The president's decision at the end ties back to the beginning of the movie: when Dr. Groeteschele talked about "60 million vs 100 million". The president decided to sacrifice a few million lives to prevent the deaths of 100 million lives. Was his decision right or wrong? Is there even a right or wrong in a nuclear war? Let's hope we never truly find out. On another note, when the President sent those fighter pilots to their deaths (and General Black fully supported that decision), I had a fleeting thought, "It's easy to send those people to their deaths. You don't know those men, and you personally lose nothing by giving that order." It's easier to follow principles when you are not the one who has to offer sacrifice. But in the end, it was proven that the President and General Black were people who talk the talk, and walk the walk. They commit to their principles and I'm sure they would sacrifice their own lives if it meant saving the majority. General Black accepted his final mission, and in doing so, killed his family with his own hands. The President knew his own wife was in New York at the time. He did not evacuate her, and still ordered the bomb to be dropped.
Great reaction!! I'm one of those people, who prefers this film to that other one released earlier in 1964 dealing with the same subject. On the Beach (1959) is a good film that deals with the aftermath of nuclear war and stars Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Anthony Perkins and Fred Astaire.
Was the decision right or wrong? It cannot be answered, because the situation is too insane. But what is most insane is that we put ourselves in it. The "age of anxiety" started with WWII, and I don't believe we've ever really ended it! One of those persistant anxieties is the quandary of our species, being concious of our own mortality; we all know from a young age that we are destined to die. A quandary believed to be unique to our species, though recently, it has been posed, that a few other species may share it with us, though unproven thus far; some candidates have been: crows, elephants, other primates, and dolphins.
Mortals like us cannot escape death. It's a part of the natural cycle. People have come, and gone. We are here now, one day we will not be. New lives will arrive, and eventually they will depart. It is what it is.
One of my favorite movies, the remake is ok, but not as good as the original! The ending is so memorable! Another great movie is The Bedford Incident, Kinda the same but on a ship! 3 more movie you might be interested are Special Bulletin (1983), Without Warning (1994) and Countdown to Looking Glass (1984)!
An excellent movie to review is Seven Days In May, directed by John Frankenheimer, screenplay by Fletcher Knebel, Charles W. Bailey II, Rod Serling and released February 12, 1964. It stars Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas and Fredric March. This movie is more relevant today than it was in 1964.
"The Matador, the Matador... me... me..." Fun Fact: Theatrical movie debut of Dom DeLuise, Fritz Weaver, and Dana Elcar. Practical Over CGI Fact: The "computer-generated" image on the control-room screen (including the map of the world, the planes and the explosions) was entirely drawn and animated by hand. Mathematical Fact: Some might think that a bomber strike on Moscow from a fail-safe point just north of Alaska would not be possible. This is not true. The B-58 Hustler had a maximum range of 4,400 miles, with the distance from the point indicated to Moscow being 3,800 miles. Considering the maximum range of potential targets, it would have been necessary to refuel the bombers at their fail-safe points or shortly before reaching those points. Historical Fact: During the encounter with the UFO over Hudson Bay, General Bogen (Frank Overton) states that the US had never been to condition red (DEFCON 2). This was not true - the US was at DEFCON 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. At the time the film was made, that was the only such example. The US also declared DEFCON 2 at the start of the Gulf War in 1991. The stated sequence of colors is correct - blue, green, yellow, red. Omitted is white, DEFCON 1 - imminent and all but unavoidable nuclear war.
"Entirely drawn and animated by hand". That's amazing! I couldn't even tell 👍🏻🤩 Ooo, well let's hope for everyone's sake that we never get to DEFCON1... Thanks for the fun facts again! 😊
From the book ''Fail safe'' in 1959 written by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler. This movie had a remake in 2000, live on TV, in Black and white with George Clooney. There was also, as you stated, the comedy of Stanley Kubrick ''Dr Strangelove'' but based on anotehr book ''Red Alert'' 1958 from Peter George (similar story)). Great reaction about a masterpiece movie ! thanks
Henry, the gripping feeling that one gets from watching this super-serious film gives you some idea of the everyday reality we had to deal with during the peak of the cold war. It was incredibly frightening.
