Regarding the review cited as the "most helpful critical review," in which the main criticism is that the aspect-ratio of this DVD is 1.66 throughout instead of "variable" (some shots 1.33, some 1.66), I'd like to put to rest the unfortunate idea that Kubrick ever intended this film to be seen with a "variable aspect ratio."
Yes, the film was photographed that way; but no, it was not meant to be seen that way. Let me explain:
"Variable aspect-ratio" seems to be a term invented to market an early DVD release of "Dr. Strangelove." The term has no meaning in the film industry because no film has ever been released that way (except for that misguided "Strangelove" DVD -a mistake which has now been corrected).
Much of "Dr. Stangelove" was photographed with no matte in the camera, thus exposing the entire 1.33 film frame. Many shots, however, were filmed with a 1.66 matte in the camera, reflecting Kubrick's intention to release the film to theaters in 1.66. Therefore, if you transfer this movie to tape using an unmatted film element, and you take the whole 1.33 frame for every shot, the aspect ratio will vary between 1.33 (shots filmed with no matte in the camera) and 1.66 (shots filmed with a 1.66 matte). But it seems self-evident that this is not the way any movie was ever intended to be seen, with the shape of the frame randomly bouncing around from shot to shot for no reason.
So why shoot it that way? Because Kubrick (and his cameraman) knew that the theatrical printing negative, and therefore every release print sent to theaters, would have the 1.66 matte printed-in from start to finish, making the entire film 1.66 for theatrical presentation.
Is it possible Kubrick shot it "variable" so that the eventual 1.33 DVD release could have a meandering frame-line? I know Kubrick was smart, but it's unlikely he was thinking of the DVD release in 1964.
In those days, movies were made for theaters; televised movies were mainly 16mm prints, edited for time and sold in syndication. The TV market as it existed in 1964 did not influence any film director's compositions. The theatrical release was all that mattered; and the theatrical release of "Dr. Strangelove" was 1.66. All of it.
Therefore, if one wants to see this film the way Kubrick meant it to be seen (and a new, matted 35mm print is not available), the film-to-tape transfer must recreate the matted 1.66 theatrical aspect-ratio throughout -which is what the "40th Anniversary" DVD and of course the BluRay do (thank you, Sony Home Video).
I oversaw film restorations for a major Hollywood film studio for more than a decade, so I know the subject of aspect ratios pretty well. Hope this info is helpful.
Could a sane man initiate global mass-destruction? Can any political system that would destroy all life on earth as it valediction claim the moral high ground, now that we've entered a murder-suicide pact so absolute it even involves all future generations of life on earth? Liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, communismthey all become moot in the face of extinction.
So we have "Dr. Strangelove," the movie that dares point out how our drive to destroy ourselves just might be some sort of twisted outgrowth of our libido. Hardly a moment goes by in this film without sexual text or context. Even the two bombs in the B-52 (named by its crew, "Leper Colony") are scribbled with what were then considered come-on lines. Deranged Gen. Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) has sent his air wing into the Soviet Union because he felt a "loss of essence" during the "physical act of love," and is certain this is caused by flouridated water.
Peter Sellars plays three roles, wimpy President Muffley, RAF Group Captain Lionel Mandrake and the title character, the bizarre, wheelchair-bound not-so-former Nazi advisor to the President. The awesome George C. Scott turns in a marvelous performance as Gen. Buck Turgidson, who has difficulty hiding his enthusiasm for Ripper's plan.
But the revelation here is Hayden (veteran of many a manly role), playing a character so concerned with losing his virility, he sets the world on course for an explosive and very final climax. Hayden's performance is a masterpiece of subtle derangementno drooling or chewing the scenary. Watch for Sellar's reaction when he realizes Hayden's burly, muscular symbol of American power, in his medal-bejeweled Air Force uniform, is completely, irretrievably round the bend. It's a moment of pure, comic horror.
Sellars' characterization of Dr. Strangelove is the epitome of the post-nuclear man as monster. He's completely comfortable, almost gleeful, when talking about mass-murder as an abstraction and a political expediency.
