enough for Dog Day Afternoon.They improvised and it was actually incorporated to

(23:21):
the script, which I believe happenedhere. And there is a name for
it, retro scripting. Yes,where the improvisations actually do become they're typed
up and they become the script.But yeah, what a genius Peter Sellers.
But if you know anything about hispersonal life, you know Arena did
a very good documentary. He hada very troubled relationship with his children.
He's almost like the archetype genius whohas troubled negotiating almost like normal life.

(23:45):
Like he was more comfortable apparently indisguise, even if it was just silly
voices or whatever. And Ringo Starrwas in The Magic Christian Oh Yes,
which I think Torry Southern wrote,I believe. I think I've seen a
scene from that. That's all I'vedone, Just a scene where I think
other Peter Seller's character buys a picture, a very famous picture, and then

(24:07):
just cuts the nose out in theshop. It's a sort of critique of
capitalism. But now the interesting Ringostat is something really interesting. He said,
you'd get to know Peter and youcould go out for a drink with
him, but then the next morningit would be almost like you had to
keep rebuilding the relationship, which Ithought was so interesting. It was almost
like the bonding that you'd done theday before hadn't happened. It's very very

(24:29):
interesting. So I think it wasa complex character basically, yes, And
I have heard that he would becomevery much immersed in the character that he
was playing and was to become thatperson. How on earth did he cope
with doing multiple parts then, andhow could you switch from doing one part
to another if you were totally immersed. Well, it must have been really
weird. Yeah, Well he'd donethat in Lolita near he played two.
Yeah, I don't know if hedid that before. Maybe he did in

(24:52):
one of the fifties films, Ithink so, I think so, I
think it was I think he diddo it before. Yeah, definitely Lolita,
possibly before. And of course hehave been inspired I guess by Alec
Guinness doing what was it eight partsin kind Hearts and Coronets. Absolutely,
that's right. I was going tomention that because that was one of his
great inspirations. Wasn't it Alec Guinnesswho he'd played alongside in The Lady Killers.

(25:14):
Ah, yes, I've never seenthat. You know, it's fantastic
film, I know, So you'reright. Yeah, So Alec Guinnis plays
eight members of the Dascogne family whoget killed off one by one. And
indeed Alec Ginnis plays a lady,Lady Agatha as well with a completely implausible
lady but then never mind. So, yeah, he obviously relished the idea
of doing many characters. So followedGuinness in that. And why didn't he

(25:37):
play the fourth one? I don'tknow what you've found, because I've heard
a couple of versions of that story. Well, it was because you were
supposed to play the con character,wasn't it the guy who was in charge
of the B fifty two that actuallygoes on target. The actor was changed,
of course, and the idea therewas that the studios wanted him to
play at least four parts because thatwould be popular with the audience. He
didn't want to play that particular characterbecause he couldn't. He was not satisfied

(26:02):
that he could do a textan accent, but they insisted. So he apparently
developed a sprained ankle such that hecouldn't get into the cockpit very easily.
Well that's the story. I'm notsure I fully believe that. I wonder
when that was a bit of away of getting out of it, but
I don't know. Of course,yeah, we're not suggested he sprained his

(26:23):
own ankle, but no, no, it was. He was a good
actor, wasn't he. Oh,this ankle really hurts today. I don't
know who knows if he's a geniusactor. Actually, Terry Southern was raised
in Texas, so he did helphim with the accent. But yeah,
he was still it was insecure aboutit. He was exhausted as well,

(26:44):
just playing doctor Stranger Love alone.Even though it's a small part. That
would be exhausting for me. Ithink it would. Can I just go
back to Strange Love? Yeah,because we mentioned about other people like in
a Kissinger and Herm and Karna,there was another guy, Edward Tuller.
People talk about an Hungarian American physicistcalled the father of the hydrogen bomb,
et cetera. But you know,he was Hungary and he wasn't German.

(27:07):
He'd fled from the Nazi, soit doesn't seem to fit very well.
But the main thing I want topoint out here is that Peter Sellers himself
has there's a quote here from him. Quote Strange Love was never modeled on
Kissinger. That's a popular misconception.It was always fair enough on Brown.
I mean that's pretty definitive. Itwas always fair enough on Brown. So
yeah, that's pretty clear. Andthen obviously, as I said earlier,

(27:30):
physical traits came from other things.I've just got here. Yeah, the
mad scientist archetype came from the characterRotwang in Metropolis. So another film I
haven't seen for years, But that'san old media that's another old media favorite,
isn't it a Metropolis? You know, i'd even forgotten I remembered obviously
the Nazi salutes, but the glovestrangling him. I'd actually forgotten about that.

(27:52):
Yeah, so this film is stillcapable of surprising me. Yeah,
he constantly smiles as well, doesn'the what talking? Yeah, a strange
smile. Yes, it is astrange smile. Yes. What is it
with the wheelchair? What reference isthat? It seems like that's the thing
to do. There's something about thatthat's right, But yeah, what's that
to do with? You know,it feels like one of those things that's

(28:14):
so familiar now, isn't it thatyou just think, Oh, yeah,
of course a madman in a wheelchair. I didn't see in my notes that
it was taken specifically from anything else. So well, another thing with the
hand is that there's a very famouspicture, or a number of pictures,
actually a Phenophon Brown with his armin a cast. I think it's his
left arm, but there are somephotographs where he seems to it's sort of

(28:36):
elevated, as if he's about todo a Nazi salute. So I just
wonder whether that was an influence onPeter Seller's, you know, maybe come
across the photos or something. Mostpeople, I think say that George C.
Scott was the bright shining light inthis. I certainly thought he did
a fantastic job. For me,it was Sterling Hayden. But George Scott

(29:00):
plays the general Buck Turgidson fantastic names, as you said, the joint Chief
of Staff chairman, obviously turgid meaningboring, rather too serious about stuff.
I wonder where the Buck comes from. The buck stops here I take the
decisions. I thought it was maybejust a very typical American name, could
be from outside the context of America, you know, ship and names like

(29:21):
that. You know, maybe abit of an American archetype in a way.
And obviously the Buck is a male, it's the male connotation. Yeah,
yeah, I mean, from whatyou were saying earlier about these cartoony
takes, it's almost a great performanceinadvertently. I mean, obviously he's doing
the takes. But he would havehad other ideas, I guess, wouldn't
he about how he wanted to playit. What do you mean, I

(29:41):
don't, Well, Kubrick got himto do these cartoony takes and ended up
using them. Yeah, so presumablythere are more serious takes that were done,
I guess. So I mean thereare stories. He didn't talk to
Kubrick for years. He was reallyupset with it, maybe just more in
a sort of egos sense, becausehe was to look like an idiot.
It's perfect though, Yeah, youknow, I means he is an actor.

(30:03):
I think years later there's some storylike years later he sort of realized
he said, well, yeah itdid work okay, fair enough. But
you know, maybe he was abit ticked off by being beaten at chess.
You know, there's this whole matcho. Maybe. Sure, there's always
these ego games, aren't they so? But yeah, I've always I've always
loved him. You know, there'sa film called There's Anatomy of a Murder.

(30:23):
I think you're a fan of thaton't you. I don't know that
that's one of his earlier ones.I don't know that, right, So
the hustler obviously, and then patternsa big one. Oh pattern, Yes,
that's brilliant. I suppose I cana great actor. Yeah he was,
and I can see I suppose whyyou might be annoyed as an actor
because in a sense Kubrick was usinghim as a tool, like a brush.

