Realism and Feminism in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Myrthe van der Staay (526414)
Erasmus University College
International Relations
Final Assignment
28-05-2020











The Cuban missile crisis can be seen as the height of the tensions in the Cold War and paranoia, during which the nuclear bomb came closest to being used (Allyn, Blight & Welch, 1989). Around the same time Stanley Kubrick released a film: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The film ties perfectly into the fear and absurdity of the nuclear arms deterrence race. The 1964 dark comedy sketches a scenario in which a paranoid American general finds a loophole in the law and deploys a nuclear attack on the USSR without authorization or easy possibility to call the attackers back. A scenario which at first glance seems rather comical, actually has an awfully realistic feel in Kubrick’s portrayal. In this essay I will analyze how the events in Dr. Strangelove tie into a realist view on the global system and on how Dr. Strangelove can also cautiously be seen as an advocation for Feminism in International Relations.

Plot synopsis and personal opinion
The film sets out with General Jack D. Ripper ordering nuclear-armed planes to leave their safe-points and attack USSR targets as the USA and USSR are in “a shooting war”. In reality there is no such war (yet), and did the general make a decision only he can reverse. Once the news reaches the War Room in the Pentagon, the conclusion is quickly reached that General Ripper went around the President and that only he can change direction of the scenario as he has the combination for the callback code. Matters get even worse once President Muffley phones (the drunk) Russian president Kissoff who reveals that the USSR has an automatic “Doomsday Device” in place, that activates if the USSR would ever be hit by a nuclear attack. This device would essentially destroy all human and animal life on Earth, forcing life to continue in underground mine shaft gaps for the next 90 years to come.
In my opinion, Kubrick’s storytelling is compelling without ever being too overwhelming. To lighten the heavy subject of nuclear warfare Kubrick exaggerates and satirizes the characters, which keeps the movie watchable. At the same time Kubrick stays close to reality, making the scenario that plays out not unthinkable, but rather thought provoking. The war room and its enormous table reminded me of the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men. In this movie 12 jury members decide over the fate of a young man who might or might not have killed his father. Similarly, in Kubrick’s war room the group of men seem to play poker with the lives of all humanity. In both cases it is prejudice and preconception that are in the way of justice. Both movies are completely driven by incredibly well-written dialogue, it is not so much the action in Dr. Strangelove that keeps us hooked but the dialogue that unveils more and more horror as we go. In combination with well-motivated shots, a stunning production design and outstanding performances, Kubrick’s end product is incredible.

Realism
The film was released in a time where Realism was still one of the most accepted theories within International Relations, as it managed to explain how World War II could have followed after such a period of seeming peace and quietness (Guilhot, 2011). At the core of realism lays the assumption that our human nature is selfish, power-hungry, mistrusting of others and that all our rational choices are based along this line of thinking. In IR this human nature is represented in the state as a unitary actor that operates in a context of anarchy with other states. Anarchy entails that there is nothing higher than state sovereignty which ultimately means that states are self-reliant for guaranteeing their security (Antunes & Camisão, 2007). In this anarchic system a state’s main concern is their survival. To guarantee this and keep the system anarchic there is also a balance of power, meaning the system corrects itself when one state becomes too powerful. The most obvious example of this is WWII when Nazi-Germany grew so rapidly that it triggered a - previously unthinkable - USA-Russia alliance to restore the balance (Antunes & Camisão). A critique on realism is the downplaying of individual agency by having a too great focus on the state. An example that illustrates this critique can be found in the ending of the cold war where it was individual agency, not states, that led to an end of the war (Antunes & Camisão).
The realist view on the world of the 1960’s can also be found in Dr. Strangelove.
To adapt the movie from Peter George’s book Red Alert into a screenplay, Kubrick read all books on warfare he could find (IMDB). A direct influence can be found in the conversation between General Ripper and Colonel Mandrake where Ripper explains the motivation behind his actions:
‘Mandrake, Do you remember what Clemenceau once said about war?’
‘No, I don’t think I do so, sir’
‘He said war was too important to be left to generals. Fifty years ago, when he said that he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians.’

