Fail Safe (1964)
Fail Safe (1964)
"The
producers of this film wish to stress that it is the stated position of the
Department of Defense and the United States Air Force that a rigidly enforced
system of safeguards and controls insure that occurrences such as those
depicted in this story cannot happen".
n The Producers were obligated to place
this disclaimer at the end of the film, but at the time, the USA was primed to
be unbelieving of these sentiments, as are still unbelieving today.
Made in the
wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) this film spoke directly to the
concerns of USA Citizens, and people across the World, that our Weapons of Mass
Destruction, and our reliance on Technologies that the users barely understood,
were driving us head-long into the Apocalypse. During the Real-World Crisis, Calmer
Heads prevailed on both sides (the USA and USSR, Cuba’s Dictator Fidel Castro
was locked-out of all Negotiations) and there were no Madmen of influence, so
Civilization was saved. But during those dark days, even those who had faith in
these men could taste we were close to the brink, and if anyone made a serious
enough mistake, the Calmer Heads wouldn’t have saved us. So this film is the
darkest of all tales, because though there are Characters that you will no
doubt find contemptable, there are no real Villains, and the most Monstrous act
is committed by the Nobelist of Characters, he’d so lost control of the
situation, he saw no other choice but to, out of Virtue, commit the ultimate Betrayal
of his own people.
Though
Critically hailed, “Fail Safe” suffered in comparison to a similarly
themed-film released the same year, Director Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove
or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Both were based on quite
Dark and Serious novels of the Cold War (1947 to 1991) spiraling out-of-control
in the very-Near-Future; “Dr. Strangelove …” was based on “Red Alert” (1958) by
Peter Bryant AKA Peter George, and “Fail Safe” was based on a novel of the same
name (1962, the same year as the Cuban Missile Crisis, that certainly helped
sales) by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler. The two books shared so many
plot-points that there were charges of Plagiarism which were settled
out-of-Court. Remarkably, perhaps irrationally, both films were released by
Columbia Pictures, so the studio was essentially competing against itself in
the market-place. As with the novels, there were charges of Plagiarism, which
Columbia settled with a promise that Kubrick’s film would be released six-months
earlier than “Fail Safe.” One of the films had to lose, and “Fail Safe” was the
loser. Kubrick’s win here was probably not only because of the earlier release
date, but because Kubrick had a keen insight and turned the serious Doom-Laden novel
into a Dark-Comedy. I guess if you’re telling the Audience they’re going to Hell,
you should at least give them a chance to laugh on the way down.
But “Fail
Safe” is still a striking piece of cinema. Directed by Sidney Lumet as he
neared the height of his powers, it was shot in high-contrast B&W (Cinematography
by Gerald Hirschfeld; “Dr. Strangelove …” was also B&W, even in 1964, well-into
the Color Era, Thrillers were often shot in B&W for effect as much as
budget considerations, though this latter B&W Era was about to come to an
end). Its aesthetic was claustrophobic in its harsh Modernism (Art Director Albert
Brenner), had an unrelenting forward narrative drive (Editor Ralph Rosenblum),
and was flawlessly Cast. The Dialogue is both believable and brutally
to-the-point (Screenplay by Walter Bernstien, a collaborator with Lumet since
his live-TV days) and the Sound Effects are never too intrusive, but created a
terribly oppressive environment and make the silences quite loud (Sound Editor
Gerald Hirschfeld), encouraging us to try and hear what these men are thinking,
because though most remained cooly in control of themselves, we see how they
struggle with that on their faces. There is no Musical Score. Wrote Critic Jean Hanff Korelitz, “It’s a
procedural thriller set in a world that is both physically and philosophically
isolated—but it is also haunted by a real-life churning beyond its immediate
borders.”