(30:44):
The artist might use the brush,you know, to do the painting,
rather than being the director of anartist and allowing that artist to produce
the work themselves. In a sense, it was there was a bit of
that, wasn't. It was abit manipulative. Yeah, but I suppose
it depends how you look at it, though, because isn't the role of
a director in a sense to manipulatethe actors And of course you're using manipulative

(31:06):
in a negative sense, which isfine, but in a more sort of
neutral sense. They are supposed tomanipulate them, as bose. But it
wasn't that kind of manipulation, wasit. It wasn't a cooperative manipulation.
It was a negative manipulation in thesense of we're just doing takes here.
After we've done these takes will dothe real thing and we will have both

(31:26):
learnt from your takes. But actuallyI'm just going to use those takes.
That's a bit of using it asa tool, I think. And it's
interesting that Roger Ebert are going,it's a great Roger d but obviously didn't
know that. So he says theticks and twitches, the grimaces, the
eyebrow archings, and the sardonic smilesand chewing gum, and I enjoyed the
way Scott. I enjoyed the wayScott approached the role as a duet for

(31:51):
voice and facial expression. And I'mthinking you actually enjoyed the way that Kubrick
approached the role by kidding him intodoing it that off camera almost Yeah.
Well, of course, you know, before DVDs and special features, before
the Internet and essays and YouTube andeverything, people just wouldn't have known all
this. I mean, I supposethere's some knowledge of it, but you

(32:14):
know, there's other aspects to him, the whole childlike I mean, that's
what I think of him. Ithink of childlike. He pounts. The
President sort of reprimands him, andhe pounts. You know, he's chewing
the gum as well. Not thatthat makes him a child chewing gum,
but it's just the way he's doingit, you know, it's quite hilarious.
I suppose Kubrick's argument to the manipulationthing would be that in the end

(32:35):
it turned out better. And likeI said, I think Scott true perhaps
generously a bit later in the day, in a few years down the line,
sort of said oh yeah, okay, oh did he I don't know
that is that the case did Ithink he did. He should have been
proud of it for sure. Yeah, because he did actually do it and
did it extremely well. It wasperfect fit Sterling Hayden. Just for me,

(32:59):
I think he I just love hischaracterization there of this Brigadier General Jack
d Ripper, Jack d Ripper commanderof this Burplson Air Force Base which is
part of the Strategic Air Command.I just love the way that he played
it and Kubrick interacted with that.Both he and Turgerton are based upon Curtis

(33:24):
LeMay, aren't they to a certainextent. But I think there's more of
that with Jack de Ripper, notleast because Curtis la Maay was for a
time in charge of Strategic Air Command, so that's a direct connection. We'll
mention more about this in a bit. I'm sure there are some lovely shots
of Jack d Ripper giving these speeches, very serious speeches about the communists,

(33:47):
etc. And there are some angles, aren't there, Strange camera angles where
he has this sort of granite jawlike it's a bit of fascist propaganda,
and he has this cigar just likein Teeth Curtis LeMay that he's he's got
all the time, and it's alovely characterization. Yeah, I think the
cigar again, obviously is a sexualthing. There's no doubt about that.

(34:07):
The angle is tilted to make itlook longer. You've got the whole idea.
I'm sure we'll get to this ofhis impotence and his precious bodily fluids.
But in terms of stealing Hayden,he's got one of those voices.
It's almost like Frank's and Archer deliveringa song. The voice is so brilliant,
it's got such gravitas that I thinkSellers gets credit as Man Drake for

(34:30):
creating this sort of double act becauseit is really you know, their scenes
are so fantastic because there's it seemsto me that it's like a weird affection
between them in a funny way.But I think Sellers help Sir Hayden.
But Hayden's yeah, brilliant love thatvoice, Yeah, straight delivery, it's
just great. Yeah, talking aboutthe double act. There you've got the
over politeness, the ridiculous over politenessof Man Drake trying to calm him down

(34:55):
and get that codeos of him,and you've got the sort of control old
manickness. At the same time withthe other character, it's just as wonderful.
Well, this whole business, becauseI did read the Roger Ebert thing
and something came out was quite interestingthere. People have criticized or wondered why

(35:15):
Kubrick was concentrating on the whole fluoridething. What's going on there, because
obviously you're laughing at this guy forthinking fluoridation of the water supply as a
problem. In his case, ofcourse, he's saying it's the Communists who
are fluoridating the water. Well,Roger Ebert says that this is just a
bracket. He just puts this inparentheses. Younger viewers may not know that

(35:37):
in the nineteen fifties this was awidespread belief. Now I don't know whether
he's joking there, but if that'strue, it was talked about, Oh,
yeah, the Communists are floridating ourwater supply. It seems to me
then this is less of a criticismof people who might be worried about fluoridation
than it is about people who thinkthe Communists are actually infiltrating the water supply.

(36:00):
You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, I took it it's
quite metaphorical of yeah, infiltration andbrainwashing. Essentially, if you put florid
in the water, you're going tochange people physically, but they're also going
to perhaps become more docile, youknow, which is arguably how brainwashing works.
But yeah, again, it's interestingbecause you and I know that in
the media, this was one ofthe things that was going around the short

(36:22):
quote conspiracy theory about fluoridation. Ididn't have a clue whether that was in
the air then, obviously I wasn'taround. Well, I mean, I
have concerns about fluoridation in the waterplanand I'm very glad that in this area
it's not being done, and peopleback then had concerns about it obviously.
But it's this connection then with thecommunists are doing it. I suspect that
explains why Kubrick picked that, Yes, because that seems less rational, doesn't

(36:46):
it. The idea that the communistswould somehow get in there and be doing
this, that's more of a moreextravagant conspiracy than just you know, the
agricultural industry profiteering by dumping this stuffin the water supply. That's yeah,
that's much more beelievable. This isactually pre the era where conspiracy theory as
a phrase was weaponized, because youknow, there was a CIA document.

(37:08):
Well it's around the same time,I suppose, I think it was sixty
seven. It's yet another example ofpeople in the West do believe in conspiracies.
If it's the Communists, if it'sthe Russians Russia Gate, for example.
You know, people do think brainwashingexists. It's just we don't do
it. You know. It's justsomething that they do over there, isn't
it. That's right. Yeah,it's just the same now with Putin's Russia

(37:30):
as well, isn't it. Youknow, you can believe believe of them.
You know, false flags are mentionedin the mainstream media, it'll be
all the Russians might be doing falseflags. I'm thinking, hold on,
you never say that about us.Of course, maybe everybody does them sometimes,
you know. Yeah, as ofthe recording we're doing now early March,
there's a Wall Street journalist, isn'tthere being held in Russia while mister

(37:51):
osanj has been held for five years? You know, it's happening exactly the
same time. And I really pickedup on that because it was mentioned recently.
When they do it. It's onething when we do it, it's
a completely other thing, that's right. Yeah, well the whole thing about
Navalni. Of course, I don'tbelieve for a moment that Putin had n't
killed. It's just far too convenientfor Western propaganda, not at all convenient

(38:15):
for Putin's point of view. Butyeah, all who are about him being
murdered? And yet you've got theslow murder of Julianassange and relative silence about
that. Yeah, true, it'strue. Yep, we just mentioned just
a couple more of the cast.Sure, I think we've done the main
ones, haven't we. Just wehaven't done Slim Pickens of course. Yeah.

(38:35):
A couple of interesting things about that. As we said earlier, this
was a role that was supposed tobe played by sellers. The amazing thing
is that apparently Pickens arrived. Everyonethought he'd arrived in costume and in character,
and they thought, blimy, he'sdoing a good job at that.
But they didn't know that that wasthe way he dressed and spoke anyway.
And I guess the other thing wasthat no one told him it was a
comedy. Apparently it's a good story, is that that's what I've read.

(39:00):
Who knows well? I was thinkingabout this. Is there actually a difference
in delivering something seriously when you knowit's a comedy and delivering it seriously when
it's supposed to be serious. Maybenot. The major com figures made me
think about that. And of courseit is true that Slim Pickens was never
involved in the other scenes, washe? So he never appears, of

(39:20):
course in the war room. Henever appears at Bublesome Air Force Base.
So as far as he's concerned,he could have played that just straight inside
the Beep fifty two bomber never haveneeded to know that was a comedy,
I suppose until the end, howwould you think that it was not funny
riding a nuclear bomb and going yahooand waving his hat in the air.
I mean, at that point,surely he must have been in on it.

