Sidney Lumet’s Fail-Safe

Sidney Lumet’s Fail-Safe (1964) is a movie that largely gets overlooked despite its quality and critical acclaim. This is because it was released the same year and adapted from the same source material as Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), Peter George’s novel Red Alert

I’m going to be blunt. Dr. Strangelove is a better movie. But that is hardly surprising. I think that Dr. Strangelove is one of the greatest movies of all time. Fail-Safe serves as an interesting comparison piece, however. No, scratch that, Fail-Safe stands on its own as a great movie. Most will only see it though to compare it to Kubrick’s film. The differences between the two works are interesting – most obviously, Fail-Safe is not a comedy. However, there is a far subtler distinction that renders Fail-Safe more interesting in some ways. In Kubrick’s film, the situation arose from human incompetence – a general goes insane and brings us past the point of no return. In Fail-Safe, however, the problem arises completely from a mechanical error. A technician in the film points out that mechanical problems, however improbable, are still possible. The problem, and most interesting point, comes from the fact that the bombers are instructed to continue their mission after a certain point, no matter what. This includes vocal instructions to abort. During the film, the President of the United States (brilliantly played by Henry Fonda) contacts the pilots and gives them a direct order to abort their mission and leave Soviet airspace. However, being good soldiers, they refuse to not follow through on their orders. In the film, our society has reached a point where humanity is totally eliminated from the picture, technology has total reign. This power we have given to technology ultimately leads to the nuking of Moscow which then leads to the nuking of New York City.

Despite the reputation of its director, Fail-Safe is largely ignored today. While definitely not better than Kubrick’s Dr. StrangeloveFail-Safe is able to stand on its own, while simultaneously being a great companion piece to Kubrick’s film.

Andrei Tarkovksky’s Ivan’s Childhood

Andrei Tarkovsky released his debut film, Ivan’s Childhood, in 1962 after graduating from the Soviet film school VGIK.

The film tells the story of Ivan, a 12-year old boy embroiled in the Soviet’s war against the Nazis during WWII. Ivan is first seen frolicking in a lush woods before beginning to fly. Ivan then meets with his mother who presents him with a bucket of water. As he begins to talk with his mother, an abrasive screech disturbs the scene, and Ivan bolts awake in a dark barn.

Tarkovksy continues to use this format through the rest of the film. When he is amongst others, Ivan is tight-lipped and secretive. Instead of conveying Ivan’s past through dialogue, Tarkovsky prefers to rely on dream sequences, which allow for a more expressive retelling of Ivan’s life. In his text Sculpting in Time, Tarkovksy outlines his belief that there are several truths in the world that do not lend themselves easily to dialogue. We are also able to see the two sides of Ivan: on the outside, he is determined and collected. Through his dream sequences, however, Ivan is revealed as a troubled boy whose life has been ripped apart by the horrors of war. It is shown that both of Ivan’s parents, as well as his sister, were killed by the Nazis, leaving Ivan with an overwhelming need for revenge.

From the beginning, it is clear that this is not a film concerned with how the world actually is, but how Ivan sees the world. As such, Tarkovksy places Ivan in very expressive environments, showcasing Ivan’s impression of the world around him. One famous image from the film shows Ivan surrounded by broken, jagged wood jutting out towards him. As Ivan steps towards the splinters, the wood surrounds him, and takes on a menacing feeling. The impression is created that the world itself is reaching out to threaten Ivan.

WIth his debut film, Tarkovsky set himself an impressive backing for his future career. Today Ivan’s Childhood is remembered as one of the best films of the post-Kruschev thaw Soviet Union.

Elem Klimov’s Come and See

Elem Klimov’s Come and See (1985) is one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. During the Nazi occupation of Byelorussian SSR, young Florian Gaishun finds a rifle and joins the partisan rebellion. As is typical with these films, Florya begins to lose his innocence as he witnesses the horrors of war. Despite its typical thematic materials, Come and See distinguishes itself from other war films by the brutal and relentless mental warfare it wages upon the viewer.

As Florya witnesses the death and destruction that begins to surround him, the viewer is taken alongside him, witnessing everything with the same savagery that Florya does. Klimov powerfully has his characters look and speak directly into the camera. This breaks down the boundary between the viewer and what is happening to the characters on-screen. As opposed to witnessing everything from behind a veil, the audience is directly addressed by the characters, directly implicating the viewer.

Apart from the visuals, Klimov uses sound to constantly weigh down the viewer, extending his mental assault upon them. After Florya narrowly survives an air raid, he is rendered temporarily deaf. The soundtrack is filled with a shrill ringing and an oppressive ambient tone. While the ringing fades away, the heavy, muddy sound never leaves the soundtrack, forcing the viewer to listen beyond it to get the full story. The sounds are atonal and leave the viewer physically uncomfortable, but beyond that they are no longer able to clearly hear what is going on.

Come and See left me nauseous. It is one of the most effective psychological horror films I have ever seen. Watching the film is painful. There were many occasions when I simply wanted to turn away and forget what I had seen. Yet the film leaves you hooked. The acting is often ridiculous and over-the-top, intentionally so – as opposed to turning you off, it leaves you  uncomfortable and unable to relate to the events onscreen. Klimov’s film is brilliant, and I believe it to be one of the greatest films I have ever seen.