DR Stranglove and this movie come from this same source, kubrick asked columbia pictures to have fail safe delated for months so that it wont come out at the same time as dr.strangelove
"The Bedford Incident" is a 1965 movie in this same subject area you might like to check out, it's a pressure packed on the brink of nuclear war story!
Like you said, this one and Dr Strangelove had a big impact on how management for deployment of nuclear weapons developed. Two productions that later on got the public to wake up to the threat was The Day After (1983) and Threads (1984), depicting full scale nuclear war and the aftermath. Both TV movies well worth a watch. Or maybe even a reaction? No convicts vs file clerks battles though, so you may not be interested...
Oh, I think I might have those in my list already. I'll double check later. Thanks for your suggestions! 😊 "Convicts vs file clerks" sounds more like a tv series than a movie 😂
I served on a Strategic Air Command (SAC ... now disbanded and morphed into the Air Combat Command) from 1978-1980. Hard core Cold War. I saw this film at some point well before I enlisted and it was never far from my mind. And I believe that films like this are part of the reason cooler heads prevailed in the US government and military leadership. Another couple of movies that contributed to caution about too easily going nuclear include War Games (Matthew Broderick) and even Planet of the Apes (Charlton Heston). I can't say why Planet of the Apes fits or unleash spoilers. But if you know, you know. (I saw Planet of the Apes in the cinema with Dad. It was slightly over my head so, as we walked to our car I asked him about the meaning of the end. After he told me I looked u at him and ask, "Is there anything we can do to stop it?" Earnest question of a kid who didn't really understand the full picture, yet.) I think that all of these movies served to nudge decision-makers and order-givers away from The Red Button. And this may be the very highest example of why unfiltered, frown-up art must be preserved. When these films were released there was a lot of push-back, but they were made anyway. (No sex in Fail Safe. No intense music score. Few "pretty" people for appeal. No fist fights. But visceral drama that had the power to change young hearts for the better. For the better. (Always enjoy your reactions. Keep it up, please.)
Another cast, like TWELVE ANGRY MEN, that actors can rightfully claim a top performance. Each. If you want to dive into 'follow-ups', there's SEVEN DAYS IN MAY (two of Hollywood's tuff guyz, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas), then of course, the nuclear finale, ON THE BEACH (1959 with Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Fred Asstaire, Anthony Perkins).
Edward Binns is another of the 12 angry men. Walter Matthau is so often associated with comedy that some forget what a great villain he could make. Here he provides perhaps my favorite line reading of the word “Yes!” Dom DeLuise is also usually associated with comedy. These comedy associations, added to the fact that DR. STRANGELOVE was released first, sometimes make it just a bit harder to take this film seriously. In the end, it certainly deserves to be taken seriously.
Edward Binns (the bomber pilot) was a fine character actor with small to medium sized parts in many memorable films including North by Northwest and Patton. He was also quite credible as the Bishop in Lumet's (and David Mamet's) The Verdict. That movie, after Network, is probably my favorite film directed by Lumet.
@@henryellow You're welcome, though it was more just a mention than a suggestion. Patton is a movie I don't like as much as I once did. However, it is still worth watching for George C. Scott's great performance as Patton. Francis Ford Coppola (the director of the Godfather films) won an Oscar for his screenplay for Patton.
Henry, this is a non-fiction film. There were actually members of the joint chiefs of staff (e.g., Curtis LeMay) who tried to get the U.S. into a nuclear war with USSR.
Correct. There were quite a few high level big shots in the Pentagon in the early/ mid 60's who were 100% convinced that the U.S. could win a nuclear war with "exceptable losses."
This movie was made around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was probably the closest the US and Russia came to nuclear armageddon, so the threat was definitely real. Lots of fear in the country.