Lumet’s career
began live theatre, then rose to prominence in live-TV, before transitioning to
cinema. In live-TV, close-ups of the Actors were the best story-telling tool,
and though he earned a reputation of executing unusually deft tracking-shots
for that limiting medium, he also became a master of composing static shots for
the camera, all of which is on display here. This is closer to his TV work than
much of his later cinema, relying on cramped sets and focusing on dialogue, or
as Critic Stephanie Zacharek observed, "few American directors have been
as effective at registering the subtle glances and expressions that speak of
unfathomable inner torment.” And Critic Bilge Ebiri added, “In Lumet’s hands, ‘Fail Safe’
becomes a film of faces, at times immense, downright expressionistic ones.”
Regarding this film, but could be applied to all his films, Lumet has said, “I’m
not directing the moral message. I’m
directing that piece and those people. And if I do it well, the moral message
will come through.”
In a
separate interview, Lumet made a telling observation of his method, "I
literally cannot see it four different ways, …. [Director William] Wyler's
extraordinary habit of shooting a master [a single shot that covers all the
dialogue and action for a given scene] from four different walls and all the
subsequent coverage from those masters - I wouldn't know where to put the
camera after I've done my first master. Now, that's got its advantages and its
disadvantages, but the process of making the dramatic selection in advance is
just part of my background. Then, you know, people always say, ‘Oh, you're so
speedy’; if you add the rehearsal time to my shooting days, it's not so
speedy."
The
Department of Defense (DoD) refused to assist in the filmmaking, denying Technical
Advice and even blocking the Filmmakers access to Stock Footage, resulting in use
of incorrect planes in some scenes, something I failed to notice.
Before the plot
is fully spelled out, we are introduced to three Characters in quick succession:
In a suburb
near NYC, with the coming of the dawn, Brigadier General Warren A.
"Blackie" Black, USAF, is awakening from a recurring nightmare, but
into a nice suburban home, and beside his loving wife (Janet Ward). He’s soon
called away from that safe place.
In
Washington DC, Professor Groeteschele (Walter Matthau) is finally going home
after an all-night cocktail party where his pontificated about acceptable
losses in a Thermal Nuclear War. He gives a lift to Socialite Ilsa Wolfe (Nancy
Berg), who is enamored of him. Soon he, unjustifiably, slaps her, because she’s
sexually excited by his most depraved ideas. Ilsa is a contemptable Bimbo, but given more
lines than any of the other, very few, female Characters. This is less misogynistic
that it seems because it moves us to a narrative point, this film is about Men
in Power, and they will mostly spend the rest of the film locked up in
windowless rooms, while women are excluded from all decisions. Making Ilsa a
Bimbo may have been an ill-choice, but it does speak to that power dynamic. Groeteschele
slapping he makes him hatful, but also tells us his self-control is a lie,
important to know because for the rest of the film, where he’s more in his
element, he is the coolest, and cruelest, of cucumbers.
In Omaha,
Colonel Casio, USAF (Fritz Weaver), is called away from his post because of a
domestic issue regarding his alcoholic parents who live in a shabby basement
apartment. He’s then dragged back to his base because of an emerging
International Crisis and to his shame, an Officer who outranks him saw his
embarrassing family.
These quick
scenes, pretty mundane and domestic, underline that this Techno-Thriller has a
human core. Though a tale of technology Out-of-Control, is mostly about human decisions,
and the choices offered these men will soon become terrible indeed, but none of
these three Characters will prove to be the ultimate Decision Maker.
A series of
errors triggered the order of a USA Nuclear Counter-Attack to a Soviet Attack
that simply didn’t exist. Now it is up to the real Decision Maker, the
President of the USA (Henry Fonda) to convince the Soviet Premier not to
Counter-Counter-Attack. Both sides eventually trade Technological Secrets in
attempt to destroy USA Bombers that are merely following Orders and Protocols. We
only see the USA side, but we are aware both sides are quelling Mutinies from
Commanders who can’t bring themselves to cooperate with the Enemies (Colonel
Casio proves a Mutineer) and Advisers who see full-scale War as the only way
out of the Impossible Situation (Professor Groeteschele wants that). Every
possible option is Hellish, or as General Stark (Russell Hardie) explains, "They're
good men, we've seen to that. If their orders are attack, the only way you're
going to stop them is to shoot them down."