In fact, realist Morgenthau, not the fictional Clemenceau, has actually said this. According to Morgenthau war should essentially be an instrument of policy, thus be left to politicians. It is a means for restoring balance and the strongest political tool a state has to ensure national security (Guilhot, 2011). Morgenthau saw leaving war to generals as dangerous since war is deeply connected to prestige. Morgenthau defined prestige as the reputation of power which connects to material goods, such as, the amount of weapons one has (Guilhot). For realists the nuclear arms deterrence race is the product of expression of political power and is subject to falling into the wrong hands, as what we see happening in Dr. Strangelove. An essential question here is if the government itself is not already “the wrong hands”. The destructive power of nuclear weapons is so big that it transcends national borders and security and the actual use of it, like in Dr. Strangelove, could end the entire world. We could argue that the obsessive focus on having (relative) power over another country through the use of nuclear weaponry deceives the rationalism realism stands for. We can see the product of the nuclear reasoning expressed in Kubrick’s characters. Turgidson embodies the power hungry war-junk and reasons that the US is in a superior strategic position and should make use of the situation. By striking first they would be able to destroy 90% of Russian’s missiles before they could retaliate resulting in a victory for the US with an acceptable amount of citizen casualties: 10 - 20 million killed. This way realisms reasons thus makes the loss of 20 million people a rational choice.
Another example can be found near the end of the film, right before the Doomsday Device detonates, we see how the Russian ambassador uses the chaos of the situation to secretly take a picture of the big screen showing all nuclear targets in the USSR. The action of the ambassador is mirrored by Turgidson who argues that there should not be a mineshaft gap between the countries, ultimately securing that after a century of living in mineshafts, the USA is still ahead of the USSR. The reasoning of both country representatives shows the complete obsession with relative power. Even though both countries - together with the rest of the world - will soon go up in dust, their only goal is to get ahead of each other and make sure that their state comes out stronger than the other after 90 years of living underground. Not only does this show a complete disconnect to reality it is also a gloomy perspective on the rigidity of the cold war. Even the so-feared dropping of the bomb, and the ending of all life on Earth will not solve the dispute.