Beautifully filmed in black and white (which gives it a certain Cold War veracity) and featuring some impressive sets and effective, documentary-style combat footage, "Dr. Strangelove" is one of Stanley Kubrick's finest films, uncompromising as it condemns hubris and macho posturing on all sides. And it does it with a weapon hopefully more effective in the long run than A-bombs and H-bombs. Humor.
Watch for Slim Pickens as twangy-voiced Maj. "King" Kong: his final scene has become iconic, and will remain in your mind for days. This movie also features James Earl Jones' movie debut, and yes, even then he had that impressive voice.
Buy Dr. Strangelove (1964) Now
I would have loved to been a fly on the wall when the producers of "Dr. Strangelove" tried to sell it to the studio.
"Well, you see, guys, this film is about worldwide Armageddon. This Air Force general goes nuts because he thinks the Russians are sapping his semen with flouride, and he sends his B-52s to attack them. Problem is, if his forces succeed, the Russians will set off a doomsday machine that will kill all life on Earth. The president tries to consult with the Russian premier on the hotline, but the premier is too drunk to understand what's going on. So, the wrap up is that one American plane succeeds in getting through, and the pilot has to ride the H-bomb down to its target, like a bucking bronco. The world ends. Oh, and it's a comedy."
Thank God for Hollywood of yore...could you imagine today's studios saying, "Sure, we'll pony up about $50 million for this one"? Not a chance.
That's what makes "Dr. Strangelove" such a treasure: no movie like this will ever be made again. It is horrific and viciously comedic at the same time. It is also masterfully crafted, as you'd expect from a Stanley Kubrick film, and aside from some cheesy visual effects of a B-52, it doesn't feel the least bit dated.
If anything, the film's sarcastic, irreverent tone fits the cynical 21st century far better than the 1960's, a time when the president was a national hero. Am I the only one who can see Bill Clinton's face lighting with happiness at the prospect of being locked in a mineshaft for a hundred years with ten "highly stimulating" women?
But in the idealistic world of 1964, such thoughts were absolutely radical, which makes "Dr. Strangelove" more than a great moviegoing experience; it was a cultural watershed, ushering in the cynical late 1960's with a distinct "bang."
Of course, no review of this film would be complete without some of its absolutely amazing moments: General Ripper's speech about his "precious bodily fluids"; George C. Scott's megalomaniacal, hyperactive General Buck Turgidson, who argues for an all-out attack on Russia because the worst they can do is "muss our hair"; Slim Pickens' Major Kong, who, upon inspection of a survival kit (complete with nylons and a miniature Bible/Russian phrase book), declares that "a guy could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all this stuff"; and, of course, Peter Sellers' brilliant triple role as the befuddled U.S. president (who declares, "no fighting in the War Room!"), the properly British but quite persistent Captain Mandrake, and the self-asphyxiating ex-Nazi Dr. Strangelove.
The film is also a feast for the eyes; Ken Adam's "war room" set is absolutely smashing (in fact, Ronald Reagan, upon touring the real War Room in the Pentagon, complained that it didn't look nearly as impressive as it did in this film), and the footage of the "battle" for General Ripper's air base is amazingly realistic. The interior set of Major Kong's B-52 was painstakingly constructed from pictures of a real B-52 (as you'd expect, the Defense Department refused to cooperate in the making of this film), and is absolutely convincing.
Kubrick's direction is flawless, and manages to combine his well-known knack for ice-cold intellect with warm and very human performances.
In all, "Dr. Strangelove" is a treasure, and belongs in any collector's cabinet.
Read Best Reviews of Dr. Strangelove (1964) Here
I doubt that you could imagine how much it would pain me to give a single-star rating to an edition of the film I consider to be the singular greatest contribution to the motion picture. However, the new "40th Anniversary" edition of Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb is, unquestionably, requiring of such a rating. Why?, you ask.
Because about fifteen to twenty percent of the screen image has been removed!!!
If you take a look, you will see that this new "Special" edition of Dr. Strangelove is presented in anamorphic widescreen, with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. This, as you can find from examining older editions of the film, is the first time the film has ever been presented in such a manner. The reason why (and you may cross-check this with the Internet Movie Database [IMDb] or any book on Stanley Kubrick worth its salt) is because Dr. Strangelove was NOT FILMED in 1.66:1. It was technically filmed with a varying aspect ratio (the reasons for which are still not fully explicated, as far as I've seen), but, in general, it was filmed in about 1.33:1.
