Jennifer responds:
>Another aspect of this escalation (or is it a desensitization?) is in the
>portrayal of the Bomb itself. What had been a source of apocalyptic fury
>in the past (see KISS ME DEADLY for what even a "small" atomic bomb
>represents) becomes just another weapon for blowing things up real good
>in recent films. The emblematic image has to be Curtis and Schwarznegger
>embracing in front of a nuclear explosion at the end of TRUE LIES. It's
>a long way from DR. STRANGLOVE.
>
I actually think Dr. Strangelove is an argument on the other side. I see it
as one of the first horrifying film views of nuclear war threat. The final
blow-up image, yes, but also its constant diegetic insanity -- the
characters and the cinematography (Peter Sellers in a schizophrenic three
roles). The film is claustrophobic, scary, and charmingly and eerily
entertaining. In a way, I think it was the precursor for many that followed
and failed. The True Lies explosion looks different, more MTV 90's perhaps,
but is it "bigger?"
*************************************************************************
I don't think I expressed myself clearly. DR. STRANGELOVE takes
nuclear destruction and milks it as black comedy, but it still
implies that the Bomb is ultimately catastrophic--at best, it will
ensure the survival of the Permanent Government crazies who retreat
underground. It's an extremist twist on the apocalyptic scenarios
of more "serious" films from ON THE BEACH to FAIL-SAFE.
In TRUE LIES, on the other hand, there seems to be no real consequence
to the bomb's explosion. (In most other films I can think of, the
race to *stop* the bomb from exploding has been paramount--GOLDFINGER,
for example. Here, it seems no worse than, say, an exploding oil
tanker!)
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
|