Дискутиране на Опенхаймер
Дискутиране → Филми → Опенхаймер → Общи
Не можете да откриете филм или сериал? Влезте, за да го създадете.
Искате ли да го оцените или добавите към списък?
Нямате профил?
Отговор от rooprect
на 23 юни 2023 в 11:30 AM
Wow, definitely a loaded topic. I'm surprised it took this long before a major film was made, but historically and especially to this day political divisions on the subject are brutal.
It's probably going to be an important film, but I might have to skip this one. It's not that I think it'll be bad, but the ambiguity Nolan mentions would probably irritate me. Like the film is trying to disturb us but also play it safe by not making its own statement? Generally it doesn't go over well when your message is "very fine people on both sides" 😬😬😬
Отговор от DRDMovieMusings
на 23 юни 2023 в 11:56 AM
Yep. When I first heard about this movie, and before this article, I was "meh" on the topic, just because that entire era is drenched in so many angles and issues with which America has hardly reckoned, resolved, or even wants to acknowledge. I just figure I'd be watching and saying "yeah, but what about this and that and the other thing." With all that was going on this week, I'll mention I have never bothered to watch James Cameron's movie Titanic — I was not interested in a fictitious melodrama that skirted so many real issues (John Jacob Astor looking to finance Nikola Tesla against JP Morgan who just happened to also own White Star which operated the Titanic, while so many key figures blocking the Federal Reserve were also on board...there's lots really going on, don't need a story about teenage love and loss).
So, yeah, when you say "disturb us...but also play it safe", I agree, like, c'mon, really get into it or just don't.
Отговор от rooprect
на 23 юни 2023 в 12:18 PM
Exactly! You nailed my reaction as well. It's like, how can you possibly address 1/100th of the issues in a 2 hr movie? The filmmaker would have to come out of the gate charging, make a firm and possibly offensive stance, rather than just opening up a can of worms and then slipping out the backstage door while the audience is rioting.
For the record, I think the only war/political issue ever brought to to the screen in a universally effective way was in Good Morning Vietnam, and it did this by largely avoiding the sordid details, instead focusing on the irony of comedy in the midst of madness. However your stance on Vietnam, you could watch the film, enjoy it and somehow feel a bit more enlightened by the end.
But other than that..... yeah great comparison with Cameron's Titanic and the Titan disaster this week. I made the mistake of reading 1 clickbaity article on Cameron's thoughts (basically saying "Told you so. I knew it all along") and felt kinda sickened for being tricked into the carnival. You are wise indeed for avoiding all the media/entertainment sensationalism.
Отговор от DRDMovieMusings
на 23 юни 2023 в 2:37 PM
Poetry as always!
I have not seen Good Morning Vietnam (I'm not the biggest fan of Robin Williams' comedic style, though I loved him in many of his dramas including Patch Adams, One Hour Photo, and Insomnia). From this convo, I'll add it to my Watch List and get to it before long.
My stance is, any stance on the Vietnam War that does not start at the Versailles Peace Talks of 1919-1920 will be incomplete and erroneously skewed in support of colonialism; extending from that, it is my current working opinion that Ho Chi Minh, fighting for freedom from French colonial oppression, exploitation and dehumanization, was the good guy and France and her allies (including the United States) were the bad guys.
That is NOT to say that solid movies like We Were Soldiers, or Da 5 Bloods did not tell great stories about the Vietnam War (although note that both these movies portray the Vietnamese with humanity and dignity that is much fairer than just making them the identity-less enemy as they are in other still good movies such as Dead Presidents)....but I digress...
I will try! When I get it done, I'll jump on the message board for it and see what's cookin' (or, start cookin'!)
I'm squarely with James Cameron on this one, and he choose his words wisely to attempt to be level. At one part of his interview, he mentions that this event happening at all is "astonishing" given how much the deep dive community knows about the science and physics of it all. Cameron's been down to the Titanic wreck over 30 times, and been 3 times deeper down in the ocean than the depth at which the Titanic lies. He and the deep dive community know all the rules and know that, if they are observed/obeyed, it can be done safely and successfully. The body of knowledge is not mysterious, nor held in secret.
Stockton Rush was an arrogant, I'm-the-smartest-guy-in-the-room prick who thought he had it all figured out while cutting corners, avoiding regulatory scrutiny, firing anyone in his employ who dared voice concerns about standards and safety, and basically thumbing his nose at all those people trying to warn him he was headed for disaster. The disrespect for deep diving peers, the laws of physics, or the value of the lives of the people who paid good money trusting him is, in Cameron's words, astonishing. Imagine a dude going on public record boasting "You are remembered for the rules you break, and I broke some rules to make this."
I was fascinated by the emerging story that was the personality profile of Stockton Rush. This was no "tragedy", those in the know were telling him, for years, he's on the wrong path.
And, you're so right about the media sensationalism. Boats full of refugees sink all the time, losing innocent lives of people desperate to escape their circumstances, willing to risk their lives because even the chance at freedom is better than staying where they are. Western media generally doesn't give a rat's ass about them, "they made their choices." Well, these billionaires "made their choices" too. Why they need to be the focus of attention and command all those resources to attempt their rescue is an indictment of today's lack of moral compass. There's something in all of this that Natural Born Killers spoke to, but I may be reaching to make a full connection.