(39:44):
I suppose the only bit, thatfamous bit where he goes a fellow
could have a great time in Dallasand they change it to Vegas. He's
going through the kit, isn't he? And it includes things like nylon stockings.
Maybe maybe a bit weird, butyeah, it's a story anyway.
And then the other thing about thatis that John Wayne was considered for it,

(40:07):
and there's two stories. Either hejust never replied or he turned it
down. I'm not sure which.I don't know John Wayne in this,
I don't think so. Certainly ifhe was told it was a comedy,
I don't think that would have fittedwith his image, would it. No?
And of course it's critical of America, isn't it. So I don't
think that would have gone down toowell, it would it. I don't

(40:28):
know. Yeah, if you wantthe most ridiculous propaganda film ever of John
Wayne's, it's The Green Berets aboutVietnam. I mean, okay, because
World War Two, Okay, peoplecan say, obviously there's a there's a
very very clear enemy, and there'sa clear reason to be in that war.
But Vietnam is obviously not the same. But he just made a film.
I think it was even filmed inGeorgia or something like that, and

(40:50):
it's so obvious it's not Vietnam.But I sort of sat through that almost
for the comedy of it. Yeah, I don't think I could bear it
on your behalf. Tracy Reid,stepdaughter of Carol Reid, director of the
Third Man, among other things,one of my favorite films, all right,
yes, and then James L.Jones and you can really hear you

(41:10):
know, he's the voice of DarthVader. Obviously that was his first role,
I believe, And what did hedo. He was one of the
he was on the B fifty two'sokay, not a huge role. I
think he questions the order at somepoint. He's not in it for very
long, but obviously had a goodcareer after that. I also wanted to
mention Keenan Wynn, who was thisColonel bat Guano. And I like the

(41:35):
way Mandrake says, if that reallyis your name? Always loved the way
he keeps on saying, you know, you're a prevert to Mandrake with such
a serious face, and he reallycaptures that sort of cog in the machine
following orders kind of person, doesn'tneed it, won't listen to reason at
all. It's just he's been toldto protect the base and that's it.

(41:55):
However, mad his superior is gone. He won't listen to any of it.
Batty is yeah madness as well.Yeah, yeah, yeah, Mandrake.
Yeah, this is part of theplot that was brilliant. Mindrack runs
out of change he's going to callthe president to say that I've worked out
with the code is he can't getany change, and he wants Guana to

(42:15):
shoot the lock of the coke machine. But he said, oh, it's
private property. There's some idea ofprotecting capitalism, you know, protecting private
property. But then he does shootit. At the end, he gets
a face full of coke. Doyou remember. Oh that's right, Yeah,
very good. Actually, I'm notsure I like that. That was
a bit too slapsticky from my mind. That was a little bit bit too
much, a bit of the piefights that they decided to scrap at the

(42:37):
end. But again, it's theearnestness, isn't it of protecting the coke
machine? Absolutely? Oh yeah,And I love the idea that you're obeying
the letter of the law. Thisis private property. It doesn't matter that
the world is about to be blownup. You're sticking to your your guns.
Literally. Yeah. Well that's quitea comedy thing as well, isn't
it someone sticking to their principles evenwhen it's going to have dire consequences.

(42:59):
Yes, it is definitely trait.You could talk about Monty Python. You
know, I've never seen them publiclysay it, but they obviously took a
lot from this. Oh yeah,the satire of it, absolutely, yeah,
the satire, the cartoonish authority figures. I mean, there's a clear
line from this to other things,you know, just brilliant. Perhaps we
could just mention briefly why this wasa comedy. I guess we haven't said

(43:20):
that, have we? No gotKubrick quote. In fact, always nice
to get a direct quote from theman himself. Quote. My idea of
doing it as a nightmare comedy camein the early weeks of working on the
screenplay. I found that in tryingto put meat on the bones and to
imagine the scenes fully, I hadto keep leaving out of it things which
are either absurd or paradoxical in orderto keep it from being funny. These

(43:42):
things seemed to be close to theheart of the scenes in question. Yes,
Yeah, it was just the ideathat it got more and more comedic
in the end. Kubrick just gavein, yes, because he started off
not thinking of it as a comedyat all. Did he He was sort
of vaguely thinking about making a thrillerabout a cold war nuclear accident and more
and more he thought about it,the more he became aware that, as

(44:06):
you say, so many paradoxes,the whole thing about the balance of terror,
you know, it was just soparadoxical that he thought, you know,
am I either going to cut everythingout or I've got to go satirical
with it? And he was alertedto this novel, wasn't he? A
novel called read Alert had a differenttitle, as I said before, by

(44:27):
Peter George, who obviously worked withTerry Southern and Stanley Cooprick on this.
That book was recommended to Kubrick bya guy who was the head of the
Institute for Strategic Studies, which wasa British think tank in international affairs.
So there were lots of conversations goingon behind the scenes, including with Herman

(44:47):
Kahan. We've already mentioned. We'lltalk about a bit more lost the point
I was trying to make there,so he was thinking, yes, So
the point was that all that wasnot comedic, was it? That was
a serious novel. So although thatwas kind of the basis for it,
because I believe, although I've notread it, but most of that is
in fact the same as the screenplay. As I said, there's no doctor

(45:08):
Strange Love in it, there's nodoomsday device, and I think the tragedy
is averted at the end. Butapart from that, it's pretty much the
same, although not funny. ButKubrick obviously felt that he just couldn't do
it without going in a comedy direction, and I'm glad he did, so
glad he did. Yeah, thereis some debate about how much Terry Southern

(45:29):
actually contributed. He'd made this comicnovel where it's a magic Christian and there
was also one called Candy. Candyis an awful film, but it's got
a sort of ironic so bad it'sgood sort of cachet. Nowadays, Peter
George disputes how much Southern contributed.That maybe he was brought in towards the
end because one of the popular stories, and you know how these stories change

(45:51):
over time, is that he saidto Kubrick, oh, it's got to
be a comedy. But that seemsto be refuted. That Kubrick had the
idea already. Obviously Terry Southern wasa very good guy to have on board
to make the comedy aspects. Butthat was the story. And then the
other story that I think i'd heardyears ago that may or may not be
correct. Is that? Well?I know there was a film being made
called fail Safe, which did comeout just after Strange Love, I believe,

(46:15):
and that was like the film thatStrange Love was going to be.
So one of the stories was thatwhen Kubrick learned that this was in production,
he realized, oh, I've gotto do something different otherwise just going
to get two films which are verysimilar coming out. Ah. Yes,
yeah, he actually ended up.It's a bit complicated, but he ended
up hitting them with a lawsuit whichmade sure that Strange Love came out before

(46:36):
Failsafe. Right, Okay, yeah, it rings a bell. But I
didn't follow that one because I thoughtit was too convolution to go into.
As we're talking about the comedy aspectsof this, I understand that one idea
which was ditched was to approach thisas seeing it through the eyes of aliens
from outer space. I don't quiteknow how that would have worked. I

(46:57):
think of the mashed potato adverts withall the robots, you know, made
of saucepans and things, laughing atwhat the humans are doing. I don't
know whether it would have been abit like that. But yeah, seeing
it from an outer space point ofview, they ditched it. I'm glad
they did, really, because itwould have made it less black, wouldn't
it. Yeah. I think that'slovely, is that they didn't put it
in. But now, with theInternet and so forth, we know that

(47:22):
that was an idea, so wecould at least revel in the idea of
it, even though I think Iagree with you, I don't think it
was the best. Now, theidea was that it would start and end
with them. I suppose Again,it works as a kind of if you
think of it more metaphorically. It'sthe way that when you're outside of a
situation, you can see how ridiculousit is. Yeah, so a bad

(47:42):
idea. No, I just don'tthink we mentioned the fight. I just
don't think it would have worked.Yeah. Yeah, the pie fight is
in the same vein, isn't itagain? So glad that they ditched that
as well. So this was wouldhave been right at the end, Is
that right? What they would havebeen all in the war room and they've
been picking up all this food foodand chucking do did each other? They
did do it, didn't they?I think they did because I think it

