The Cold War Between East And West From The End Of The Ussr Essay

When the world famous liberal thinker Francis Fukuyama in his masterpiece declared that we were witnessing the end of the history, he was greeting the new political structure and also the new international environment, which is peaceful[1]. However, developments that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union showed us that the dissolution of the Soviets was unexpected. The international society was not ready for peace and Fukuyama’s optimistic assumptions were far from becoming real. Moreover, the international society currently started to realise that the tension and the potential of mass destructive war during the Cold War era had provided a

The Cold War was a period from 1947 to 1991 that adhered erratic tension and constant threat of nuclear conflict between the two remaining superpowers that emerged from WWII, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The 1964 film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, directed by Stanley Kubrick, depicts the overlying themes of the Cold War in a comedic fashion. This film’s full embodiment of the Cold War is seen through its representation of the time period, and the sheer competitiveness between the United States and Russia. Additionally, due to many of Kubrick’s movie decisions, the film has helped society

Stanley Kubrick’s sexual parody, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, illustrates an unfathomed nuclear catastrophe. Released in the midst of the Cold War, this 1964 film satirizes the heightened tensions between America and Russia. Many sexual insinuations are implemented to ridicule the serious issue of a global nuclear holocaust, in an effort to countervail the terror that plagued America at that time. Organizing principles, such as Kubrick’s blunt political attitudes about the absurdity of war and the satirical genre, are echoed by the film style of his anti-war black comedy, Dr. Strangelove.

Since the late 1940s, American cinema has been obsessed with the idea of the atomic bomb and what it stands for; whether that be destruction or absolute power depends on the film. This symbolism would then come to define the 1950s, and later on American cinema as well. This symbolism then must be addressed from the lenses of, both, history and socio-political commentary. Then the question must be posed why specifically these two lenses? The answer to this question, then, lies in the films of the 50s, and beyond. Whether this answer lies in the apocalyptic imagination present in the films or the politics of the time, McCarthyism would influence American culture far beyond the 50s, depends on the historian who is asked. The answer, then,

As I have stated before, the main subject of this movie is the Cold War. I did have previous knowledge of this subject such as it

At this time both the democratic United States and the communist Soviet Union believed that successful advancements in technology would enable them to assert strength and superiority. According to Achieve 3000, “Case Against Rosenberg Falls Apart,” “In 1949, The Soviet Union test-launched an atomic bomb, an act that raised suspicions within the U.S. government” (1). Also, the thought of the Soviet Union having the ability to relinquish such a devastating weapon on the United States frightened the people of America as well. When the Cold War developed in the late 1040s the U.S. government again feared that the communist revolution in the Soviet Union would influence many people in the U.S. to do the same. According to the text,”The fear of communism even spread towards Hollywood when a congressional group called the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) investigated communist influence in the entertainment industry, issuing subpoenas to writers, actors, directors, and studio executives and asking them, ‘Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party’”(1).

In this essay I will analyze two Cold War American Films, War Games and Dr.Strangelove. Both of these films portray the cold war era, where it was uncertain when and if nuclear fallout would happen. I will start off by giving a brief summary of both films. Then talk about some cold war culture such as posters, TV shows, and historical events discussed in class, as well as some aspects of plot in the films, such as the leaders in power in each film and finally compare both films to the culture shown and argue that they both accurately portrayed it.

In 1961 President John F Kennedy put together a doctrine, which altered from President Eisenhower’s one. It was to “Respond flexibly to communist expansion, especially guerrilla warfare.” (Roskin & Berry, 2010, p. 58) It was a time when the Cold War was at its height and nuclear weapons a mass threat and source of power. This doctrine was aimed at using alternative means before opening into combat. This, in light of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, it succeeded in doing.

