Fail Safe (1964)

“We’re setting up a war machine that acts faster than the ability of men to control it.” 

Sidney Lumet is a director whose work I respect and ingest with intense adoration. We are talking about a human being who has explored various sectors of society with the utmost sense of empathy, complexity, and contemplation. This hidden gem is one that has, what I would describe, his most upsetting experience. A film racked with ominous forewarning to the future of politics and warfare. A cold war era thriller that came into my life during a very poignant time during the first Trump administration. I can recite every tangible detail of that day as I sat on that couch with a hazy headspace from a dire combination of humid weather and marijuana in my system. My neighbor’s father was a family friend who I grew very attached to and would even claim him as my “second father.” This was the film, on that fateful day, that he decided to show me. He was well aware of my fascination with political issues and the stress of constantly fearing a fascistic future for my country. He believed that I would find the themes and tension of the film timeless and shocking. What proceeded to unfold before my eyes was a slow burn that showcased the flagrant failure of a country whose entire ethos is consumed with remaining victorious over its enemies, perceived or real, at all costs. A staggering miscalculation in the defense systems of the Pentagon leads rational people to slowly succumb to the realization that they have no recourse for a real emergency. They’ve only prepared for the “final strike” and falter when the time comes for them to work with their adversaries…instead of destroying them. A cosmic irony that accumulates to a thrilling final ten minutes that leaves my palms sweating until this day. 

Fail Safe is a stunningly shot tragedy that portrays multiple perspectives over the course of one eternal day. The pentagon is hosting a speech by a popular theorist, performed  with stark realism by Walter Mathau, when a mechanical failure accidentally tells a bomber group to begin a nuclear exchange against Moscow. This baffles the leaders of defense. How can a system that’s supposedly “perfected” end up failing in such egregious fashion? I love that the film never truly answers this question. It instead allows this question to ruminate in our mind as we watch the Pentagon, the president, and the Soviet leaders try to formulate a response that doesn’t annihilate the world. The philosophical quandaries before this happens come to a clash between General Black, played by Dan O’Herlihy, and our theorist character. The thought provoking conversation involves ramping up the war machine rather than slowing its progress. It’s a clash of morality and pragmatism that opens a window into the mindset of a lost era. The callous nature of the theorist’s position always haunts me. The belief that millions of lives being lost in a nuclear exchange is necessary to preserve a “superior culture.” A position that is reverberated today with our hawkish sense of foreign policy. It lends credence to the later half of the film feeling like a tango between the Soviet and American leadership. They’ve been preparing, scientifically and militarily, to delete each other’s existence off the face of the earth. They’ve calculated every aspect of each other’s capabilities and have spent endless resources in understanding what vulnerabilities each nation harbors. It’s a cold notion of detachment that comes crashing furiously when each side has their beliefs tested. The greatest exchange of these ideas blossom in the sequences where the president and premiere of the Soviet Union attempt to meld their differences with high octane intensity. 

The President, played by Henry Fonda, and his discussions with the soviet premiere harbor astounding displays of vulnerability. They are the highest echelon of order in their respective countries and the actions of men under them reverberate to the top. What makes their dilemma intriguing to me is having to gauge how little they truly know about the decision-making happening under them. The president has a very discomforting exchange with a general involving the possibility of the machine’s failure by sending out an incorrect signal; the Soviet premiere learns secondhand that the signal jamming of his military is what’s interfering with the communications reaching the bomber plane, culminating in an exchange of information between each country that compromises the safety of American pilots. Each conversation between them reveals the harshly ingrained suspicions of each other. This suspicion even infects the roster of leaders operating the Pentagon and the Kremlin. During these intense debates we can hear each side goading their leaders not to “trust the other side.” It’s a very painful revelation to realize how much time has been spent forging an unforgiving attitude towards human beings. It plagues this entire exchange and showcases the rage underlying the policy making between two super states. A scathing indictment that drives this screenplay to new emotional heights is the realism. This potential nuclear holocaust causes all of their demeanors to soften as they speak as human beings rather than enemies. A rare moment of tenderness permeates the third act of the film after this period of draining and desperate conversations. There is an exchange between two lower level generals who learn that they were both stationed in London at the end of World War II. They share pleasantries about the city and share in the mutual admiration for the city they had. A tone that morphs from cold to friendly as they understand their similarities. The nuance of the situation provides a warmth that, briefly, calms them both before the final storm approaches. 

The final twenty minutes of this film are almost biblical in its implications. The thread starts with the president sending General Black to hover a plane carrying a nuclear warhead over New York. “Remember the story of Abraham” is the phrase he uses as an insulation for the potential plan. The plan involves destroying New York in exchange for the

accidental destruction of Moscow. How does one come to this conclusion? The movie has shown us failing bit by bit to overcome our differences. The closest we come is the President allowing the Russians to shoot down his planes. What precedes this is mutiny, evidence of brainwashing, the incessant arguments between military brass showcasing  war hawk mentalities, and complete desperation trying to convince the Soviets into believing that they aren’t being dishonest about the accidental nature of this problem . A catalog of damaging revelations that reveals the weakness of a system masquerading as unbeatable. This was never about defending the “west” or keeping citizens safe from the “communist threat.” It was a game for elitists to outperform each other. A symptom of machinations with the sole intent of pitting two empires together until only one is left to reap any benefit from the remaining resources of the nuclear graveyard. The final sequence in which the bomb is dropped on New York carries an existential weight to it. All of the systems in place failed and the ones responsible are left speechless by their daft inability to subvert it. The final 10 seconds are a countdown until the bomb lands. A collage of people going about their day as they unknowingly are about to be annihilated. The only way to diffuse a holocaust of astronomical proportions is a sacrifice. This headache-inducing regret lingered over me as I first witnessed this moment. What are we to do when someone who is incompetent handles this situation? This is a film where people who are considered capable are handling the situation. They are stumped as to what to do. The idea that an ideologue such as our current president could be the arbiter of this crisis sends a chill down my spine. 

This was an already dreadful film to consume during an administration that was thankfully held back from committing its worst atrocities. The entirety of Trump’s first administration felt like an omen blaring into the soul of every American. My naivety didn’t want to admit that my country was in free fall. I had the privilege of experiencing my childhood during the height of American exceptionalism during the early 2000’s. There’s an ignorant assurance that developed from firmly believing the institutions that stabilize our checks and balances would overcome any infiltration. As time passed, and my studies in political science progressed, the harsh truth of the matter became difficult to ignore. No country is exempt from devolving into nationalism when the world is managing economic, social, or global conflict. To watch this film under the second round of Trump’s presidency rings less as a warning and more  an indictment. This is a film that illustrates the difficulty of high octane political issues with people who are competent. Now, sit there and imagine what I’ve described above with extremely malicious state actors at the helm. The quiet reflection that washed over me in my recent rewatch of this film had a staggering effect on me. It’s of the utmost importance to stand up to idiocracy and fascism. The power of those unchecked can lead all of us down an irreversible chain reaction that can involve the loss of millions of lives. I do not believe there is any honorable intent with remaining quiet or complacent about the structures of power that rule over us. We must strive forth and make sure that we don’t ignore our rights eroding, war mongering, institutional decay, burgeoning nationalism, or the whims of selfish dictators. As the film states about the nature of changing paths, “We put it there, Mr. Chairman, and we're not helpless. What we put between us, we can remove.”