Отговор от rooprect
на 23 юни 2023 в 6:01 PM
I agree his unhinged comedic style is a bit too much for me, but I think GMV was really his crossover into drama (followed soon by the excellent Dead Poets Society), and like you said when he did serious drama was when he really shined. Give it a whirl and I'm sure we'll have some great discussions because.....
Total agreement there, and I think even though GMV's political stance was subtle, it was clearly saying "hey wait a minute, we're in the wrong here". The movie's political message was largely artistic rather than preachy (for example scenes of American choppers napalming the forest while the music ironically plays Louis Armstrong "What a Wonderful World"). And also it should be worth noting that the real Adrian Cronauer (Robin Williams' character) was more of a conservative shock jock, but Williams' portrayal placed him clearly left-of-center.
As for the real world context of the Vietnam War it sounds like you've studied your history much deeper than I have, but we arrive at the same conclusion. Heck, all we have to do is take a look at Putin's invasion of Ukraine (predicated on "de-Nazification") and see that USA did the exact same thing in Vietnam (de-Communist-ification) right down to the American brass refusing to call it a war or to issue accurate counts of casualties (a memorable dramatic scene in the movie, probably the one that earned Williams his Oscar).
That's also the vibe I'm getting. The media descended on a saucy story, the same way it does when a pretty blonde girl goes missing. They pumped it up with unfounded hopes of "banging sounds" and dwelling on how much oxygen was left in an hourly countdown, even though the diving community knew it was likely a total loss on day 1.
I didn't know a thing about Stockton Rush or his company before all this, but you're right; that narrative is worth looking into because we're seeing it a lot with megalomaniacal billionaires these days. Couple that with scientific arrogance and you've got a bona fide nightmare. It's not too much of a stretch to tie it into the story of Oppenheimer. I wonder if the film will highlight the pinnacle of scientific arrogance: when, upon witnessing the successful test of the A bomb, Oppenheimer had the audacity to quote Hindu scripture, portraying himself as God. "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
Oh really Opie? That just occurred to you now? 🤯🤦 nuclear facepalm
Отговор от DRDMovieMusings
на 24 юни 2023 в 11:13 AM
Watched it last night! And have posted a quick summation of first reactions on its message board.
Отговор от DRDMovieMusings
на 26 юни 2023 в 8:04 PM
Sure, it's a free country. Someone could try. But it does not sound like the makers of this movie are going for comedy, and they, too, are free to attempt to tell a serious story. One needn't preclude the other.
I'm not sure we will, or should, ever get to a point when people lose their humane sensitivity to serious issues. Nor am I inclined to dismiss such as a fad or pretending. But, hey, that's just me.
Отговор от rooprect
на 16 юли 2023 в 4:31 PM
Hey @DRDMovieMusings it looks like the movie is getting rave reviews so far, are you tempted yet?? I gotta admit I'm a wee bit more inclined to see it, but at the same time I don't want to waste my time if it's as we feared: just a superficial skimming of the controversy without throwing any real punches. If you hadn't guessed I have a lot of charged feelings on the subject lol. I feel like the bomb has been treated with kid gloves because no American filmmaker wants to offend. afaik Kurosawa's Rhapsody in August and Resnais' Hiroshima Mon Amour were the only successful films to take a strong stance. Successful outside America I should say...
From Wikipedia: "At the 1959 Cannes Film Festival [Hiroshima Mon Amour] was excluded from the official selection because of its sensitive subject matter of nuclear bombs and to avoid upsetting the U.S. government"
Now 60 years later, filmmakers don't really seem to worry about upsetting the American govmt, but they're doubly terrified of upsetting the American audiences 🙄
Отговор от DRDMovieMusings
на 16 юли 2023 в 4:53 PM
I haven't read recent reviews yet.
Among my hesitations is whether they deal honestly with the documented fact that the US gov't not only knew the Pearl Harbour attack was coming but had made deliberate decisions which drove Japan to that course of action.
There are a lot more (McCarthyism was yet to rise, but its drivers were already in place that led to targeting "other" people even though the key antagonists in WW2 were European), but if they perpetuated the "surprise attack" propaganda BS it's likely to tick me off sufficiently to make it difficult to connect to the tension/drama they may be creating.
I have not seen movies like Pearl Harbor or Black Hawk Down or American Sniper because I'm sick of American jingoist chest-thumping BS and I assumed there'd be too much of that to make it fun for me. Hopefully, this is not just more of the same.
Отговор от rooprect
на 16 юли 2023 в 5:46 PM
Bingo, sounds like we have a few of the same hot buttons. And unless the film really dives into that ugly side of things, it'll just piss me off as being a perpetuation of the popular narrative. My guess is that it focuses on Oppenheimer's private life more than the bigger picture. I mean, it's called "Oppenheimer". All the critics are talking about some jaw dropping gut punch at the end, but that sounds more like a plot device than any historical revelation. I mean, you don't wait til the last scene of a movie to reveal "oh btw Christopher Columbus committed genocide. Roll credits"
Like you, I try to avoid the chest beating flicks whenever possible. I made the mistake of watching Zero Dark Thirty because of all the positive reviews. It's basically just a 2hr justification for American war crimes with a bunch of "I aint got time to bleed" toughguys to sell the slop.