Throughout the Cold War, Korean War, and Vietnam War the main problem was communism. Although the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in World War Two, during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union were known as enemies. The Soviet leaders bragged to other nations that communism would “scrape apart” free-enterprise systems around the world. This attitude angered the capitalists which led into the fifty year Cold War. The United States tried creating many tactics and strategies to contain the “bleeding” of communism, but during the cold war, communism spread faster then it could be restrained. The United States used the Marshall Plan , the Trueman Doctrine, and the Berlin Airlift to help lead people to a

Soviet Montage is a movement driven by “Marxist [politics]” and an “economic philosophy” developed in Soviet Russia at the time of revolution. Lenin himself considered film, as an art form as the “most influential of all arts” as it not only entertained but could be used to “[mould] and reinforce values.”( Mast, G. & Kawin, B. F.) Sergei Eisenstein, himself a Marxist, is no exception to this and not only are his films are full of political propaganda, but he is also considered “the greatest master of montage.” .”( Mast, G. & Kawin, B. F.) His film October, called Ten Days That Shook The World in the Western world at the time and butchered due to its content, has always been considered problematic for audiences and critics alike and the standard critique of the film soon became “The Film as a whole is difficult and incoherent.” (Sperbur) Although if analysed properly, you can see that it has powerful political and social messages to convey and comprises of film form that Eisenstein himself called “intellectual film.”

During the second Red Scare in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, American’s were fearful that communism would permeate throughout their country and eventually rule their governments and entire lives. When Invasion of the Body Snatchers was directed by Don Siegal in 1956, he wanted to produce a film that creatively captured the fear of McCarthyism. The movie was inspired by the novel written by Jack Finney in 1954, which also aimed to depict what fears society had in the 50s. The film was recreated three more times, each with an original spin on the first movie and novel, but still effectively capturing the attention of the audience. The primary hope was of increasing awareness over the fear of Communism and losing one’s personal autonomy to Communism while each adaptation reflects the struggles and mindset during the time period that it was set in. Each of these films and novel, despite their numerous differences, reflect the period that they were created in through themes of losing one’s individuality, gender roles, and paranoia.

Before analysing individual science-fiction films from the 1950s, it is important to gain a clear understanding of the social, cultural and political background against which these films were set. Paranoia is a term frequently used to describe an acute, anxiety dominated medical condition (Paranoia, 2009), however in the context of 1950’s America, this term can be used more accurately to describe the general, delusionary mood of the nation. The first important event that influenced a paranoiac filmmaking atmosphere was the Cold War. As opposed to the ‘hot war’ (WWII) that involved active military hostilities, the Cold War was based on heightened tension and suspicions between Western Bloc (USA) powers and Eastern Bloc (Soviet Union) powers (The

At the eve of the Prague Spring, 1960s Czechoslovakia stood as an era of tumultuous artistic liberation. The nation felt the restrictive grasp of the communist government begin to loosen. The avant-garde began their increasingly bold campaign of counter-cultural resistance, spreading subversive messages to the public in an obscured manner. Although not overtly endorsing a political stance, the artists could use allegory to promote messages of subversion to the masses. Films such as Jan Nemec’s Diamonds of the Night, Juraj Herz’s The Cremator, and Vera Chytilova’s Daisies, were products of the prolonged oppression finally able to be vented. The characters in these films existed as personified social perspectives and could even extend to representing a metamorphosis of the contemporary Volksgeist. The irrational nature of these films served to further obscure their intentions. They provided resistance to the monopoly on thought brought on by the Social Realism movement of the Eastern Bloc. These techniques transformed provocative ideas into subtle messages that could slip through the new cracks forming in the old regime.

Sergei Eisenstein and Dziga Vertov are among the most identifiable names in early Soviet film. Their contributions to film, in the areas of montage and documentary film respectively, have helped to structure film, as we know it today. However, apart from their theoretical contributions to the field, both directors played an imperative role in Soviet film during the 1920s and 1930s. This paper examines historical revisionism within their film, how their theories of montage influenced the revisionism, and how they were persistent in the use montage throughout their careers as filmmakers to assert themselves as artists.

“Agitki”: At the dawn of the USSR, Vladimir Lenin proclaimed: “Of all the arts, for us the cinema is the most important.” Lenin believed this because cinema was the easiest way to spread propaganda at the time. Much of the people living in the Russian countryside were impoverished and illiterate. By sending out propaganda films, called “agitki,” Lenin found the perfect method of educating the rural masses on the new state of their government. This type of propaganda was meant to agitate and enthuse audiences. They were typically very short, but also effective in spreading news to the uneducated rural masses. In addition