(48:04):
was decided that you couldn't see whowas who, You couldn't see what was
going on, and people of coursewere laughing and etc. So the whole
sort of atmosphere would have been ruined. I think again, it's so nice
because we've got stills of it,because it's not a bad idea. It's
just like the Aliens and maybe notthe best. Yeah, there were a
couple of stories. Everyone was takinga bit too seriously. We call them

(48:27):
sort of custard pies in England,they call them cream pies in America.
There was so much that you couldn'tsee who was who. And the other
thing was one of the characters sayswhen the president gets hit with a cream
pie, I think it's turgets andsays, gentlemen, our leader has been
cut off in his prime. Ohyes, I didn't mean that as a
clumsy segue. Yeah, because ofobviously JFK had just been killed. That

(48:52):
was felt to be in poor taste. So they changed that, along with
that line about having a good weekendin Dallas. Yes, so they did
in fact delay the release of thisfilm as well, didn't they. The
first test screening was scheduled for thevery day of the assassination, as it
turns out, Yeah, and Isaw it still and then they oh,

(49:12):
sorry, yeah, and then theythought, hey, can we actually release
this in December. It's a bitsoon, so they waited till January the
next year to release it. Yeah. I saw still online that says preview
screening. And it's weirdly chilling,isn't it. It's like anything that happens
on nine to eleven, you know, it takes on a chilling quality because
it was such a traumatic day,you know. I was just one more

(49:34):
thing I want to add about thecomedy aspect. Kubrick became friends with Joseph
Heller, who wrote Catch twenty two, one of my favorite novels, came
out in sixty one, so nodoubt Kubrick read it and I'm sure took
inspiration and they were friends and theyhad some dialogues. They talked for a
long time, Kubrick and Joseph Heller, and one of the things Kubrick said

(49:55):
to Heller is things have much moreimpact if the audience discuss was it for
themselves. So he said, theworst way to communicate anything is directly.
I probably agree with that. Ifpeople discover things for themselves. Not to
say that the comedy is particularly subtle, and didn't mean it like that,
but yeah, as a general,it's just a general Kubrick sort of piece
of wisdom of it. Right.Well, yeah, I've got an exact

(50:17):
example of this because obviously at theBurpleson Air Force Base you've got that huge
billboard that says pieces are profession beautifullyor wellian, and I thought, oh,
what a great idea to stick thatup. You know, that's a
good joke. Then when I lookedat Strategic Air Force Commands, the shield
it's my motto. It's a realthing. Kubrick as it were. Didn't

(50:39):
tell me that. I had tofind that out. So there was an
extra free song from that. Ohwow, it's true after all. That's
even funnier. It's the magic ofpodcasting. You've just validated what I said.
Yeah, I've actually got it hereNucleus the terran force. Right,
So there's this shield and it's gota hand in armor and that hand has

(50:59):
got bolts of lightning coming out ofit. But it's also grasping I think,
what must be an olive branch forpeace, and it's a strategic at
command and by the side of it, peace is our profession. Wonderful,
beautiful. Yeah, I've got afew more of these satire things. I've
got to mention before we leave theidea of comedy here. It occurred to

(51:20):
me, you know, when Ripperreaches for his machine gun, he pulls
it out of a golf club bag, doesn't he And is that to say
like war is like just a gamefor him? Or is it like when
he plays golf that's as serious aswar. I don't know's it is for
these guys. War is a day'swork, you know, the business of

(51:44):
either proposing wars or planning wars,or you know, it's his whole life.
It's his work and his recreation.That's it. Which is which which,
which one follows the other. It'sa great touch. And with the
other thing here, which will probablygo with the music actually later and the
theme to do with sex of course, the wonderful air refueling that we have
right at the beginning of the filmwith that sort of Mantevani style orchestral music.

(52:08):
And you've got this refueling going on. It's like a love scene.
And wasn't that Curtis Leamaye who developedthe idea of having these bombers in constant
motion needing to be refueled. I'mnot sure. I think it might be.
Yeah. I mean, the lasttime I watched this, I found
more and more sexual reference. Imean, obviously Kong riding the bomb.

(52:30):
I'm sure there's more. Yeah,Oh, I found it out. By
the way. The music at thebeginning that goes with that refueling love scene
is the song try a Little Tenderness. That's it from the nineteen thirties,
and the lyrics go, oh,she may be weary. Them young girls.
They do get wearied wearing that sameold miniskirt dress. But when she
gets weary, you try a littletenderness. Lit's right, Johnny comes marching

(53:00):
home? Is that that's from theAmerican Civil War? Was that from the
Civil War? Right? Yeah?And I was saying to you before we
started, wasn't it of using jauntymusic in a serious scenario. Obviously we've
got wheel meet again. I thinkthat's genius. Do you know what they
were originally going to do? Youknow those bouncing balls you used to get

(53:21):
with karaoke on the word that you'resupposed to be singing. Yeah, apparently
they were going to have that aswell. That was another idea again probably
please they didn't, but I'm happythat I know that. You know,
it's one of those that does appealto me. Actually, yes, it's
in the vein of the other things. Kubrick would later on his career in
a couple of cases do something slightlysimilar. So in the Shining you've got

(53:44):
all this rain ob orchestra music sungbay Albolin No, which is a kind
of jaunty in its way and doesn'tfit with it doesn't seem to fit,
but it makes it more horrific.And then in full metal jacket at the
very end, the soldiers are marchingand they're singing the Mickey Mouse theme,

(54:05):
which I didn't really know, butit was m I see k E Y
M or U s E with thissort of military beat. Almost. It's
just an example of juxtaposition, isn'tit. It's the irony, isn't it.
It's the iron exactly, and eitherthe irony and the music or the
irony and the words. And Ithink with the when Johnny comes marching home,
it's less in the music, isn'tbecause that seems to fit, it

(54:27):
fits with the you know the bombersare going. You know, it's the
words, So, isn't it WhenJohnny comes marching home again, Hurrah Rah.
We'll give him a hearty welcome andwe'll all feel gay when Johnny comes
home. No, you won't,because everybody's going to be dead. Wonderful
irony there, And of course thesame with the berylin singing we'll meet again,
which was suggested I believe by SpikeMilligan of course Seller's mate, of

(54:51):
course, so again, you knowwe'll meet again, and then this lovely
don't know where, don't know when, but I know we'll meet again some
sunny day. Yeah. So it'sthe the irony of the words, isn't
it. Yeah, Although in thefirst case, the irony of the words
and the music, the lovely mantevanigentleness of this killing machine being refueled.
You know what about the elongated lettering? Do you remember that at the beginning

(55:13):
and the credits, Yes, lovely, isn't it? Was there some story
to do with that. I don'tknow, but I'm just so characteristic and
so individual, but I love it. Yeah, yeah, I suppose something
about elongation. It's just telling youthat things aren't quite right, or things
aren't quite in proportion, something likethat. I don't know, you know,
obviously it's a deliberate choice. Maybeit just means that every character is

(55:34):
over the top, you know itslightly cartoonish. Yeah, I don't know
what's in it, but there's somethingthere. Yes, it's a cartoonishness about
it. Yeah, and we've gota credit Lourie Johnson. We did mention,
but Lori Johnson, English band leader, composer, arranger, conductor,
obviously did a lot of arranging ofthis stuff in so far as he was
not using his own music. I'ddone an awful lot of stuff TV themes

(55:55):
like Animal Magic, The Avengers,The New Avengers, This Is Your Life,
The Professionals, and loads of filmsas well, Moonraker, First Man
on the Moon, loads of concertmusic, theater music, et cetera.
So you know, a major figurein English music. Perfect choice for this,
Julian. Before we leave the comedy, I think we already have,
but you permit me by one,Yes, pri minister reference because it will

(56:17):
make you laugh. Oh, itwill make you laugh. It wouldn't be
you without that. Yes, anotherpodcast it's Beatles references with this on.
Now there's a fantastic episode. Again, it must have been influenced by this
film. I can't say it wouldn't. But there's an episode where Hacker has
just become Prime Minister and they're talkingabout obviously pushing the nuclear button and what