Most Bombers
are destroyed by Soviet defenses, which had some USA assistance, but one, Commanded
by Colonel Jack Grady (Edward Binns) gets through. When communications are
finally re-established with Grady, which required the Soviets co-operate with
the USA, he doesn’t think he can divert from his Mission because he can’t be
sure he’s not talking to imposters. The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction
(MAD) was both sides only plan to avoid the Apocalypse, but it has reduced all
Humans to mere cogs in the wheel as MAD and required absolute commitment to Orders.
Unknown to anyone in the USA at the time, a Russian Submariner, Near Admiral Vasili
Arkhipov, had violated that Philosophy during the Real-World Cuban Missile
Crisis and Saved the World. Grady, not vilified in this film, was no Arkhipov.
The
President of the United States is unnamed, plays all his scenes in a Fallout
Shelter, so is isolated from the larger group of Decision Makers in the War
Room, and we neither see, nor hear, anything of his family, but he still owns this
film. Actor Fonda worked with Director Lumet before, “12 Angry Men” (1957,
which co-Starred Actor Binna) and “Stage Struck” (1958). In the
former, though a radically different film, had a not-dissimilar sense of
hot-house intensity in an enclosed space, and in both Fonda’s Character is the
voice of Decency in the Madness. This President is Admirable, you’d vote for
him, making his final choices that much more tragic. This contrasts with “Dr.
Strangelove …” where the most Powerful Men were venal, lunatic, idiotic, or all
of the above.
The only
person the President can speak to face-to-face with is his Translator Buck (Larry Hagman), and Fonda’s
gentle reassurances and quiet strength calms this young man, so clearly
in-over-his head. The President’s advice to Buck as he translates the Soviet Premier’s
words is, "I want to know ... what you think he's feeling; it's important
that we understand each other." The
two sides have no trust, but that trust is desperately needed, and there’s too
little time to achieve it, but if the Human is understood, maybe the two sides
stand a chance. We never hear the Soviet Premier’s voice, so Buck, a
well-defined Character himself, also becomes the voice of the other Most Important
Man in the World.
During this,
Brigadier General Black proves very much a mirror of the Philosophy of the President.
Though he wields less power, the film allows his more power of movement
(meaning he doesn’t spend the whole movie in a Bunker). As we saw his family, the coming tragedy gets
human face.
The
Character we’re supposed to hate is Professor Groeteschele, a brute, but cooly
analytical, and fully aware of the breathe-taking losses that a full-scale
Nuclear War would inflict. For him it was all worth it to Rid the World of
Communism (“These are not normal people, these are Marxist fanatics”), because
even with millions of dead, USA Civilization will survive.
Groeteschele
was inspired by Physicist Herman Kahn, who rose to National Prominence as a Military
strategist for RAND Corporation, and after leaving there wrote the best-sellers
“On Thermonuclear War” (1960) and “Thinking the Unthinkable” (1962). Equal
parts Honored and Maligned, he was not only Parodied by a Character in this
film, but two Characters in “Dr. Strangelove …” the title Character (Peter
Sellers) and General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott). Kahn was known for his
caustic sense of humor, making him easy fodder for Satirists, but mostly people
were appalled that Kahn argued that Nuclear War was winnable, and if we totally
committed ourselves to a constant War-Footing in our Civil Defense, even during
Peace-Time, we would triumph by reducing our death toll from 30 million to a
mere 10 million, towering over a USSR reduced to a cinder. A famous chart the
book “On Thermonuclear War” was titled "Tragic but Distinguishable Postwar
States" demonstrated how Winners and Losers in a Nuclear War could be
determined. That made him far more radical than Physicist John von Neumann who
was the guiding light of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Deterrence Policies
which stayed in place for the next three Presidencies, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon
Johnson, and most of the way through Richard Nixon (so roughly 1953 through
1972). Kahn belittled von Neuman as too soft and when the two films were made
USA policy was more in-line with von Neumann than Kahn. It is quite disturbing
though is that both films mocking Kahn, but ultimately supported his core
argument, that the USA’s concept of Deterrence didn’t really deter.
