Fail Safe (USA) 1964
william
Stanley Kurick's "Dr Strangelove" is a hard act to follow even for
Sydney Lumet. The films are so similar that Peter George, the author
of Red Alert (the source for "Dr Strangelove"), sued Eugene Burdick
and Harvey Wheeler, the authors of Fail Safe, for plagiarism. In a
bizarre but interesting twist on a different front, Walter Bernstein
-- the scriptwriter for "Fail Safe" -- has been accused of being a KGB
asset based on material released after the Soviets sat down in the
dustbin of history. He had been blacklisted via the publication Red
Channels and continued working in TV using a front.
Which brings us back to the film starring Henry Fonda, Dan O'Herlihy,
Walter Matthau, Fritz Weaver, Larry Hagman, Dom DeLuise and many
others. Due to a technical glitch, a wing of Vindicator US bombers --
actually B-58 Hustlers -- believe they have orders to continue past
the fail safe line and proceed to Moscow to dump their payloads. The
film then explores the tactical, strategic, moral and other choices
that will confront them should they choose certain actions. What saves
this film from becoming a boring gabfest is Lumet's snappy direction.
Even so, the confining set and sometimes predictable character
behavior keeps the film from really becoming the drama it should be.
To me, choices become trivial when presented so didactically.
This is in a way a you-had-to-be-there movie and as someone who grew
up in the Cold War, the situations presented in this film were part of
one's daily life especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis that
inspired these kinds of films.
It's streaming free at http://www.crackle.com/c/Fail_Safe
William
calvin
> ...
> Stanley Kurick's "Dr Strangelove" is a hard act to follow even for
> Sydney Lumet. The films are so similar that Peter George, the author
> of Red Alert (the source for "Dr Strangelove"), sued Eugene Burdick
> and Harvey Wheeler, the authors of Fail Safe, for plagiarism.
I read the Burdick/Wheeler book way back then,
and still have it, copyright 1962. Dr. Strangelove
came out in 1964. No doubt Red Alert was
published before Fail-Safe, but it doesn't seem
likely that that the latter was a rip-off since the
former didn't have the fame in 1962 that Strangelove
would later acquire. This seems to have been just
another case of people suing, not because they were
right, but because they could.
william
>
> I read the Burdick/Wheeler book way back then,
> and still have it, copyright 1962. Dr. Strangelove
> came out in 1964. No doubt Red Alert was
> published before Fail-Safe, but it doesn't seem
> likely that that the latter was a rip-off since the
> former didn't have the fame in 1962 that Strangelove
> would later acquire. This seems to have been just
> another case of people suing, not because they were
> right, but because they could.
That makes sense to you? It's based on "fame"? Wouldn't ripping off an
obscure book -- and I'm not taking sides -- make more sense than
ripping off a "famous" one?
William
keeno
Ah, but the moment we find out about Hagman's home life, and the way
it's revealed--first rate. Too bad the whole film couldn't have had
this quality.
calvin
I see your point, but the way that you put it
also seems to be fame-based:
"The films are so similar that Peter George, the author
of Red Alert (the source for "Dr Strangelove"), sued Eugene Burdick
and Harvey Wheeler, the authors of Fail Safe, for plagiarism."
The similarity of the films should have nothing to do
with it, since both books were published well before
either film was made.
william
> The similarity of the films should have nothing to do
> with it, since both books were published well before
> either film was made.
Bye bye, calvin. If you want to have one of your ridiculous, hair-
splitting, nonsensical, irrelevant arguments, please find someone
else. I'm done.
William
calvin
My god, you're childish. But puzzling, too. The sentence
that you quoted is the opposite of "ridiculous, hair-splitting,
nonsensical, irrelevant".
Movie Buff
"keeno" <luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:663c5455-5d95-426c...@x4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>Ah, but the moment we find out about Hagman's home life, and the way it's
>revealed--first rate. Too bad the whole film couldn't have had this quality.
I wonder why Henry Fonda was willing to sacrifice NYC instead of Washington DC.
