There’s one thing I wanna know
What’s so funny ‘bout peace, love, and understanding…” – Elvis Costello (Nick Lowe)
I am often asking myself the same question that Nick Lowe posed and Elvis Costello so masterfully performed. Quite often, I feel like a minority in my pacifism, sense of community, and values of helping others. Rather, I feel surrounded by a rise in Ayn Rand selfish objectivism, materialism, and xenophobia, all under the umbrella of patriotism, nationalism, and faith. But, this cocktail has proved incredibly dangerous in the past, and not just ancient history, but in horrible wars within recent memory. Three films in the 60s, made during the heightened paranoia of the Cold War, all present what-if scenarios that show just how close we have come, could come, and maybe even will come to total annihilation, purely based on human fallibility. I have hope for us, but every day it wanes a little bit more.
Fail-Safe (1964, Sidney Lumet)
Sidney Lumet had early success by adapting plays into films, such as the now classic movies, 12 Angry Men and Long Day’s Journey Into Night, and his adaptation of the novel, Fail-Safe is done in much the same taut manner. Brilliant casting and a simple scenario help Fail-Safe to become supremely effective, to the point where the story has been told and re-told in many ways since. WarGames, anyone? Not to mention, the film came out at the same time as Dr. Strangelove, which presents the absurdist black comedy side to the same situation. The plot is straightforward, in which a technical malfunction causes American planes, carrying nuclear weapons, of course, to the point of no return, forced by protocol to begin World War III. The President of the United States, the U.S. Military, a host of politicians, and a particularly Machiavellian political scientist all have to deal with the consequences, doling out advice, and coming to terms with a reality about which they could have only hypothesized.
This film is as star-studded as the 2000 remake. Dom DeLuise has one of his earliest roles, and Larry Hagman plays the translator to the President most memorably. But, the two main heavyweight actors here are Henry Fonda as the President and Walter Matthau as the political scientist. Matthau is chilling in his role, saying in a somewhat cold and heartless moment at a cocktail party, defending the use of nuclear weapons, “I’m not a poet. I’m a political scientist who would rather have American culture survive than a Russian one.” I’d say that this us vs. them mentality during the time of the Cold War is a thing of the past, but the Christian vs. Islam clash of civilizations seems to have followed in its footsteps. If there is one “American” legacy it is exalting and elevating the American culture above all others, and them imposing it upon those who are different. Matthau later says, after his adversary makes the argument of retaliation against first-strike, “Would you prefer that only we were finished?” But, in an increasingly inter-connected world, what would that matter? As John Donne so eloquently wrote, “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.”
However, as much as the more reasonable President, played by a more open and pacifist President than I think we’ve ever had, wants to avoid all out nuclear war at any cost. As such, he and the Russian Premier are in constant contact, trying to come up with an agreeable solution. One such solution is having U.S. fighter jets shoot the rogue planes down en route. Interestingly, one of the brass objects to the decision saying that the chasing jets will run out of fuel and the pilots will freeze if they parachute. Ummm…not to be callous, but isn’t that more amenable than starting WWIII? Another interesting scene to discuss comes when the Russians manage to shoot down one of the planes and U.S. military operatives let out a cheer. A higher-up scolds them, saying, “This isn’t some damn football game!” True, and I understand his request for respect, but one can’t blame their sense of relief in the face of sure death.
The last scenes of Fail-Safe are now iconic, and could easily have inspired Lyndon B. Johnson’s infamous “Daisy Ad.” The President’s final decision in this difficult matter is shocking, but perhaps unavoidable in this particular situation. If you’d rather find out for yourself, don’t continue reading, but I’m gonna get all spoiler up in here. After all, the film is from 1964. The President offers to the Russian Premier, after one of the jets gets through and successfully bombs Moscow, to incur their own retaliation, bombing New York as an even exchange. The last few scenes show ordinarily slices of New York life, all dramatically frozen in time with a whooshing sound effect, signifying these lives being cut short. Though simply shot and presented, it is still unnerving and effective.