Thanks so much for this vid; I enjoyed watching your reaction to the movie and hearing your thoughts on it at the end. A few facts that might be of interest: 'Dr. Strangelove' was not precisely a parody of 'Fail-Safe.' The two movies were both based on books with very similar plots about nuclear war/catastrophe being caused by a freak accident. 'Dr. Strangelove' was based on the novel 'Red Alert' by Peter George; 'Fail-Safe' was based on the novel of the same name by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler. Stanley Kubrick decided that 'Red Alert,' which was a straight-forward thriller, would work better as a satirical comedy. Sidney Lumet decided just to adapt 'Fail-Safe' pretty much as it was. I think 'Dr. Strangelove' is the better movie overall, but 'Fail-Safe' is still very powerful--almost excruciatingly so. I think the two books had such similar plots simply because they were reflecting the overwhelming concern and anxiety in the early 1960s about nuclear war and if/how it might occur. (Sadly the nuclear threat has not gone away and many of the issues raised by these movies remain; I am currently reading the 2024 book 'Nuclear War: A Scenario' by Annie Jacobsen, which provides essentially an update of 'Fail-Safe.') I think you are on to something in perceiving a similarity between the characters of Dr. Strangelove and Dr. Groteschele. I believe that both characters are composites of real people, and one of the real-life inspirations may well have been a man named Herman Kahn. Kahn was a theorist of nuclear war who speculated about what nuclear war would be like and engaged in the kinds of insane calculations that Strangelove and Groteschele do about so-many tens of millions in one scenario versus so-many tens of millions in another. (Other real-life inspirations for Strangelove were probably Edward Teller and Werner von Braun, while I think Groteschele may also have been inspired by the [then relatively young and unknown] Henry Kissinger.) I am enjoying your reactions to Sidney Lumet movies and look forward to others. I would also echo some of the other commenters by saying that reactions to other 1960s films about nuclear fears, such as 'On the Beach' or 'Seven Days in May' would be worthwhile.
I'm glad you enjoyed my reaction 😊 Thanks for sharing some facts and your thoughts on the movie. Yes, I've read the other comments and added those movies 😉
I suggest watching; "7 Days in May". Two major cities destroyed, millions dead, more millions scared physically and mentally, but the question that needs to be answered... "Was the right lesson, learned?"
SPECIAL BULLETIN is filled with '80s TV stars, and is indeed a powerful film about nuke protestors who steal one, want to create a sensational threat about a small boat in Charleston, SC's harbor.
This was a frightening film back in 1964. That was the era of nuclear attack practice drills in schools, bomb shelters everywhere, mutually assured destruction, and regular coverage of the dangers, and still this was a sobering movie. I think we have since been lulled into an unwarranted complacency, even though they are as great a danger now as they ever were - and perhaps even more, with nuclear weapons possessed by more countries than then and people such as Putin and Trump talking about actually using nukes being a viable option.
Two 1983 films that deal with the aftermath of a nuclear attack are _Testament_ and _The_ _Day_ _After_ (the latter was made for television but is still good). The after-effects would spread worldwide and it is criminally reckless to even entertain the idea of triggering such a conflict. Seems very appropriate that you decided to review this film - maybe film makers need to revisit the subject, too.
And now AI is creeping up from behind the human race. At what point will it also become part of the equation if it isn't already. This movie came out about 9-10 months after Dr Strangelove, both were in production at the same time if I remember. Both of them have utterly sobering endings.
AI doesn't necessarily mean brain dead robots, they may realize that the end of humans will eventually be the end of them too. They may scare the 💩 out of us and de activate the bombs at the last minutes and radio active debris falling will kill a few hundred and contaminate the area. And make us think seriously about never building nuclear weapons again.