Feminism
Dr. Strangelove, although less obviously, could also be linked to feminism. Feminism in IR, although addressing several global issues, stresses the near complete absence of women in global politics. In 2015, only 22.9% of women were represented in national parliaments around the world (Smith, 2017). Feminists ask why this is still the case today. A key aspect in this enormous gap between men and women is the construction of gender. Gender, not sex, prescribes us which characteristics are masculine and which are feminine. The construction of gender, which starts at the very moment a baby is born and either gets a blue or pink blanket, dictates that rationality, power and independence are masculine, opposed to feminine irrationality, need of protection and domesticity (Smith). The former are also exactly the things associated with realist conceptions of International Relations. Realism excludes global struggles of women around the world from the IR realm and perpetuates gender inequality. Through realism the reproduction of men in power, and marginalization of problems facing women, will never stop. A critique on feminism could be that the theory presents itself as a global sisterhood, and therefore fails to acknowledge the differences in women struggles dependent on economic situation, country or ethnicity. A poor black woman will not experience the same level of sexism and prejudice as a rich white woman in the same society (Nair, 2017).
Since Dr. Strangelove reproduces realist assumptions the movie naturally does not feature strong, rational or powerful women. In fact, in the entire film there is only one female who appears in a short scene. This is Miss Scott, the clingy secretary and lover of manly man Buck Turgidson. In addition, out of Kubrick’s 40 strong crew only three members were women - far from an equal distribution of gender (IMDB). Underrepresentation of women, as well as minorities, is a big problem in the film industry that is only slowly starting to change today.
Nonetheless, Dr. Strangelove can be seen as a critique on masculinity, as it ridicules the hyper masculine men who are just concerned with power and status. Whether this is the war hungry Buck Turgidson or the fluoridation paranoid Jack Ripper. Most of Kubrick’s sex links can be found in a more closer look into the names of the characters. Let’s take the names of the two most masculine characters in the film. Jack D. Ripper is a clear reference to “Jack the Ripper”, a 1880’s serial killer whose main victims were poor prostitutes (Macklin, 1965). The reference becomes especially chilling once one notices the connection with the USA’s main target, the “Laputa” base, translating to “the whore” in Spanish. In addition, Laputa refers to an island in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Island, where the wives of mad scientists and philosophers who are too occupied with themselves, move to earth to satisfy their sexual needs (Linden, 1977). The name Buck Turgidson is also a metaphor, with buck meaning male and turgid indicating something that is swollen (Macklin).
These names are more than just another of Kubrick’s nuances. The meaning of their names and their relation to feminism becomes especially interesting when we look at the meaning of the names of two other important characters; President Merkin Muffley and Colonel Mandrake. Throughout the movie these two characters represent the voice of reason (or what is left of it) and fight the ridicule and masculinity (Higgings, 2018). This is not only reflected in their actions, which are for a change not motivated by power hunger and status, but again, also in their names. Muffley, or “muff” is a common slang word translating to the female genitalia, furthermore Merkin or “Mirkin” can be translated as female pubic hair (Linden, 1977). We can see a similar pattern when we analyze Mandrake’s name. Mandrake refers to the plant Mandagora, which in turn is a symbol of the gay liberation movement (Linden). This reference is further confirmed when Mandrake encounters Bat who says that Mandrake has a funny outfit and calls him “a prevert” or pervert.
What this adds up to is that the voice of reason, due to a lack of women in Kubrick’s all-man universe, is expressed through feminine men (Higgings, 2018). Although it is a nice touch of Kubrick he still conforms and perpetuates the stereotypes of gender. Mandrake and Muffley pay a high price for being the representation of the female. Muffley is judged for his lack of action and Mandrake is constantly being mistrusted. In addition, women lose the fight in a double sense. In one sense because reason fails to overcome masculinity resulting in the death of all. This is absurdly illustrated in the last scene where we see Major Kong erotically ride the nuclear bomb to his death. He yells climatically until the bomb hits and all that is left is the mushroom ejaculations of his bomb, together with all the other ones activated by the Doomsday Device. It can be seen as the ejaculations of all hyper masculine men combined - a horrible yet surprisingly aesthetic sight.
In the second sense women lose because in the coming mineshaft society the female is reduced to that of a children-factory (Higgings, 2018). Now that the Doomsday Device has been activated Dr. Strangelove smartly remarks that the only way for the human specimen to survive this nuclear disaster is to live 90 or so years underground. Naturally, only very few people will actually make it to this place and it is of utmost importance to rebuild the population, requiring a ten to one ratio of women and men. Which in turn, unfortunately, leads to the abolishment of classic monogamous relationships… You would think that in the opportunity of a reset of society, men and women could finally be seen as equals. Instead, women are no longer recognized as independent agents but merely as a passive receptor of man’s seed.
In conclusion, although there is only one woman visible in the movie they are nonetheless all over. Women even serve as the cause of this absurd disaster. The realization of the fluoridation of General Ripper’s body was after all discovered during the penetration of a woman. He draws a connection between his feeling of weakness after ejaculation and the effects of the fluoridation. Without any further elaboration, women are made part of the problem. In Ripper’s mind women, just as the communists and their fluoridation, invade the male body and weaken it, feminizes it (Higgings, 2018). This fear of being considered feminine is deeply rooted in the movie, as well as in men in reality.

Conclusion
To conclude this article we could say that the film Dr. Strangelove operates in an exaggerated realist conception of the world, illustrated through hyper masculinity and paranoia. It shows the wish for relative power over another country to an extreme, as well as the absurdity of nuclear weaponry itself. In addition, the voice of reason hidden in feminine men invites us to think about how the world would look, if women weren’t wombs but rulers.
















References

Allyn, B., Blight, J., & Welch, D. (1989). Essence of Revision: Moscow, Havana, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. International Security, 14(3), 136-172. doi:10.2307/2538934
Antunes, S., Camisão, I. (2007) Chapter 2: Realism, pp. 15-21 in McGlinchey, S., Walters, R., Scheinpflug, C. (eds), International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, Publishing, Bristol, England.
Higgins, S. (2018) Purity of essence in the Cold War: Dr. Strangelove, paranoia, and bodily boundaries, Textual Practice, 32:5, 799-820.
IMDB: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Retrieved on 27 May 2020 from: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
Guilhot (2011) The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, chapter 2. New York City: Columbia University Press.
Macklin, A. (1965) Sex And Dr. Strangelove. Film Comment, 3(3), 55-57.
Nair, S. (2017). Introducing Postcolonialism in International Relations, pp. 69-74 in McGlinchey, S., Walters, R. & Scheinpflug, C. (eds), International Relations Theory, E- International Relations, Publishing, Bristol, England.
Smith, S. (2017) Chapter 8: Introducing Feminism in International Relations, pp. 62-68 in McGlinchey, S., Walters, R. & Scheinpflug, C. (eds), International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, Publishing, Bristol, England.