[ Post a Response | EVEN DeepER Blurting! ]
Posted by DexterBG on 7/18/2008, 2:26 am, in reply to "You make a couple of good points, Dex"
--Previous Message--
: I guess, in the eyes of many, anything to do
: with a potential WWIII and its aftermath
: must be immediately classified as
: "sci-fi". That's not really
: accurate, though. I mean, there's a big
: difference between, say, "On the
: Beach" (post-war, but still clearly
: contemporary) and "Mad Max"
: (clearly a future dystopia). Although, I
: must say that it doesn't always happen. For
: example, I don't know of anyone who truly
: classifies "Fail-Safe" or
: "Dr. Strangelove" as sci-fi,
: though the case could be made for both.
:
I'm glad that someone else here has seen "On the Beach", besides myself. It's pretty bleek. But it's meant to bring home the fatal consequnce of flirting with WW3 as a viable solution. "Mad Max" is altogether different. As you said, a dystopia. a breakdown of civilization in a isolated state (New Zealand or Austrialia?). At least based on the first movie, not the sequels which were overblown, violent fantasy plays.
"Dr. Strangelove" is a tough one to properly label. Certianly it's satire. But is it anti-political, anti-cold war, anti-nuke or what? Maybe it's anti-everything. When the makers of "Fail Safe" saw "Dr.S" that same year, they knew the jig was up on their film. Another one in a similar vane was "Catch 22". But it didn't involve having an "end of the world" conclusion.
BTW, I think George C. Scott stoled the show in "Dr. Strangelove". Ironic that six years later he would be doing "Patton". But were the two generals he protrayed really all that different in nature? Well, at least "Buck" was funnier.
-Dex-
Message Thread:
« Back to thread
Watch out for snakes.