This movie obviously treats the issue of "accidental" nuclear war much more seriously than Strangelove, and it deals with faulty machinery leading to unintended nuclear strikes instead of a faulty person, so I see it as a very valuable "flip side" to Kubrick's amazing work. I would have to say that Strangelove is overall a significantly better film than Fail Safe, but I think the ending of this movie is one of the most chilling endings to any movie ever made. That being said, there are a few things in this movie that are fantasy, and since it deals with nukes it is useful to know the things the movie exaggerated. The bombers they used footage of were not "Vindicators", but rather were B-58 Hustlers, and they had nothing like the capabilities in the movie. For example the B-58 could only carry 1 large nuke of 9 megaton yield and not the 2 20 megaton bombs in the movie, and the the B-58 could fly fast OR pretty far but not both so it could never make it all the way to Moscow at that speed. And the most important thing to know about this movie is that it assumes that the computers that take care of the air defense are the same as or are linked to the ones that control the release of the nukes. In the 1960s the air defense was controlled by NORAD from the command post inside Cheyenne Mountain, but the nuclear release orders for the planes were controlled by Strategic Air Command from their command post near Omaha, Nebraska...or from one of SAC's Airborne Command Post planes. So the failure envisaged in this particular scenario was actually not possible. One last thing to keep in mind is something I think I mentioned in my comments to you on your reaction to Dr Strangelove, but that was a while ago so it is worth reminding you about it. In the early part of the Cold War, and definitely in the early 1960s, the US had a massive superiority in nuclear weapons over the USSR. The US and NATO could wipe out the USSR 100%, but the Soviets could only damage the USA in return...although Europe was always going to be nearly 100 percent destroyed either way.
Strangelove and Fail Safe are indeed similar. It's just that Strangelove takes a more comedic approach. I see. Separating the air defense and nuclear release systems is a form of safeguard. Even if one part fails, they can still avoid "tragic consequences". Ah, thanks for the reminder 😉 In the movie, perhaps sacrificing New York was still a lower cost compared to the full retaliation by the USSR? Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this 😊
I would respectfully argue that is is not a "poor substitute", but rather a valuable "flip side" to Strangelove...to quote myself. I definitely agree that Fail Safe is not as good as Strangelove, and would suggest that one if somebody asked me which they should watch first, but your characterization seems harsh to me. If course, this is entirely a matter of opinion, so yours is 100 percent as valid as mine...I just hope this slight debate maybe gives you some perspective you had not seen before.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
The president's decision at the end ties back to the beginning of the movie: when Dr. Groeteschele talked about "60 million vs 100 million". The president decided to sacrifice a few million lives to prevent the deaths of 100 million lives.
Was his decision right or wrong? Is there even a right or wrong in a nuclear war? Let's hope we never truly find out.
On another note, when the President sent those fighter pilots to their deaths (and General Black fully supported that decision), I had a fleeting thought, "It's easy to send those people to their deaths. You don't know those men, and you personally lose nothing by giving that order." It's easier to follow principles when you are not the one who has to offer sacrifice.
But in the end, it was proven that the President and General Black were people who talk the talk, and walk the walk. They commit to their principles and I'm sure they would sacrifice their own lives if it meant saving the majority. General Black accepted his final mission, and in doing so, killed his family with his own hands. The President knew his own wife was in New York at the time. He did not evacuate her, and still ordered the bomb to be dropped.
Great reaction!! I'm one of those people, who prefers this film to that other one released earlier in 1964 dealing with the same subject. On the Beach (1959) is a good film that deals with the aftermath of nuclear war and stars Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Anthony Perkins and Fred Astaire.
Was the decision right or wrong? It cannot be answered, because the situation is too insane. But what is most insane is that we put ourselves in it. The "age of anxiety" started with WWII, and I don't believe we've ever really ended it! One of those persistant anxieties is the quandary of our species, being concious of our own mortality; we all know from a young age that we are destined to die. A quandary believed to be unique to our species, though recently, it has been posed, that a few other species may share it with us, though unproven thus far; some candidates have been: crows, elephants, other primates, and dolphins.
I'll add On The Beach to my list then. Thanks for suggesting it! 😊
Mortals like us cannot escape death. It's a part of the natural cycle. People have come, and gone. We are here now, one day we will not be. New lives will arrive, and eventually they will depart. It is what it is.