The American people would have benefited from the nuclear annihilation of
politicians.
globular
I have always preferred Fail Safe to Dr. Strangelove.
keeno
> "keeno" <luisbun...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:663c5455-5d95-426c...@x4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Ah, but the moment we find out about Hagman's home life, and the way it's
> >revealed--first rate. Too bad the whole film couldn't have had this quality.
---
> I wonder why Henry Fonda was willing to sacrifice NYC instead of Washington DC.
> The American people would have benefited from the nuclear annihilation of
> politicians.
So friggin' true. However...and this is an important however...those
silent shots at the end--only in NY. (Somehow, a poodle peeing on the
Wash. monument wouldn't be as stirring an image.)
Come to think of it, Lenny Bruce would've called this the ultimate
"liberal" movie. The ultimate proof that you're a good, moral person
is that you annihilate millions of your people--as an act of good
will. See, we're good Americans and we play fair! Oh-Em-Gee!
moviePig
I seem to recall that, in the book, he took out a smaller city.
(Detroit?)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
keeno
> On Feb 10, 7:49 pm, "Movie Buff" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "keeno" <luisbun...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:663c5455-5d95-426c...@x4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Ah, but the moment we find out about Hagman's home life, and the way it's
> > >revealed--first rate. Too bad the whole film couldn't have had this quality.
>
> > I wonder why Henry Fonda was willing to sacrifice NYC instead of Washington DC.
> > The American people would have benefited from the nuclear annihilation of
> > politicians.
--
> I seem to recall that, in the book, he took out a smaller city.
> (Detroit?)
That didn't happen until the 70s and eighties.
calvin
> > I wonder why Henry Fonda was willing to sacrifice NYC instead of Washington DC.
> > The American people would have benefited from the nuclear annihilation of
> > politicians.
>
> I seem to recall that, in the book, he took out a smaller city.
> (Detroit?)
No, it was New York in the book. The reason was to avoid
all-out nuclear war, which the Russians would start (or
continue) if anything less was offered in return for the loss
of Moscow.
But it was an outlandish literary setup, in my opinion.
Once Moscow was blown up, full nuclear war would
have been inevitible, so it would have been foolish to
offer up New York at the outset, in a more likely scenario
than the book's fantasy. .
Flasherly
>
> So friggin' true. However...and this is an important however...those
> silent shots at the end--only in NY. (Somehow, a poodle peeing on the
> Wash. monument wouldn't be as stirring an image.)
>
> Come to think of it, Lenny Bruce would've called this the ultimate
> "liberal" movie. The ultimate proof that you're a good, moral person
> is that you annihilate millions of your people--as an act of good
> will. See, we're good Americans and we play fair! Oh-Em-Gee!
Lenny paid that price for a couple of liberal sirens to play hot
fiddle while the FBI to read last rites over his grave. His daughter
explains succinctly when interviewed for Lenny, her father's
docudrama: 'Some men like their women like their food. Hot.' Not so
unusual, really -- outlaws with a tradition appeal in standing
contemptuously before the common assessment of good, laws contain;--
permitted certain qualities dangerously appealing, interesting and
desirous, the inchoate baggage of a precipitous sway and - if never
mastered, consequently - indulgent tyranny.
tomcervo
>
> > William
>
> I have always preferred Fail Safe to Dr. Strangelove.
Strangelove has certainly dated better than Fail Safe, but at the time
they were seen as a one-two punch, a reaction to MAD and the seeming
acceptance of a nuclear exchange as the price of freedom, and that the
only possible choice--two howls of "WTF is wrong with you people?" But
you can only see Fail-Safe twice--the first time unknowing the end,
the second time noting the craft and artistry. Strangelove is full of
Easter eggs, like seeing Peter Bull trying to keep a straight face at
Sellers' antics.
moviePig
It seems likely that I overheard someone who'd read 'Red Alert'...
wherein the sacrifice was apparently to be Atlantic City...
calvin
> Strangelove has certainly dated better than Fail Safe, but at the time
> they were seen as a one-two punch, a reaction to MAD and the seeming
> acceptance of a nuclear exchange as the price of freedom, and that the
> only possible choice--two howls of "WTF is wrong with you people?" But
> you can only see Fail-Safe twice--the first time unknowing the end,
> the second time noting the craft and artistry. Strangelove is full of
> Easter eggs, like seeing Peter Bull trying to keep a straight face at
> Sellers' antics.
