Fail-Safe on crack, LSD, and steroids!

Rating: 10/10 (23 June 2009)

Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Fail-Safe on crack, LSD, and steroids!
One secret to making a flawless movie is to make it so idiosyncratic you can't tell flaws from insights, weaknesses from flashes of innovation. Surely this movie has its weaknesses, and I know people who have seen it who like to point them out. Yes, it has sexist moments and silly ones, and maybe even a couple of slow ones. But really, it's so audacious and funny and tragic and ironic, who can say what is what, and why, taken whole?
What you can be clear about about is whether it succeeds, whether it stirs you. I know I'm moved and tickled every time, even if I groan sometimes, too. George C. Scott's performance is sometimes just too much, but then he does a backflip and my faith is restored. Hayden is such a stiff actor at his best, he is cast in the role of a lifetime here and comes through with dark absurdity. And Peter Sellers? Which one? Hilarious.
Made the same year as Fail-Safe (both are from 1964, the height of the Cold War), Dr. Strangelove, shows the further evolution of the insane directing genius of Stanley Kubrick. This is the first of his three great breakthrough movies that seem to be shamelessly new and fresh--2001 and A Clockwork Orange followed--and it really is breathtaking for its audacity. Dr. Strangelove is so utterly different in tone and yet so parallel in intent and background to Fail-Safe, it's just weird. Does it make light of annihilation? Does the military, and the President, look foolish? And Peter Sellers? Which one?