Matthau’s
casting is surprising. Though this isn’t his only dark role, it’s easily the
darkest, he was best known for Comedy. After Fonda, Matthau is the film best
performance. Also, he’s not the only example of a Comedic Actor who is
Cast-Against type, Don Deloise is Master Sergeant Collins, who cracks under the pressure.
Was the
conclusion of this film improbable? Maybe. I believe improbable because I find
it hard to believe we’d commit the Greatest Sin for the Noblest Reasons. I see
the worst sins committed in service of Fanaticism, Saving One’s Own Skin, or
Greed, from people who spend their lives moving or erasing their own Red Lines.
Unlike the bluntly Misanthropic “Dr. Strangelove …” this film never lets go of its
Humanistic ideals even as it sinks into the darkest place (a distinguishing
feature of a lot of Director Lumet’s movies). Would the truly Virtuous ever sink
so low for the best reasons? I suspect the truly Virtuous would suffer Hell rather
than become the Devil. Critic Derek Smith observed, “‘Fail-Safe’s’ vision of
political and military leaders unwavering in their dignity and compassion feels
antiquated in ways that ‘Dr. Strangelove’s’ never does.”
On the other
hand, in this tale, no one wanted the War, but all created the War they didn’t
want, and the Virtuous had been in the game so long, they might not have been
able to see their own Red Lines anymore. Critic Kenneth Tynan, "Though I
relished the wit and audacity of Dr. Strangelove, I never felt
personally threatened; Fail Safe...makes the logic of catastrophe
seem much more intimate and irrefutable. Step by plausible step, we are drawn
into an apocalyptic experience."
Buck,
translating the Soviet Premiere: “This was nobody’s fault. No human being did
wrong.”
The
President: “I don’t agree. We’re to blame, both of us. We let our machines get
out of hand … What do we do, Mr. Chairman? What do we say to the dead?”
Buck/Premier:
“I think, if we are men, we must say this will not happen again.”
The film
isn’t heavy on the Techno-Babble, and though some massive pieces of Advanced Technology
(Computers, Bombers) are in-frame, most scenes are composed so that humans are
the center. But Lesser Technologies (radios, telephones) are allowed to
dominate, almost all the Characters at one point or other are forced to
communicate these Lesser Techs, speaking to how we have embraced physical
isolation as part-and-particle of our Modern World. The telephone in the
President’s Bunker is framed to be enormously large early in the film. As the Crisis
evolves the Bombs are, themselves, a means of communication.
A rumor was spread that Johnson did not want a film made. Even given the DoD’s
lack of co-operation, this probably was not true, but it played into accusations
of Government-inspired “Soft-Censorship” of Author Lederer and Burdick next
novel, “Sarkhan” (1965). The source of the rumors seemed to have been Actor
Fonda, repeating gossip shared with him by friends in the Johnson
Administration. Ironically, Johnson, or at least some around him, seemed to
embrace the film, using its stark-Style and Paranoia as a touch-stone for the legendary
“Daisy” TV Campaign Advertisement (again, 1964), clearly stating that if Johnson
lost the next Presidential Election to Hawkish Barry Goldwater, the World Would
End in Nuclear Fire.
Though
mostly hailed, the film was divisive. May I contrast Critic Henry Geldzahler with
Richard Oulahan? Geldzahler’s review was vicious, writing, “It is ‘Dr.
Strangelove’ without passion, anger, or a sense of the absurd. It is an
inadvertently matter of fact film about the possibility of total annihilation;
yet it is a film without compassion, terror, or even suspense." Oulahan countered,
"The picture is so stylishly produced, so well-acted, and so loaded with
suspense that millions of moviegoers will probably believe it all could happen
this way." I gotta say, I wonder if Geldzahler watched a different film
than I did.
