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]