(56:37):
are the implications, what are thesafety features to stop, you know,
someone blowing up the world. Andhe's tried to order lunch and it turns
out he can't get his lunch deliveredor something, and he says to his
wife, Ah, so I've gotthe power to blow up the world,
but I haven't got the power toorder scrambled eggs. But it it's not
funny when I say it, Butit's just the idea that they've obviously taken

(56:59):
this idea. It's the absurdity,you know, of the nuclear button.
You know, serious stuff obviously,but right, yeah, the power and
powerlessness. This will be a themethat comes out later in our discussion.
Sure, I think so. Yeah. I wanted to say just a little
bit more about Herman Khan, whowrote that book on thermonuclear war and was

(57:21):
in consultation with Kubrick and others aboutthis film, because I think you must
have had quite an influence. Thedoomsday machine already mentioned was in his book
a sort of logical conclusion to mutuallyassured destruction. But also there's some mentioned
about the possibility of people living inbunkers under the earth as well. A
couple of quotes from here. Igot this off Google book, so this

(57:43):
is page five to one eight.Usually when I discuss expensive programs that involve
elaborate shelters, I find that peopleare appalled at the idea of living underground
for such lengthy periods as posed here. Blah blah blah, blah blah.
Because I've got access to the fullbook. But yeah, part of his
book there and again with the doomsdaymachines, he's saying, I'm not predicting.

(58:05):
This is page five hundred. I'mnot predicting that they will be built.
I've already indicated in my opinions tobe the opposite. It is most
unlikely that either the Soviet Union orthe US would build such machines. However,
and then he goes on with thediscussion. But I understand that the
Soviets did not exactly as far asI understand it, we'll not actually build
a machine. But they did havea system called dead Hand. At one

(58:25):
point, did you come across this? No, I didn't actually know,
right. So I've got a quotehere from this great essay by Eric Schlosser
called almost everything in Doctor Strangelove wastrue. This is in the New Yorker.
So this is from the seventeenth ofJanuary twenty fourteen, and there's loads
of stuff in here, but hedoes talk about dead Hand. So a

(58:46):
bit of a quote from here.A decade after the release of Strangelove,
the Soviet Union began work on theperimeter system, and then he goes on
to say that it had a nicknamedead Hand, obviously in Russian, that
it could allow junior military officials tomake nuclear decisions if they couldn't get hold
of the top Soviet Soviet top brass. And then if dead Hands sensed unexpected

(59:10):
nuclear explosions inside the Soviet Union,then it will basically chuck nukes at the
US. So there was something alongthose lines. You know, Khan was
right, you know, there wasa logical conclusion that would lead in that
direction, and it was kept secretas well. It was kept secret just
like you know in the film It'skept secrets. Somebody says is it strange,

(59:32):
Love says, So the other sidewould have to know about this for
it to have a deterrent effect.Yeah, I didn't just tell it,
that's right. I didn't you tellthe word. Yeah. So it turns
out so much of it was true. Wow. When was the book that
you were quoting from? When wasthat written on? Theterm in nuclear war?
Was nineteen sixty, so it wasfresh off the press, really when
Kubrick was chatting with him. Interestinghow much was known to Karana don't know,

(01:00:00):
but people around the times, Accordingto Eric's clossa, people around the
time were criticizing the film for beingdangerous, evil, Soviet propaganda, implausible,
impossible on a dozen counts, allthese sorts of things. And then
it's true, never believe anything untilit's officially denied. Yes, that's right.

(01:00:22):
It seems that Eisenhower did in factagree to let American officers use their
nuclear weapons in an emergency if therewasn't time for the president to be contacted.
And it was known as Single IntegratedOperational Plan or SIOP. Such an
interesting Yeah. Yeah, he wasvery unhappy that he'd signed this into being,

(01:00:45):
but he had. He was worriedthat something foolish down the chain of
command could happen amazing. Yeah,I mean there is some idea, as
I said in the old media,that Kubrick didn't know quite a bit in
at the deep state, not becausehe had necessary secret source. It's probably
just because you read a lot,because truth is always out there, isn't

(01:01:07):
it. I think that's right.Yeah, according to Dan Richtor, you
know, he confirmed that Kupri inpreparation would read fifty books or whatever.
He want to become an expert oneverything, but he was also consulting with
people who were in a position toknow things that ordinary people wouldn't know.
I think that's also true, yes, yes, yeah, absolutely so.
Yeah, it's a very knowledgeable person. Obviously, it wasn't there a thing

(01:01:30):
about the inside of the B fiftytwo's was so accurate that they were worried
about getting sued or something, thatis right, Yes, yes, the
story goes that they they had somesort of photograph one photograph or something of
the inside but was not very good, and then they sort of deduce what
it would be like by comparing itwith another type of aircraft or something along

(01:01:50):
those lines. But yeah, theygot some people from the Air Force were
invited to come and look at theset or something, and they went,
Wow, this is totally accurate,and they freaked out. The FBI might
be investigating them. That's right,you know, I don't know what that's
a cover story or what they didin fact, have some intelligence they shouldn't
have had. We'll never know.Yeah, it's not beyond the realms of

(01:02:14):
possibility. I mean, no,it's not. It's no. Kubrick was
a name by then, you know, and who knows, and he had
all these contacts. Was it hisversion of the Competer seller's sprained ankle?
Yes, I don't know. Ofcourse, I wouldn't put it past him.
We're not making any allegations anybody,of course, not because we don't
know. Sure. We're here toserve the listener and get them to do

(01:02:37):
their own research, as well asexactly exactly should we talk about the sets?
Because that's kind of a linked towhat we were just saying, isn't
it It is? I just wondered, can I just say a couple more
things about this reality thing? Bewhere we leave that subject? It's just
that a lovely quote here. Well, I haven't sourced it myself, but

(01:02:58):
again from this article. He saysthere was a memo that went to Kennedy
very shortly after Kennedy came into office, and the quote is, a subordinate
commander faced with a substantial military actioncould start the Thermo nuclear holocaust on his
own initiative if he could not reachyou. You know, that was the

(01:03:20):
situation that Kennedy inherited from Eisenhower,and so he ordered locks to be put
on these weapons that were coded.So hence we get this business about the
code. You know that Jack Ripperwas hiding inside his mind. They were
called permissive action links. That's right, pals. So although these were put
on NATO devices, Yeah, pals, that's it, Oh, perfect,

(01:03:45):
it is against I might add theadvice of the Joint Chief of Staff,
who said, quote all is wellwith the atomic stockpile program and there's no
need for any changes. So theywanted to remain in control of the situation
that there were apparently all kinds oflacks of control over the weaponry. So
although you know, we were toldthis is all ridiculous, you know,

(01:04:06):
there's no truth to this all.Something like that could have happened because there
was so little control over that stockpile. Quite remarkable, isn't it. Oh,
it's amazing. Isn't it so muchto discover? Absolutely, it's a
great article. I recommend everybody toread that through because I can't vouch for
everything that's in it, but it'sa great article. So Eric Schlosser,
Almost everything in Doctor Strangelove was truefrom the New Yorker. Oh, I

(01:04:30):
have to read that. Yeah,yeah, did you want to say something
about the set? I can't remember. We were talking about the B fifty
two's, yeah, a bit earlier, so the sets. Yeah, So
ken Adam, I was a hugeBond fan. Not so much now.
I still like the old films,but yeah, growing up, James Bond
films was so much part of mylife. And he he sort of made
his name in the very first filmDr No, The Villain's Lair. Ken

(01:04:55):
Adam had come up with this wonderfulset. Obviously Kubrick had seen that got
in touch with him, and hedid. I don't know if he did
other Kubrick films. I imagine hedid, but he did later Bond films.
And there's that large table in themiddle of the war room lit by
lamps, and Kubrick wanted it tobe covered with green bays. Yes,
makes me think of snooker, Butactually it was more to do with poker.