There were
loud complaints of this film’s errors regarding the Safe-Guards against
Apocalyptic Errors, and these may have been well-grounded; only those with very
specific Top-Secret clearances could evaluate that, but those complaints were also
beside the point. The film’s central argument regarding how flawed those
Safe-Guards were has been repeatedly vindicated with exposés concerning the
weaknesses of USA Nuclear Security, and even more terrifying ones regarding the
same Security in other Nations. John McPhee’s book, “The Curve of Binding
Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor”
(1974) and Eric Schlosser’s “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus
Accident, and the Illusion of Safety” (2013), are cited as the best of these. Post-Cold
War, USA Strategic Command Chief General George Lee Butler is quoted as saying
that Humanity was Saved by, “skill, luck, and divine intervention, and I
suspect the latter in greatest proportion.”
The first USA
feature film concerning Nuclear Apocalypse was “Five” (1951), but in the
tsunami of movies that followed, only a small handful were interested in taking
the subject seriously, and fewer still were capable of the seriousness even
when they tried. Among the vast array of titles, most address the Day-After (or
weeks-to-months after), or maybe something even farther down the line, the
wholly transformed Post-Apocalyptic Landscape (the latter being mostly escapism
and exploitation). Those films addressing the Day Before, the events leading up
to, were fewer and farther between as they demanded the Writers either have
some depth of Insider Knowledge, or could at least providing exceptional Verisimilitude,
concerning the most Hermitic Corridors of Power (not-for-nothing, Author Bryant
was an RAF Officer and Burdick and Wheeler were Political Science Scholars).
Also, Day Before films require up-to-the-minute Political Relevance, so they
risk becoming dated remarkably fast, and this even applies to “Fail Safe.” A
novel is easily one-years’ work, so it was a 1961 project that was published in
1962, and the film version was released in 1964. Much of the plot hinged on the
USSR’s ability to block radio transmissions to USA Bombers until it was already
far-too-late. But by the time the film was released, the USA developed
in-flight radio transmissions that could not be jammed, making the Bombers'
inability to receive the abort command unlikely (that technology was first developed
in 1941 by Actress Hedy Lamar and Composer George Antheil, but not taken
advantage of until far later, and is now why your cell-phone is works than a
walkie-talkie).
That “Dr.
Strangelove …” and “Fail Safe” came out the same year was an extreme fluke.
Other quality films that are thematically close include:
TV movie, “By
Dawn's Early Light” (1990), which was tied the Cold War Politics of the
Presidency of Ronald Reagan. It was Critically hailed but suffered from timing,
it was released after Reagan left Office and the Cold War was all-but over. It
was based on William Prochnau’s novel “Trinity's Child” (1983), published during
Reagan’s Administration and when the Cold War was heating up.
“Deterrence”
(1999), despite its taunt script and addressing the post-Cold War Nuclear
Threat, it was even less successful than “By Dawn’s Early …” Notable is that it
was set in 2008, and the plot hinged of Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussian’s two
sons still being alive then, which isn’t what happened in the Real World.
History seems to move far-too-fast for Near-Future scenarios.
“Fail
Safe’s” TV remake (2000), which I haven’t seen. It was Critically hailed but also
suffered from timing. Collectively, we seemed unusually optimistic about
evading the Apocalypse at the time.
“A House of
Dynamite” (2025), which I also haven’t seen. The most up-to-date film of this
list, and also Critically hailed, but also flopped, perhaps even bombed.
When “Fail
Safe” was made, almost all Nuclear Weapons had to be delivered by plane, so a likely
two-hour delivery to be most Vital Targets, and the delivery time of the Bombs
was tied to the running time of both “Dr. Strangelove …” and this film. A
shorter delivery time threatened by Missiles in Cuba was what that Crisis was
all about. Today, delivery time of Nuke is more like thirty-minutes.
Trailer:
“Daisy” ad:
"Daisy" Ad (1964):
Preserved from 35mm in the Tony Schwartz Collection
Comments
Post a Comment