Lose New York or lose America and the rest of the world! Sacrifices must be made sometimes! : (
I saw this film on TV as a small child at the height of the cold war. I lived just a dozen miles from a B-52 base.
One of my favorite movies, the remake is ok, but not as good as the original! The ending is so memorable!
Another great movie is The Bedford Incident, Kinda the same but on a ship!
3 more movie you might be interested are Special Bulletin (1983), Without Warning (1994) and Countdown to Looking Glass (1984)!
I'll add them to my list then. Thanks for your suggestions! 😊
An excellent movie to review is Seven Days In May, directed by John Frankenheimer, screenplay by Fletcher Knebel, Charles W. Bailey II, Rod Serling and released February 12, 1964. It stars Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas and Fredric March. This movie is more relevant today than it was in 1964.
I'll double check to see if I already have it on my list. Thanks for your suggestion! 😊
"The Matador, the Matador... me... me..."
Fun Fact: Theatrical movie debut of Dom DeLuise, Fritz Weaver, and Dana Elcar.
Practical Over CGI Fact: The "computer-generated" image on the control-room screen (including the map of the world, the planes and the explosions) was entirely drawn and animated by hand.
Mathematical Fact: Some might think that a bomber strike on Moscow from a fail-safe point just north of Alaska would not be possible. This is not true. The B-58 Hustler had a maximum range of 4,400 miles, with the distance from the point indicated to Moscow being 3,800 miles. Considering the maximum range of potential targets, it would have been necessary to refuel the bombers at their fail-safe points or shortly before reaching those points.
Historical Fact: During the encounter with the UFO over Hudson Bay, General Bogen (Frank Overton) states that the US had never been to condition red (DEFCON 2). This was not true - the US was at DEFCON 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. At the time the film was made, that was the only such example. The US also declared DEFCON 2 at the start of the Gulf War in 1991. The stated sequence of colors is correct - blue, green, yellow, red. Omitted is white, DEFCON 1 - imminent and all but unavoidable nuclear war.
"Entirely drawn and animated by hand". That's amazing! I couldn't even tell 👍🏻🤩
Ooo, well let's hope for everyone's sake that we never get to DEFCON1...
Thanks for the fun facts again! 😊
From the book ''Fail safe'' in 1959 written by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler. This movie had a remake in 2000, live on TV, in Black and white with George Clooney. There was also, as you stated, the comedy of Stanley Kubrick ''Dr Strangelove'' but based on anotehr book ''Red Alert'' 1958 from Peter George (similar story)). Great reaction about a masterpiece movie ! thanks
I remember being so pumped up to see that "live" CBS-TV production. I've been trying to find that production on DVD for years.
Henry, the gripping feeling that one gets from watching this super-serious film gives you some idea of the everyday reality we had to deal with during the peak of the cold war. It was incredibly frightening.
The real fail safe where planes are in 2 hour waiting areas from russia was stopped in 1965. It is no longer used.
DR Stranglove and this movie come from this same source, kubrick asked columbia pictures to have fail safe delated for months so that it wont come out at the same time as dr.strangelove
"The Bedford Incident" is a 1965 movie in this same subject area you might like to check out, it's a pressure packed on the brink of nuclear war story!
I've got it in my movies list! 😊
Very good review. Analysis was spot on
Like you said, this one and Dr Strangelove had a big impact on how management for deployment of nuclear weapons developed.
Two productions that later on got the public to wake up to the threat was The Day After (1983) and Threads (1984), depicting full scale nuclear war and the aftermath. Both TV movies well worth a watch. Or maybe even a reaction?
No convicts vs file clerks battles though, so you may not be interested...