(01:05:18):
Yes, that's right. And wesaid right at the beginning about the
black and white. Obviously you can'treally see that. Are we supposed to
just pick up on it anyway?I don't know, but I think what
I read that that was the ideawas it was to make the actors feel
like they were in a poker gang, to affect the way they approached it,
the game of poker for the fateof the world. Yeah. Absolutely.

(01:05:41):
The big board took ten miles ofelectric cable to light it. It's
one of those juicy little technical details. What do you think of the war
room? Oh, I loved it. Again, I've not seen Metropolis,
but that comes up again. Apparentlythat was inspired by the sort of expressionist
style of that sci fi movie.So this is Fritz Lang's movie from the
nineties twenties. I must say I'vegot a DVD of it, but I've

(01:06:01):
never seen it, but he wastrying to evoke that. I feel like
it might be one of those filmsMetropolis, where the impact of it might
be better than the film. MaybeI've seen it a couple of times.
It's not bad, but I thinkyou'll you'll pick up on a lot of
stuff that's quite precient in it.So yes, you should watch that for
your film education if nothing else.Yes, Yeah, it's just it's a

(01:06:24):
great set and the vastness of it. I mentioned earlier the point where Doctor
Strangelove suddenly turns up for some reason. That really struck me the last time
I watched it. So murk androughly they're having a chat, he says,
Doctor Strange Love, and then theysuddenly cut to the other end of
the room and out of nowhere,you've just suddenly got this incredible character.
Yes, out of the darkness,indeed, fantastic sets. Out of the

(01:06:48):
darkness of Nazi Germany. He comesinto the light of the Western Allies.
Another thing about remarkable that these setsis that it's just basically three sets,
isn't it right? You don't reallyfeel the need for locations and other sets,
do you. It's still very tightand that's all you need. How

(01:07:08):
many locates? So you've got insidethe B fifty two's you've got We've got
Turgetson and his girlfriend at the beginning. But I mean that's very brief,
isn't it. Oh that's true.Yes, you're right, there is that.
It's so brief, but you're right. Yeah, it's just the purpleson
Air Force Base and the war room. Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Three main sets, yeah, yeah, and a corridor. Yeah. So
there are some sort of little satellitesets, but those three main things.

(01:07:30):
You don't feel the need for muchmore. Quite minimalist. I don't know.
I think it's just simple storytelling,really, isn't it. Yeah it
is. This film is getting betterthe more we talk about it, actually,
so thank you for that. Okay, let's talk about themes and things
we can learn from it. Obviously, the main theme is this Cold war
satire, mutually assured destruction, etcetera. And the sexual thing is there,

(01:07:55):
which I think is basically the sublimation, would you agree of sexual things
into warfare, playing with that psychoanalyticalway of looking at things, made Freudian
way of looking at things. I'mpicking up that people say, you know,
there's too much of this in termsof the analysis of this film.
Maybe there is, maybe it isoveremphasized, but it's still very much there

(01:08:16):
because we know that Kubrick himself actuallywrote about this. So there's a quote
from a book called The Stanley KubrickArchives, published in two thousand and eight
by Alison Castle, and this iswhat Kubrick said, as quoted in this
booker hot on the background to thisis this is from Wikipedia. Actually.
In the months following the film's release, director Stanley Kubrick received a fan letter

(01:08:41):
from lagrasse G Benson of the Departmentof History of Art at Cornell University,
interpreting the film as being sexually layered, and the director wrote back to Benson
and confirmed the interpretation. So thisis now the quote from the book.
Quote. Seriously, you are thefirst one who seems to have noticed the
sexual frame work from intromission brackets,the planes going in to the last spasm

(01:09:03):
brackets, Kong's ride down, anddetonation at target. So there you go.
From the horse's mouth, there isactually a framework of sexuality to the
whole thing. You can't miss thatout, Yeah, I think so,
yeah, yeah, I don't knowwhether I need to actually mention these sexual
things, but they were so obvious, aren't they. Obviously the refueling at
at the beginning, somebody's reading Playboymagazine aren't they be fifty two? You've

(01:09:27):
got rippers, I think impotence.You've got the lust that Turgerson has got.
Obviously he's got a secretary I'll marryyou one day kind of thing.
But he's really committed to war.So it's all about lust really, And
of course strange love is hankering afterthis idea of an underground har ream of
perfect women ten to one ratio.Sorry, yeah, ten to one ratio

(01:09:48):
of females to males in the undergo. Yes, that's it, that's it.
But I'm the final bomb, ofcourse. Yeah. But even just
the name strange love, in someweird way, it's passed me by all
these years. Strange love. Yes, how weird? Is that? Absolutely?
Yeah? I suppose the lust forwar instead of human love is a

(01:10:11):
kind of strange love, isn't it. Yeah, it is, it is.
Yeah. I suppose it's a bit, maybe a bit on the nose
to say that people make war tocover up some sort of sexual inadequacy,
but well maybe in a general way, just to cover some sort of inadequacy.
I don't know, sure, I'mnot a great Freudian, I have
to say I think it's rather overblownI think he was rather overblown, to

(01:10:32):
be honest. But yeah, okay, I'm not saying there's nothing to it.
The point is I suspect that Kubrickhimself was influenced by those kinds of
thoughts and then decided to use themfor the film. You know, That's
what I'm saying. Yeah, Ithink so a well read man, you
know. But of course, whenyou make it comedy as well, you're
sort of distancing yourself from it ina way. It's almost like I'm telling

(01:10:54):
you something that could be true,but because it's comedy, I'm not telling
you you have to take it seriously, you know what I mean? So
you yes, you can almost likedeliver the truth via the backdoor in this
funny way. Well, I wantto talk about, you know, the
lessons we can sort of learn fromit, how we can ruminize upon this.
I'm going to credit this documentary becauseyou've sent it to me, and

(01:11:15):
I think it's got a lot that'sgood in it. So it's influenced my
thinking and your thinking, although Ido have some reservations about some aspects of
it. But it's called Learning toLove the Bomb. A retrospective on Kubrick's
Doctor Strange Love. So this isby a YouTube channel called Empire of the
Mind, a link to that,of course, very good. I think
I'm not so sure about his concentrationso much on mythology towards the end.

(01:11:40):
I don't know what to what extentKubrick was influenced by Kirker Gard and other
philosophersy He mentions, but never mind, there are lots of good ideas in
here, so I am crediting thatdocumentary. So one of the ideas that
he brings up is the fact thatin the comedy of this, Kubrick is
exploring paradox having noticed that that isa feature of the actual scene situation of

(01:12:00):
course, with mutually assured destruction,and therefore going for satire and comedy because
of those paradoxes. And one ofthe things I've got from this is that
things that are paradoxical and things thatare ironic are almost unbelievable. Could these
things really happen? Because we've talkedabout it, so we know they could
really happen. But you know,so many people were saying at the time,

(01:12:23):
well, this is not realistic,this couldn't happen. It's too paradoxical,
it's too ironic. But isn't thata bit of a sobering thought,
because if you approach something, Ithink these paradoxes are such that, well
they couldn't really be like that inreal life. That sort of makes us
ill equipped to stop such things happening, if you get my meaning. So

(01:12:43):
what you're saying is if you saysomething as comedy, it's a way of
dismissing it. Is that what youmean. I don't think I put it.
I need to try this again.I'm not sure I put that very
well. Actually, let me tryagain. Okay, I've got the answer
to this. It's the phrase truthis stranger than fiction, and this shows
that, isn't it. It demonstratesthe truth and stranger than fiction. It's
fiction, but it's true in away in that it you know, it's

(01:13:06):
exploring something that could have happened.So we need to keep in our minds.
That's what I'm saying. I thinkwhat I'm learning from this is that
we all need to realize that truthcan be really stranger than fiction. So
we shouldn't dismiss something because it hasOh, it's a little bit too fanciful
and thinking, hold on, thismight be true. Yeah, it's a
bit fanciful, but actually things likethat can happen. That's what I'm taking

