(Note: I edited this post on January 23, 2024. Most of my edits were to clarify or fix typos or bad phrasings. But I also added an explanatory sentence to one of my paragraphs.)
I'm not a fan of the film Dr. Strangelove. I don't like it. I'm supposed to like it. I'm supposed to find it hilarious. But I don't like it.
I don't find it funny, certainly not laugh-out-loud funny. To be clear, when I saw it, I chuckled at a few things. But I didn't find any of the jokes "side-splitting" and I didn't start "crying with laughter" (those quotations are from Simon Dillon's review of the film, but characteristic of how I hear most fans describe it).
I understand the jokes. I know why I'm supposed to laugh. I just don't want to. Yes, I get the irony and satire. I know, for example, why "peace is our profession" is supposed to be a ridiculous motto for a branch of the military. (However, it doesn't take much effort to understand the argument that a strong military is necessary to ensure peace. Understanding the argument doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but it can temper the supposed hilarity.)
Maybe satire is what's intended when Slim Pickens's character jumps on the bomb at the end of the film and rides it down from the plane howling like a cowboy. I don't know. Maybe the message is that bomber pilots are ridiculously crazy? Again, I know that it's supposed to be a funny but also a "man, that's a deep critique" scene. But I find it more annoying than humorous.
Dr. Strangelove the character isn't all that funny. Again, I get the satire. The U.S. (and probably the Soviet Union) used former Nazi scientists to advise them on weapons systems. And Dr. Strangelove is a former Nazi scientist who has a hard time preventing his hand from springing up in a Hitler salute. I get the humor, but frankly I don't find it "weeping-with-laughter hysterical," to again quote Simon Dillon.
People who know the film know that Peter Sellers plays three of the characters, including Dr. Strangelove. You know Peter Sellers, right? He's a very, very talented actor who we're all supposed to like. I'm just not super impressed by him. Granted, he probably really is a great actor, but to me he's just an actor. And three roles? Maybe in 1964 that was a new thing. But in 1997, when I saw the film, it was a tired old ploy. And even in 1964, it was just the same guy playing three roles.
What's the argument of the film? That nuclear war is bad? Who doesn't believe that? Who didn't believe that in 1964? Okay, maybe Curtis LeMay. Maybe a few others who aren't actually disturbed individuals. But even most of those who advocate for Nuclear Utilization Target Selection don't look forward to what the world will look like when it's put into practice. They probably see it as a grim tactic for a grim situation and a grim time.
Another potential argument for the film: Defense systems and plans might have a logic of their own and start a war even when those responsible don't want that to happen. Or related: One rogue person might make decisions that activates those systems and starts a war that world leaders don't want. As arguments go, those are good ones, I guess. They're worth thinking about. But I can think about it without pretending to laugh at the fact that one character is named "Bat Guano" and another is named "Rex Turgidson."
Look, too many people like the film for me to be confident that it's as bad as I think it is. Maybe the emperor really has clothes. (I dislike the "emperor no clothes" aphorism, but I'm using it now.) But maybe, just maybe, others feel as I do, that they're expected to like the movie but that they don't really find it funny or even a good film.
Post script: In the above blog post, I pull a lot of quotations from Simon Dillon's review of Dr. Strangelove. I obviously don't share his enthusiasm for that movie. I used his review because it is emblematic of the type of praise I hear about that film. But I want to say that Dillon is worth reading, and I enjoy his blog very much and recommend it.