I saw Fail-Safe only once, but have seen Strangelove
many times, and more. The parts that continue to draw
me back again are Sellers as Mandrake, and Sellers as
Strangelove.
Steven L.
news:ij211d$31l$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
During the Cold War, the plan for nuclear war was to maintain a working
Federal government, even if the rest of America were devastated by
nuclear war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan
In the event of nuclear war, the following would be evacuated to bunkers
and flying command posts:
-- President
-- Vice President
-- Cabinet members
-- Congressmen (as many as feasible)
-- Senators (as many as feasible)
-- Supreme Court justices
-- Federal Reserve governors
I've often wondered what cases the Supreme Court would be ruling on,
during the nuclear war and in its aftermath. Probably how much to
expand the President's emergency powers to seize crops and other private
property for rationing to the survivors.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:3b00138a-8b50-44b2...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
As someone who lives in MA, I'm puzzled as to why so many of these
doomsday novels and sci-fi stories ignore Boston.
No prehistoric monsters ever attack Boston; no UFOs ever land in Boston;
and Boston isn't the city that gets blown up by nuclear bombs.
Why should New York City, Washington DC and L.A. have all the fun?
-- Steven L.
moviePig
> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
Well, for years, America's most prolific novelist, Robt. B. Parker,
has held squatter's rights on pretty much every square inch of eastern
MA. But now, with his legacy entering probate, maybe it'll be open-
season on Brahmins...
keeno
> "Movie Buff" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:ij211d$31l$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > "keeno" <luisbun...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:663c5455-5d95-426c...@x4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > >Ah, but the moment we find out about Hagman's home life, and the way it's
> > >revealed--first rate. Too bad the whole film couldn't have had this quality.
>
> > I wonder why Henry Fonda was willing to sacrifice NYC instead of Washington DC.
> > The American people would have benefited from the nuclear annihilation of
> > politicians.
---
> During the Cold War, the plan for nuclear war was to maintain a working
> Federal government, even if the rest of America were devastated by
> nuclear war.
Yes, and even a working air traffic control system. This is why all
the enroute centers are outside of big cities (Atlanta, Cleveland, DC,
etc) and unmarked. They were built during that period. Actually our
whole atc radar system is based on watching for Soviet bombers.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan
>
> In the event of nuclear war, the following would be evacuated to bunkers
> and flying command posts:
>
> -- President
> -- Vice President
> -- Cabinet members
> -- Congressmen (as many as feasible)
> -- Senators (as many as feasible)
> -- Supreme Court justices
> -- Federal Reserve governors
====
> I've often wondered what cases the Supreme Court would be ruling on,
> during the nuclear war and in its aftermath. Probably how much to
> expand the President's emergency powers to seize crops and other private
> property for rationing to the survivors.
Breaking the tie in an election.
>
> -- Steven L.
keeno
> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
Mass had two hundred years of horror literature. The rest of the
country deserved a chance.
Michael O'Connor
> I saw Fail-Safe only once, but have seen Strangelove
> many times, and more. The parts that continue to draw
> me back again are Sellers as Mandrake, and Sellers as
> Strangelove.
Not to mention George C Scott and Sterling Hayden, both of whom were
brilliant along with Sellers. And I also loved Slim Pickens over the
top performance as the bomber pilot. And Keenan Wynn's small but
memorable role as the soldier who was more concerned about a soda
machine than the end of the world. Dr. Strangelove remains my favorite
Kubrick movie.
calvin
Yes, all great, but 'favorite Kubrick' would still have to be 2001.
tomcervo
They'd get as far as Scollay Square, and then get their asses handed
to them.
Halmyre
> > I saw Fail-Safe only once, but have seen Strangelove
> > many times, and more. The parts that continue to draw
> > me back again are Sellers as Mandrake, and Sellers as
> > Strangelove.