Отговор от DRDMovieMusings
на 16 юли 2023 в 5:50 PM
Right?
That was another one I was going to mention but didn't bother! (and I confused that three-word title with Whiskey Tango Foxtrot cutesy for WTF).
Отговор от rooprect
на 20 юли 2023 в 4:38 PM
Welp I made the mistake of reading 1 more article, a clickbaity BBC front page headline I couldn't resist: "Oppenheimer is a flat-out masterpiece"
Dude the article infuriated me for reasons we've been talking about. I can definitively say I have no interest in seeing this movie, ever. The review glows about the portrayal of the 'tragic genius' and dedicates a couple paragraphs to Nolan's wonderfully staged sex scenes :eyeroll: But it's pretty clear that this movie is just a cookie cutter 'tragic genius' claptrap which provides zero context or debate about the actual use of the bomb. Instead the movie focuses on Oppenheimer's Hollywoodized personal life, a love story amid his private war to clear his name of Communism, etc. In other words it could've been about any of the victims of McCarthyism, except this one has a dramatic boom-boom at the end. It mentions something about a weepy dream scene of a radiation victim with her skin peeling off, just to make audiences feel the pain I'm sure. But I'm sure the only peeling & skin that audiences will remember is the full frontal sex scene.
Отговор от DRDMovieMusings
на 20 юли 2023 в 5:19 PM
Shame.
I just read a bit about him and was surprised to discover he leaned significantly left politically as well as learn that McCarthyism was born earlier than I'd known, long before the term was first used in published writing in 1950, but nascent as early as the aftermath of WW1. At the very least, this movie inspired me to go do a little more learning - although, truth be told, the information has been out there, I could've gotten to it without this movie (and, likely would have, it's in my wheelhouse of interest, especially as communism began to appeal to people of color oppressed by colonialism dressed in capitalism, and further made hating it fashionable among those with something to gain from colonialism).
Clearly, then, it's not worth spending the money to see it on the big screen and might get a viewing on some streaming platform one day, maybe.
Отговор от rubenkemp
на 22 юли 2023 в 5:46 AM
I find it strange you go off of reviews whereas in the time you spent reading them and writing here, you could have seen it yourself (I do realise it was not released yet when this discussion was started).
I liked it, don't agree with the BBC (focuses on the wrong things) and see its flaws. I liked the way it portrayed the links of former german/jewish/european scientists to communism, leading to mccarthyism being targeted at them too. Nolan did not choose sides, that's what he meant with not making it offensive. It is for the viewer to decide (though anticommunists are put in a bad light, understandably from Oppenheimers perspective) whether or not it was wrong to start the project in the first place. Oppenheimer realises it is wrong, but by then it is too late.
The second half of the moviee portrays the 'legal' process, that followed fat man and little boy, to minimize Oppenheimers further influence on policy, where the film focuses on regret and realisation after he had done the job he was hired for, though it might indeed have been more boring to many who watched it than the frontal sex scene. I think it was ballsy from Nolan to basically 'make it boring'. I think it was done brilliantly. I was not too familiar with Oppenheimer or the project, nor with the 'bridge' between Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the cold war, but I learnt a lot.
It displays the moments of confrontation where Oppenheimer is facing the responsibility for the future of humanity, and does so in a shocking manner. It's a very complicated story and Nolan chose to flair it up with the odd romance, which I think is justified. It's a biopic, not an autobiographic documentary.
The seriousness dominates and Nolan builds tension like no other. Go see it.
Отговор от rooprect
на 22 юли 2023 в 9:23 AM
No, I don't go off reviews. I go off factual descriptions just like the label on a can of soup. If you follow this whole thread, the singular point that DRD & I have been talking about is whether the movie is a true dissection of the bomb debate or if it's just a movie that uses the bomb as a backdrop while sensationalizing other aspects. The BBC article, while doing cartwheels over what a masterpiece this movie is, made it clear it's a sensationalism of other aspects.
DRD said it best when he mentioned Titanic: "I have never bothered to watch James Cameron's movie Titanic — I was not interested in a fictitious melodrama that skirted so many real issues (John Jacob Astor looking to finance Nikola Tesla against JP Morgan who just happened to also own White Star which operated the Titanic, while so many key figures blocking the Federal Reserve were also on board...there's lots really going on, don't need a story about teenage love and loss)."
Same reason I've never watched Titanic and same reason why I won't bother with Oppenheimer. Not saying either is a bad movie, I'm sure they're both very engaging. But definitely not what I'm looking for in a story about the singular most horrific act of mass destruction our species has ever perpetrated.
So it's like you & the BBC are telling me to try the chicken soup, but I'm a vegetarian. I'm sure it tastes good if that's what you want, but for me No thanks.