So, you ask, how does a film shot in 1.33:1 get presented in 1.66:1? Did someone return to the original negative and uncover material previously hidden from sight, lost on every print and VHS, Beta, laserdisc and DVD copy heretofore released?
NO!
They simply cut off the top and bottom of the screen!!!
Such things are not unprecedented. An extremely similar case is the so-called "panoramic" Gone With The Wind. The film, made in 1939 (before there was anything BUT 1.33:1, the "Academy" aspect ratio), when released in the Panavision/Technorama age of the mid-1960's was similar chopped and changed to magically become 2.35:1. This edition was released on video and DVD a few times before, finally, it was restored to its original 1.33:1 glory.
Stanley Kubrick was absolutely notorious for his perfectionism and auteur status in the film industry, and I cannot believe that a company proposing to release a definitive "Special" edition of his greatest masterpiece would be so heartless as to unnecessarily delete a good portion of the screen.
Please avoid this new, bastardized Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb. While the few new extras thereon are of interest, they can easily be seen via rental from the local video store, as suplemental to the last "Special Edition" of the DVD (which, incidentally, clearly states on the back that it is "Presented in the original aspect ratio of approximately 1.33:1".
Thank you,
Marc-David Jacobs
P.S. For those of you interested in seeing the terrible editing job for yourselves, feel free to go out and rent the new edition and the previous edition and go to seven minutes and forty-eight seconds, which is the extreme tight shot of the B-52's CRM-114 decoder book. As you will see, an entire line of text on the top, and about one-and-a-half on the bottom are not completely missing.
Want Dr. Strangelove (1964) Discount?
I have seen "Dr. Strangelove" over 100 times which proves either I need to get a life or I have very good taste. I hope it's the latter.
This is, quite simply, the most complete and the most brilliant film ever made. There is not one boring, poorly acted or superfluous scene in the entire movie. The performances are simply outstanding. Peter Sellers in his three roles is, as always, superlative. But George C. Scott, not generally noted for comedy, proves he is a comedic actor of the highest order.
Slim Pickens gives an absolutely hilarious performance as Major Kong. Watch how he takes his cowboy hat out of the safe, and his accent when he delivers the classic line, "A fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff!"
Keenan Weenan delivers an absolutely dead-on performance as Bat Guano ("if that really is your name...") and Kubrick somehow managed to drag a riveting performance out of Sterling Hayden, not normally known as any great shakes in the acting department.
This film is gorgeously directed, paced and is literally perfect. Watch particularly the lengthy scenes in the war room, with Sellers as President Muffley delivering his lines in a flat midwestern American accent to Dimitri, the fun-loving Russian premiere.
If you have never seen "Dr. Strangelove," you're in for a cinematic experience you'll never forget. You can watch it dozens of times and still laugh, still appreciate the outstanding performances and marvel at this perfect motion picture.
Save 25% Off
Ishtar is the most wrongfully maligned movie of all time. Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman are hilarious in this buddy farce about the fantastic misadventures of two passionate, sincere songwriters who can niether sing nor write, but who truly think they're great, think they're Simon and Garfunkel. The deluded duo can't get a gig anywhere but Morocco, where they become entangled in a revolutionary espionage and ride around the desert on a blind camel. Ishtar was the movie which made me decide to like Warren Beatty. He and Hoffman have dynamic charisma together, each playing their characters with endearing sincerity, which adds to the hilarity. Every scene crackles with memorable dialogue and slapstick gags. One of my personal favorite lines comes when Hoffman is threatening to kill himself because he has nothing. Beatty tells him that that's what's great about him. "You're the kind of guy who'd rather have nothing than settle for less." Ishtar was a financial failure because it went way over budget and was poorly marketed. It was doomed to "bomb" before it ever came out. But what does that matter to us, now? The fact is that this classic comedy is in league with all of your favorites, and you're only depriving yourself of a lot of good belly laughs if you don't give Ishtar a look.