The War Game (1965, Peter Watkins)
The War Game is quite similar in feel to Fail-Safe in its subject matter, but quite different in its presentation. Whereas Fail-Safe is presented as a fictional drama, The War Game gets more of a punch from employing a shorter, more precise, documentary style. Clocking in at only 47 minutes, The War Game was originally to be presented on BBC television in 1965, but was pulled from broadcast at the last minute due to being “too horrifying” for the British viewing public. My question becomes, if the television version is too horrifying, why is it acceptable in real life? Through graphic dramatization and man-on-the-street type interviews, Peter Watkins presents his take on the dangers of nuclear proliferation, nationalism, and all out war.
Many of the interviewees end up saying what I used to say as a grade schooler in earthquake drills and the continue remnants of Cold War exercises, “That isn’t going to happen.” As much as we hope that humanity avoids such extremes, we have to accept the reality that human nature is also violent, paranoid, and self-serving. We have to rise above our base instincts. The movie is unflinching in the bluntness of its facts and information, narrating what exactly would happen in the event of a nuclear war. Most of the interviews show how misinformed people really are about the facts, something I think is rampant in this country with the range of “news” media available and the idea that all news is tied into ratings. Statements from ecumenical councils at the Vatican are equally misled, saying that they believe nuclear weapons are used with care and responsibility.
The most effective portions of The War Game are the images, mostly of children, suffering in the fallout, going blind, and generally falling to illnesses caused by radioactivity. It goes even further, explaining that lawlessness, riots, and civil unrest will naturally occur in the aftermath. It is incredibly realistic, at least for the time, and is especially effective considering it is presented as if it is a documentary. In a moment that should shake even the steeliest of souls, children are asked what they want to be when they grow up. They respond, “I don’t want to be nuthin’.”
It Happened Here (1966, Kevin Brownlow & Andrew Mollo)
It Happened Here is another film shot in a documentary style, but rather than a “what if” scenario for a future event, this is a “what if” for a past event. Now, speculative alternate histories are commonplace, but this one was somewhat based on actual events, just writ large. The idea here is that the Axis Powers won World World II and took over England. But, the controversial aspect of the film is not just that the Germans won, but that some Brits became willing participants in their occupation, like Vichy France. While we might consider this fiction, it was, but for a few pivotal moments, not far from happening. In fact, the film is not called, It Could Have Happened Here, but It Happened Here. Why? Either to make it more real, or perhaps as a reference to events that happened in the Channel Islands, in which the occupied did become willing participants in their occupation.
It took quite a long time for this filmmaker to bring his vision to the screen, but the results are quite powerful. As much as we’d like to think that we’d all be patriotic resistance fighters, the truth is that people are necessarily different. Some will be driven by survival instincts, while others may be easily swayed by propaganda. Again, we can see this in our own current culture as polls often find the population to be grossly misinformed by the facts and wholly swayed by partisan rhetoric. To think that this couldn’t affect us in wartime is ludicrous. The imagery is powerful, showing newsreel footage with a hybrid English and Nazi symbol in the title cards. We see shots of little boys goose-stepping without realizing what that symbolizes or signifies, merely enacting a game of “monkey see, monkey do.” There are startling discussions of different forms of governments and economies, discussions that still continue today.
We mostly follow one woman who is resistant to the occupation. She becomes a nurse, going to an employment office, saying, “I’ve decided to join.” She is told in response, “We don’t accept your decisions. You accept ours.” As the film progresses, her perspective changes. She slowly starts to adopt the Nazi regime, even to the point of showing disgust with a group of partisan rebels, saying that they are “murderers.” This film can take us into many different discussions, not merely relegated to that of bowing to occupational forces, but also of more modern disagreements about clashes of philosophies and ideas. The world has become a more complex place, increasingly connected. It has become a world where governments don’t follow one overarching philosophy. America is an obvious example, being a combination of democratic, capitalist, and socialist policies, even though some would have it be entirely ruled by unregulated, free-market capitalism. There is dissension in this country about government. We are possibly more fractured than ever before. Each of us seems to have a “perfect” idea of what our government should look like, but are some of us traitors, and others patriots? I’d say these words have begun to lose their power, but they are interesting questions to ponder.