Oh, I think I might have those in my list already. I'll double check later. Thanks for your suggestions! 😊
"Convicts vs file clerks" sounds more like a tv series than a movie 😂
I served on a Strategic Air Command (SAC ... now disbanded and morphed into the Air Combat Command) from 1978-1980. Hard core Cold War. I saw this film at some point well before I enlisted and it was never far from my mind. And I believe that films like this are part of the reason cooler heads prevailed in the US government and military leadership. Another couple of movies that contributed to caution about too easily going nuclear include War Games (Matthew Broderick) and even Planet of the Apes (Charlton Heston). I can't say why Planet of the Apes fits or unleash spoilers. But if you know, you know. (I saw Planet of the Apes in the cinema with Dad. It was slightly over my head so, as we walked to our car I asked him about the meaning of the end. After he told me I looked u at him and ask, "Is there anything we can do to stop it?" Earnest question of a kid who didn't really understand the full picture, yet.) I think that all of these movies served to nudge decision-makers and order-givers away from The Red Button. And this may be the very highest example of why unfiltered, frown-up art must be preserved. When these films were released there was a lot of push-back, but they were made anyway. (No sex in Fail Safe. No intense music score. Few "pretty" people for appeal. No fist fights. But visceral drama that had the power to change young hearts for the better. For the better. (Always enjoy your reactions. Keep it up, please.)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I haven't watched The Planet of the Apes, but it's on my list 😉. I'll add War Games to my list too 😊
You are on the right track, the movies you see are an oasis among the vulgarity that plagues us. Thank you.
Another cast, like TWELVE ANGRY MEN, that actors can rightfully claim a top performance. Each. If you want to dive into 'follow-ups', there's SEVEN DAYS IN MAY (two of Hollywood's tuff guyz, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas), then of course, the nuclear finale, ON THE BEACH (1959 with Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Fred Asstaire, Anthony Perkins).
Nice 😊 I've just added them to my list today after another comment suggested it too.
Edward Binns is another of the 12 angry men. Walter Matthau is so often associated with comedy that some forget what a great villain he could make. Here he provides perhaps my favorite line reading of the word “Yes!” Dom DeLuise is also usually associated with comedy. These comedy associations, added to the fact that DR. STRANGELOVE was released first, sometimes make it just a bit harder to take this film seriously. In the end, it certainly deserves to be taken seriously.
Another mostly comic actor in a serious role is Dom Deluise and Congressman Raskob . 9:55
Edward Binns (the bomber pilot) was a fine character actor with small to medium sized parts in many memorable films including North by Northwest and Patton. He was also quite credible as the Bishop in Lumet's (and David Mamet's) The Verdict. That movie, after Network, is probably my favorite film directed by Lumet.
Ah, I don't have Patton in my list yet. I'll add it in. Thanks for your suggestion 😉
@@henryellow You're welcome, though it was more just a mention than a suggestion. Patton is a movie I don't like as much as I once did. However, it is still worth watching for George C. Scott's great performance as Patton. Francis Ford Coppola (the director of the Godfather films) won an Oscar for his screenplay for Patton.
Twelve Angry Men as the house painter was one of his best .
He also was the kind juror in 12 Angry Men. 2:45
Wow he had "small to medium sized parts."
Henry glad you are delving into the treasure trove of the many fine older movies out there. your an an excellent reactor. subscribed
Thank you, I hope you enjoy my reactions! 😊 Welcome aboard! 🤗
Henry, this is a non-fiction film. There were actually members of the joint chiefs of staff (e.g., Curtis LeMay) who tried to get the U.S. into a nuclear war with USSR.
Correct. There were quite a few high level big shots in the Pentagon in the early/ mid 60's who were 100% convinced that the U.S. could win a nuclear war with "exceptable losses."
If that had happened, we'd be living in an apocalyptic future right now (if we're even alive at all)
@@henryellow The situation would be where the dead would envy the dead.
GOOSEBUMPS, very appropriate
This movie was made around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was probably the closest the US and Russia came to nuclear armageddon, so the threat was definitely real. Lots of fear in the country.
Dr Strangelove came out at the same time as this movie. 1:20
Thanks so much for this vid; I enjoyed watching your reaction to the movie and hearing your thoughts on it at the end.