>
> Not to mention George C Scott and Sterling Hayden, both of whom were
> brilliant along with Sellers. And I also loved Slim Pickens over the
> top performance as the bomber pilot.
Last time I commented on Pickens' performance someone in here pointed
out that
Pickens wasn't actually acting...
--
Halmyre
globular
I think Dr Strangelove is a silly movie.
tomcervo
Yes. SERIOUSLY silly. Some of those speeches in the War Room were
taken almost verbatim from articles and speeches from the likes of
Herman Kahn and Curtis LeMay.
Howard Brazee
<takecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think Dr Strangelove is a silly movie.
Parts of it were too silly for my taste - parts that seem to be the
most popular. But the rest of it worked very well for me.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Mack A. Damia
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:40:16 +1100, globular
><takecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I think Dr Strangelove is a silly movie.
>
>Parts of it were too silly for my taste - parts that seem to be the
>most popular. But the rest of it worked very well for me.
Seems as though much of Kubrick's stuff is esoteric and left up to the
viewer to interpret the scene(s).
He is not one of my favorite directors, and my own thinking is that he
is somewhat overrated - although he has a loyal following, and his
legend is larger than his life.
Nil
rec.arts.movies.past-films:
> I think Dr Strangelove is a silly movie.
It's called "comedy."
It's also called "satire."
Nil
rec.arts.movies.past-films:
> Parts of it were too silly for my taste - parts that seem to be the
> most popular. But the rest of it worked very well for me.
The only part that doesn't work for me is Dr. Strangelove's arm taking
on a life of its own. Everything else is possible and believable, even
if it is played broadly, but that bit strikes me as bad physical comedy
and just goes beyond what I can accept. Still, it's one of my favorite
movies in general, and my favorite political satire in particular.
mikeos
>
>> I think Dr Strangelove is a silly movie.
>
> Yes. SERIOUSLY silly. Some of those speeches in the War Room were
> taken almost verbatim from articles and speeches from the likes of
> Herman Kahn and Curtis LeMay.
What - like "You can't fight on here, this is the war room"?
keeno
> On 13 Feb 2011, globular <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.movies.past-films:
>
> > I think Dr Strangelove is a silly movie.
>
> It's called "comedy."
>
> It's also called "satire."
Yeah, always an incredibly uneven movie to me, too. Moments of comic
brilliance like George C. Scott in his quarters and in the war room
undercut by embarrassing moments like "mein Fuhrer" as well as overly
long Sterling Hayden/Sellers scenes at the base. Then back to medium-
funny scenes up in the bomber. But still, it holds up surprisingly
well 50 years down the line, which is saying a lot for political
satire. Casting, performances and many situations are wonderful.
Howard Brazee
<redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>> Parts of it were too silly for my taste - parts that seem to be the
>> most popular. But the rest of it worked very well for me.
>
>The only part that doesn't work for me is Dr. Strangelove's arm taking
>on a life of its own. Everything else is possible and believable, even
>if it is played broadly, but that bit strikes me as bad physical comedy
>and just goes beyond what I can accept. Still, it's one of my favorite
>movies in general, and my favorite political satire in particular.
Maybe I should have said "part". That was the part that was farce.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Yeah, always an incredibly uneven movie to me, too. Moments of comic
>brilliance like George C. Scott in his quarters and in the war room
>undercut by embarrassing moments like "mein Fuhrer" as well as overly
>long Sterling Hayden/Sellers scenes at the base. Then back to medium-
>funny scenes up in the bomber. But still, it holds up surprisingly
>well 50 years down the line, which is saying a lot for political
>satire. Casting, performances and many situations are wonderful.
Back then, if you asked people "which actor would earn the most
lifetime money for his or her acting", nobody would guess the actor I
would guess. (My guess is James Earl Jones).
Halmyre
It is physical comedy, but you know, I can't help tearing up as I
watch it, with Sellers and his arm fighting for control of a slide
rule and the wheelchair, and then his arm tries to strangle him.
Meanwhile poor Peter Bull is manfully trying to keep it together, and
George C Scott's facial expression, as Strangelove describes the need
for prodigious procreation, is a wonder to behold.
--
Halmyre