MovieChat Forums > Fail-Safe (1964) Discussion > Two things about this movie I've never u...

Two things about this movie I've never understood

posted 8 years ago by Abner_Kadabner
2 replies | jump to latest

There are two parts of this movie I've never understood why they're in the movie. The first is the beginning party scene which lasts for too long and serves no purpose that I can see. It just looks like somebody decided that the movie needed some extra padding so that added it as an after thought. For the life of me I can't see why it's there.

The other thing is the whole Colonel-Cascio-is-ashamed-of-his-background story. Seriously - why is that in there? It seems completely unnecessary to anything. I suppose it's there to help explain his state of mind and why he went to pieces at the end. But it was pointlessly unnecessary, since anybody could have lost it in such a tense moment when the end of the world is at hand.

Anybody have any ideas? Remember, we have only two more weeks before the end of the world...

--------
Everyone may have an opinion but very few seem to have an informed one.

[–] telegonus (736) 8 years ago

I agree those are strange scenes. At least they happen early in the movie. Establishing character most likely was probably the intent. Since I haven't read the novel I don't know if it starts the same way. Of the two I like the Cascio one better. (The late) Fritz Weaver sells it, and it plays rather surreal, to my eyes, as the viewer can't possibly know WTF is going on. Later on it makes more sense when Cascio melts down. I like those little "touches" in Fail-Safe. They sort of take the viewer away from the almost unbearable main theme of the movie.

[–] sim7396 (121) 4 years ago

Yes, both scenes are there to establish the two characters. Groeteschelle has relatively more lines in the book than in the movie script, but in any case, it was important to show him as an arrogant intellectual, someone used to impress others by simply playing mental exercises, or games. Same with Cascio, who represents the supposedly well-trained, professional soldier, but who in the end is just a human being with baggage (like all of us). We want to think that national defense is in the hands of the best professionals, but the civilian advisor, however bright, may just be cynical and arrogant, while the best soldier may crack under pressure. That's precisely one of the main themes f this movie!