A few facts that might be of interest: 'Dr. Strangelove' was not precisely a parody of 'Fail-Safe.' The two movies were both based on books with very similar plots about nuclear war/catastrophe being caused by a freak accident. 'Dr. Strangelove' was based on the novel 'Red Alert' by Peter George; 'Fail-Safe' was based on the novel of the same name by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler.
Stanley Kubrick decided that 'Red Alert,' which was a straight-forward thriller, would work better as a satirical comedy. Sidney Lumet decided just to adapt 'Fail-Safe' pretty much as it was. I think 'Dr. Strangelove' is the better movie overall, but 'Fail-Safe' is still very powerful--almost excruciatingly so.
I think the two books had such similar plots simply because they were reflecting the overwhelming concern and anxiety in the early 1960s about nuclear war and if/how it might occur.
(Sadly the nuclear threat has not gone away and many of the issues raised by these movies remain; I am currently reading the 2024 book 'Nuclear War: A Scenario' by Annie Jacobsen, which provides essentially an update of 'Fail-Safe.')
I think you are on to something in perceiving a similarity between the characters of Dr. Strangelove and Dr. Groteschele. I believe that both characters are composites of real people, and one of the real-life inspirations may well have been a man named Herman Kahn. Kahn was a theorist of nuclear war who speculated about what nuclear war would be like and engaged in the kinds of insane calculations that Strangelove and Groteschele do about so-many tens of millions in one scenario versus so-many tens of millions in another. (Other real-life inspirations for Strangelove were probably Edward Teller and Werner von Braun, while I think Groteschele may also have been inspired by the [then relatively young and unknown] Henry Kissinger.)
I am enjoying your reactions to Sidney Lumet movies and look forward to others. I would also echo some of the other commenters by saying that reactions to other 1960s films about nuclear fears, such as 'On the Beach' or 'Seven Days in May' would be worthwhile.
I'm glad you enjoyed my reaction 😊
Thanks for sharing some facts and your thoughts on the movie.
Yes, I've read the other comments and added those movies 😉
@@henryellowI look forward to those reactions!
This is an excellent video of your reaction HenryYellow. Two thumbs up!☝👍
I suggest watching; "7 Days in May".
Two major cities destroyed, millions dead, more millions scared physically and mentally, but the question that needs to be answered... "Was the right lesson, learned?"
I'll add it to my list. Thanks for your suggestion! 😊
Excellent suggestion.
Another made-for-tv nuclear/terrorist movie is Special Bulletin (1983). It was done in the format of a new story as it happened.
SPECIAL BULLETIN is filled with '80s TV stars, and is indeed a powerful film about nuke protestors who steal one, want to create a sensational threat about a small boat in Charleston, SC's harbor.
@@Cbcw76 It was powerful when it aired.
@@bonitaburroughs8673 It's powerful now.
I'll add it to my list. Thanks for suggesting it! 😊
@@bonitaburroughs8673 ...one of the great things about it is seeing those '80s TV stars who were fairly new on TV in those years.
I remember seeing this bleak film with my father when I was small.
This was a frightening film back in 1964. That was the era of nuclear attack practice drills in schools, bomb shelters everywhere, mutually assured destruction, and regular coverage of the dangers, and still this was a sobering movie. I think we have since been lulled into an unwarranted complacency, even though they are as great a danger now as they ever were - and perhaps even more, with nuclear weapons possessed by more countries than then and people such as Putin and Trump talking about actually using nukes being a viable option.
Two 1983 films that deal with the aftermath of a nuclear attack are _Testament_ and _The_ _Day_ _After_ (the latter was made for television but is still good). The after-effects would spread worldwide and it is criminally reckless to even entertain the idea of triggering such a conflict. Seems very appropriate that you decided to review this film - maybe film makers need to revisit the subject, too.
I'll add the two movies to my list. Thanks for your suggestion, 😊
@@kevind4850 I highly recommend "THREADS' from the BBC. The film outdoes "The Day After" big time.
I have "Threads" on my list too. Thanks for your suggestion 😉
@@henryellow For years, I've been searching for this puppy on DVD for years. I highly recommend the live CBS-TV version from 2000.