(01:13:27):
from it. Yeah, well thatgoes back to you know, I mentioned
Bill Hicks a lot. He hadthis sort of sleep tight narrative, in
the sense of saying, don't worry, everyone's sleep tight, the government's in
control. You know, nothing thiscrazy could possibly be true. It just
comes back to that old thing.You know, we weren't going to mention
the fact that it's a ten yearanniversary of when you unleashed me onto the
world, Julian and I think tenyears ago we were probably having a similar

(01:13:51):
discussion. Yes, we probably will. Yeah, there's so much to be
learned, and like you said,when something is ironic, it's so far
from what you consider the norm.Yeah, but yeah, we can learn
from that. The world is verybizarre. Yes, yes, it doesn't
mean that all bizarre things are true, but it does mean that some bizarre

(01:14:11):
things can be true. So weshould constantly keep that in mind and not
just say anything that's bizarre is false. No, no, no, case
by case basis. Yeah, whatabout the rather dangerous lesson that the people
in charge of our lives. Incharge of the nuclear button might be slightly
buffoony or well, yes, orit might be mad. You know that

(01:14:33):
that is a dangerous thought, evenfor someone like me. Yeah, you
know. I can't think of anybodywho I'd like to be in charge of
a nuclear button, even if theyhad to consult with other people first before
it was pressed. You know,some more than others. But I can't
think of anybody would actually like,certainly not myself or a system. Gosh,

(01:14:54):
what dreadful thought. It is,especially people who want to be in
power. That's the other thing,Yes, isn't it. That's right.
Apparently there are tribes that will electas leader the person that doesn't want to
be leader, right, because theysuspect they're going to be less power hungry
than the other ones. That makesa lot of sense. Yes, I
haven't really got anymore. If ifyou want to wrap up, I don't
know. Oh. Well, Ihad this idea that is explored in that

(01:15:17):
documentary. I think it's got somethingto it is the idea of the modern
world. Of course, we seethis mutually assured destruction as a feature of
the modern world, leading to impotence, which, of course connects to the
sexual symbolism in the film, andI think there's something to that in that
when you create massive systems, interconnected, complex systems, it can lead in

(01:15:45):
the direction of a certain impotence,because how do you control something that is
massive, interconnected, and interdependent.And we have an example of that in
the film. They've created this system, but once the weakness of that system
are revealed through this mad person makingthese decisions, you can't stop it.
Once it's triggered, that's it.So there's a sense of disempowerment about creating

(01:16:10):
systems which are supposed to give youpower. They kind of take away decision
making. There there's an inflexibility aboutthem once they're made. I think it
is a feature of the modern world. What do you do with that system?
That's the thing. Well, Ithink you try to avoid making totalizing
systems and global systems and top downsystems. I'm all for trying to keep

(01:16:32):
control at the local level. Youknow, we had this with the so
called pandemic, didn't we This isthe approach, you know, we all
wear masks, and we all takevaccines, and we all lock down.
And the who wants to have moreof this kind of thing, you know,
to have control. It's all aboutcontrolling from the top so that nothing
goes wrong. I'm thinking, know, exactly what we needed throughout was flexibility

(01:16:55):
at the grassroots level so that individualcircumstances could be called ordinated appropriately. Doctors
can make individual decisions in consultation withtheir patients. Instead have been risk being
struck off because they're making a decisionthat will went against the policy, you
know. Or perhaps individual counsels makinga particular decision about what they do with

(01:17:16):
their elderly people, do they letother people go to work, or maybe
they think, yeah, that's theway to go about it, you know,
whatever it is, I think itwould have been so much better if
there could have been flexibility in theapproach. That's just one example. Well
yeah, looking forward, of course, AI, you're going to get even
less of a human approach. I'mnot saying it's not good for some things,

(01:17:38):
but yeah, you're absolutely right.I always think this when if I'm
a victim of some terrible bureaucracy,right, which is actually happening with a
company I'm working for. They're aFrench company and I teach online for them,
and the French authorities have come upwith some idea that you this is
a brilliant piece of it, anunintended comedy. They've decided that the only

(01:17:59):
teacher that can work for this companyare ones that live in France, even
though the whole idea of being ableto teach remotely is that you could live
anywhere. Oh, it's quite abrilliant piece of unintentional comedy, is it.
Yes? Yeah, yes. Iwas talking to the owner of my
school. I was saying to him, is this a human being that's made
this decision? When you think ofbureaucracies. I don't know if you think
like this as well. Obviously there'ssome human involvement in bureaucracies, But it

(01:18:24):
is kind of like a machine,isn't it. It's like, even if
it's not technically a robot, probablyis at some point now. But you
know, it's weird, isn't it. When the machine commons makes a decision
like a bureaucratic machine, there mustbe a human hand at some point.
It's interesting you bring up the bureaucratizationthing, because that's in a quote from
this David Bromwich article I've got here. He says that the deep preoccupation of

(01:18:48):
Doctor Strangelow is in fact not waritself, but rather the political development of
which modern war has been the largestsystem. And then it just says the
bureaucratization of terror. That's mostly whatit's about. Isn't it the system rather
than war itself? The creation ofthese systems that can destroy us because of
their inflexibility and their vulnerability to humanerror and human hubris and human stupidity and

(01:19:15):
human ignorance. And we need thatflexibility that responds to the situation, not
a system. Isn't it interesting thatshortly before this film was made, just
a few years Eisenhower made the famousMilitary Industrial Complex speech, which I didn't
hear until I saw it on themedia documentary probably fifteen years ago, but

(01:19:39):
as of this film, it wasalready out there. But obviously, you
know, people wouldn't have known thatphrase. But that's the machine, of
course as well. Did you haveanything else in your notes that you wanted
to get to, Well, justperhaps a couple more things about this idea
of the machine and the small slipup that can be the end of everything.
I mean, we had that whatwe were talking about before with the

(01:20:00):
Cuban missile crisis, and the rulesof engagement and all that kind of thing.
You know, there were slip ups, weren't there. There were stupid
things that people did and think itcould have been the end of the world,
and as it happened, it wasnot, which I think is providential.
But they go these rules created asort of machine, and there was
the small slip up that could havehappened, and this film certainly explores that,
and I think it goes as yousay, AI technocracy, globalized systems.

(01:20:25):
It's terrifying that we could end upwith analogues of that as we go
forward from here. And they areagain also really subject to human nature,
if not by being vulnerable to decisionsthat people make when the machine exists,
then vulnerable to, as it were, being front loaded by human stupidity in

(01:20:46):
the very creation of these things.Do you think AI is an unstoppable machine
now in the sense that it's herenow, isn't it? I mean,
I don't know. I wish Ihad answers. That's a problem. Yeah.
I think the only answer, torepeat myself a bit, is just
to resist all these totalizing processes andtrends as much as we possibly can,
and every time the WF suggests thatthey can be in control of everything and

(01:21:12):
erect this wonderful technocracy for the worldto say, no, I don't really
want to be part of that,thanks very much. I'll grow my own
vegetables, or you know, goto the local store and pay with cash,
and all these little things that wecan do that resist the direction they
want us to go in, becausehowever much they think they're in control,
their machine just will not work.Yeah, it's interesting. I work in

(01:21:34):
a retail I have a part time. It's a currency exchange. I mean
you do sometimes talk to the customersand because they can pay by cash or
card, I do find myself sometimesmentioning Castler society, you know, because
sometimes you just have a little chatwith them before you give them your money
and stuff. It's interesting to gaugepeople's opinions. And I think so many

(01:21:56):
people this is true with also scannersin supermarkets, you know, yeah,
scadget. I've never used it,to be honest, because I'm trying to
stay a bit old school. Butyeah, these devices you can use.
People go mad when they go downin the shop. Because there was a
thing at Christmas. The system brokedown and no one could use their scanners,
and I think they were really angry. Yes, I think all these

(01:22:16):
machines often get sold to the publicwith convenience, don't they. Oh,
they do, absolutely, And Imean I hear this all the time,
and I talk to my family aboutit and stuff. Unfortunately X amount of
people they just love convenience, youknow, and I do it in a
lot of ways. You know,I'm not being luod eyed about this,
you know, to use that typicalview of the luod Ites, but you

(01:22:39):
know, no technology is neutral,and we just need to see, well,
hold on, is this is technologyand scientific progress necessarily progress with a
big p, you know. Imean I could look at growing my own
vegetables in the garden as being progressedin the sense that maybe that's a better
thing to do tomorrow than just domindlessly buy things from super Mus's progress.

(01:23:00):
But that's not how it's normally lookedupon, as it always has to be
technological and has to be convenience andall that. But why what does progress
really mean? And I think weneed to look at when we come to
technology is to say, is thisthe kind of progress I want? Is
this really going to help me?And other people. If it is fine,
use it, if not, stepback from it. It's not neutral.

(01:23:21):
It's not necessarily progressed just because it'sbright, shining and convenient. So
it's not being against all technology.It's engaging with it critically and asking those
questions I think we all need todo. That. Is that a paradox
or irony? That progress to youand to me is growing your own vegetables,
which is going back to the beginning. That's ad Yeah, I think

(01:23:41):
that's both. It is a bitparadoxical, isn't it. Yeah, Yeah,
No, definitely. It's always askingwhat does it mean? Isn't it?
You know, what does progress reallymean? We're told what progress means.
It means buying the Ledge's gadget,It means being online, you know,
it means giving up cash or whatever. It is. Well, maybe
it isn't, Maybe it isn't.It just means being better in some way
than the previous day. While thatcould be in any direction you like,

(01:24:04):
and that will be depending upon eachindividual's choices and circumstances. It's better for
me now to be writing on apaper pad because it's more convenient for me.
It's better for me sometimes to pickup a real book because I just
love the pages and the feel ofthe two too. That's progress, isn't
it. Yeah, But society,you see all these things. We can

(01:24:24):
argue whether these are deliberate or not. All these things are built into society
where people will make fun of youfor that. Yeah, for using paper
and wanting to use cash. That'sright. And I don't know exactly where
that comes from. I think it'spartly inevitable, partly planted. I don't
have any evidence for that, butyou know what I mean, it's I
do know what you mean. It'sit's the mag difficult to analyze the full

(01:24:45):
story. Yeah, it's the majority. We always say this stummy if we
don't want to sound patronizing, butI see this in my everyday life.
It's not something I've just made up. That the majority of people seem to
just value convenience and they think progressis what they're told. Program regress is,
yes, as we said, andthat when you regress, you know,
if you go back to writing letters, you know, imagine if someone

(01:25:05):
writes a letter and posts it toyou, A lot of people say,
you're a bit weird, aren't youwriting letters? But I think they're lovely,
you know. Equally, I enjoyemails because they're convenient. So I
think what you're saying is, youknow, finding some sort of balance.
And I think backlashes do happen.I could see in the future a possible

(01:25:26):
backlash against smartphones, for example,probably not a complete I think there's still
going to be people camping outside Appleor whatever when the latest eye iPhone comes
out. I think they're still goingto happen. Equally, I think people
are still going to always want togo to parks and things like that and
meet real people, you know,because obviously we live through the COVID era
you probably call it now, youknow, we learned lots of things,

(01:25:48):
you know, and I kind ofhad my ear to the ground even though
I was locked inside. And Ithink you're always going to get that spectrum
of people who do like organic things, it food or things like organic conversations.
Let's say. Yes. So Idon't know, but I think there
could be a backlash. I thinkthey could. I'm almost holding out hope

(01:26:09):
for that. And one of theroots of backlash, and there are lots
of them, obviously, spirituality isone. Another one I think is the
esthetic sensibility, which I think inmany cases is denied us by the modern
world. Concentrating on that faculty thatwe have for esthetic experience, I think

(01:26:29):
it's really important because we can thenvalue things that have almost a timeless quality
about them and give us a resistanceto just the new for its own sake.
Go back to that example. Wecan hold that book and relish the
facts of its feeling, and you'reopening up the pages and they have a
certain smell to them, yes,you know. And the esthetic appeal of

(01:26:50):
walking through your own vegetable patch andactually pulling off the fruit from the plant
itself, and the sound of that, the smell of that, and the
breeze going by you, and youcultivating that esthetic sensibility is quite subversive,
I think in that sense something youknow, the schools don't do much about

(01:27:11):
this, you know, aesthetics.What's that? Oh, that's something sort
of a rarefied thing, that uselessphilosopher study. But we all experience it
and we should cultivate it because Ithink it's a it's a root back to
our humanity. I go to adiscussion group in the town where I live,
and there's a lady who's an artistin fact, as in a painter,
she draws as well, and Iasked her what she thought of ai

(01:27:32):
R. She said, well,some of it's quite clever, but she
doesn't She says, if AI isthe art of the future, then I
don't want to be part of it, as in the only art of the
future. I don't believe it.I think that is dead art. AI
art is dead art, and Ithink most people will see it as that.
And to go back to my point, if we can cultivate the aesthetic,

(01:27:55):
people will see that even more.Okay, it might function, you
know, for advertising, or foror for being at the front of a
podcast or something you know, toaccompany a podcast, but as being something
you would cherish and keep and imagineyourself connected with the soul of the creator
of that art. No way,it's just a ah, it's nothing there.
There'll always be a place for thatmeeting of souls, where meeting of

(01:28:16):
minds imaginatively with the appreciator and theartist. Surely, yep, I reckon
hope so I think so. Yeah, indeed, yeah, well thanks every
so much Anthony for suggesting this.It is one that was on my list.
As I say, but perhaps notat the top of the list,
so it was great to bring itto the top and enjoyed watching it again

(01:28:38):
now having had this conversation, Iwant to watch it again. Wonderful film
and was definitely the right way toapproach it, and as a consequence,
Kubrick created a classic that I thinkis both enjoyable but also has so much
that's important to remind us of bothin terms of the reality behind the scenes
at the time which people want towear of mostly and are the lessons that

(01:29:00):
it can teach us today. Sogreat film. Thanks for the conversation.
Yes, you're welcome. Yeah,and for both our audiences. Film Gold
and the Mind Renewed. If youdon't know too many of Kubrick's films,
there's a very manageable number of films. There's only actually he made two films
at about an hour long each,but from The Killing, which also had
Sterling Hayden, which is nineteen fiftysix, I believe there's only actually eleven

(01:29:26):
films, And in fact Spartacus Kubrickwas pretty much director for hire. He
was brought on halfway through it,so I would argue there's only really ten
full length quote unquote Kubrick Films.That's a very manageable number, So I
would try and investigate all of themif I were here, folks, And
yeah for my film. Good audience. Yeah, I recommend the MI renude
obviously, isn't it it is?Yeah, the mind renewed dot Com.

(01:29:51):
Yeah, them renewed dot com.Yeah. Yeah, and yeah, I've
had a great time. Yeah,great, thanks Anthony, good speech.
You again. I look forward tothe next one, which I don't know
what will be. We've got alist of things I haven't waited to talk
about. Oh, I know we'regoing to talk about. Yeah, the
truth movement and epistemology, the theoryof knowledge should be very interesting. Yeah.

(01:30:11):
And one of the things that we'llfollow on from this discussion is this
idea of things that used to bemassively conspiratorial ideas that are now in the
mainstream. Yes, eg. Operationpaper Clip, operation blocking Bird, military
industrial complex, government selling arms,et cetera, et cetera. All these
things that have always been out there, but now they're weirdly accepted. You
know. Very interesting. Okay,thanks very much, great to speak to

(01:30:36):
you. Good to take show notesfor this program can be found out to
the mind renewed at theminderneud dot com. Podcast music by the brilliant Anthony rajakopp
attribution, non commercial share like fourpoints here at International, you have been
listening to me, Julian Charles andmy guest Anthony Ratuno, and I very
much look forward to speaking to youagain in the near future.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}TMR 308 : Dr Strangelove (1964) (TMR Movie Dialogue)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

All Episodes

TMR 308 : Dr Strangelove (1964) (TMR Movie Dialogue)

24/7 News: The Latest