They both came out on the same day
And now AI is creeping up from behind the human race. At what point will it also become part of the equation if it isn't already. This movie came out about 9-10 months after Dr Strangelove, both were in production at the same time if I remember. Both of them have utterly sobering endings.
AI doesn't necessarily mean brain dead robots, they may realize that the end of humans will eventually be the end of them too. They may scare the 💩 out of us and de activate the bombs at the last minutes and radio active debris falling will kill a few hundred and contaminate the area. And make us think seriously about never building nuclear weapons again.
who survives? see 'Threads'.
This movie obviously treats the issue of "accidental" nuclear war much more seriously than Strangelove, and it deals with faulty machinery leading to unintended nuclear strikes instead of a faulty person, so I see it as a very valuable "flip side" to Kubrick's amazing work. I would have to say that Strangelove is overall a significantly better film than Fail Safe, but I think the ending of this movie is one of the most chilling endings to any movie ever made.
That being said, there are a few things in this movie that are fantasy, and since it deals with nukes it is useful to know the things the movie exaggerated. The bombers they used footage of were not "Vindicators", but rather were B-58 Hustlers, and they had nothing like the capabilities in the movie. For example the B-58 could only carry 1 large nuke of 9 megaton yield and not the 2 20 megaton bombs in the movie, and the the B-58 could fly fast OR pretty far but not both so it could never make it all the way to Moscow at that speed.
And the most important thing to know about this movie is that it assumes that the computers that take care of the air defense are the same as or are linked to the ones that control the release of the nukes. In the 1960s the air defense was controlled by NORAD from the command post inside Cheyenne Mountain, but the nuclear release orders for the planes were controlled by Strategic Air Command from their command post near Omaha, Nebraska...or from one of SAC's Airborne Command Post planes. So the failure envisaged in this particular scenario was actually not possible.
One last thing to keep in mind is something I think I mentioned in my comments to you on your reaction to Dr Strangelove, but that was a while ago so it is worth reminding you about it. In the early part of the Cold War, and definitely in the early 1960s, the US had a massive superiority in nuclear weapons over the USSR. The US and NATO could wipe out the USSR 100%, but the Soviets could only damage the USA in return...although Europe was always going to be nearly 100 percent destroyed either way.
Strangelove and Fail Safe are indeed similar. It's just that Strangelove takes a more comedic approach.
I see. Separating the air defense and nuclear release systems is a form of safeguard. Even if one part fails, they can still avoid "tragic consequences".
Ah, thanks for the reminder 😉
In the movie, perhaps sacrificing New York was still a lower cost compared to the full retaliation by the USSR?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this 😊
Wait till you get to THE VERDICT.
I'll get there 😉 maybe not that soon, but it's in the queue 👍🏻
I would have Traded Chicago for Moscow .... Not NYC!
I'm guessing NYC had the same amount of population as Moscow.
A poor substitute for the satire of Dr. Strangelove...If you want to see Henry Fonda's best performance, put The Grapes of Wrath (1940) on your list.
I would respectfully argue that is is not a "poor substitute", but rather a valuable "flip side" to Strangelove...to quote myself. I definitely agree that Fail Safe is not as good as Strangelove, and would suggest that one if somebody asked me which they should watch first, but your characterization seems harsh to me. If course, this is entirely a matter of opinion, so yours is 100 percent as valid as mine...I just hope this slight debate maybe gives you some perspective you had not seen before.
Fonda's BEST movies are Comedy Westerns, one in 60s called *_"Big Hand for the Littlie Lady"_** & 70s one called ***_"Cheyenne Social Club"_*
@@rickpat-x9u Those were great performances, but my favorites will always be Mister Roberts and 12 Angry Men with this one in third place.
@@iKvetch558 and his ABSOLUTELY STUNNING ACTING IN The Ox Bow Incident
I'm adding all these movies to my list. Thanks for your suggestions, everyone! 😊