5 ms·

In a movie specifically about the person Oppenheimer, why would it be considered weird that it focuses mostly on him? I mean, the movie isn't about the broad t

In a movie specifically about the person Oppenheimer, why would it be considered weird that it focuses mostly on him? I mean, the movie isn't about the broad topic of the nuclear arms race, it explicitly makes the choice not to show the bombing of Japan, there are many things it consciously leaves out. It's not a documentary, it's explicitly very subjective.

rasse 3y ago
Especially when it's a movie that's made from a biography. The mines weren't in the book, so they're not in the movie.
jebarker 3y ago
Indeed. There's countless movies that could be made around other aspects of this period in history. Personally I found this movie kind of a disappointment as Oppenheimer's story is one of the less emotionally engaging aspects to me. It did look good though.
moritzwarhier 3y ago
I think the topic of the article is very relevant and connected to the subject of the movie. Yes, the movie is subjective and a biography. It also seems to be interested in the necessities for the development of the bomb. What humans needed to contribute and how they saw the moral implications of the weapon, as well as what efforts were needed to realize the bomb. The article opens with a very memorable and important scene in the movie. Then it connects this to the realities of uranium mining. Which are relevant until today. Why is this not an omission? Is the movie not a document of zeitgeist itself, does it not meam to evoke any thoughts or questions? It does not need to be a documentary to be omitting something, especially because Oppenheimer's biography has moral and political aspects that the movie seems interested in. I don't read the headline of the article as some kind of accusation against the movie. The headline is supposed to spike interest in facts that many people don't seem to know or care about, despite having opinions on them.
jhbadger 3y ago
Yes, not talking about the Japanese who got bombed or the miners who suffered from uranium mining is understandable from the point of a movie focused on Oppenheimer and Los Alamos. The one thing that I think is relevant is when people criticize the line in the movie that "nobody lives here [site of Los Alamos] -- there is just a boarding school and some Indians who come here for ceremonies". This wasn't true. There were farmers (mostly Hispanic) who were forced to leave their lands.
- esafak 3y ago
  Relevant, recent article: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-08-26/oppenheimer-movie-los-alamos-plateau-evictions-reparations https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-08-26/oppenheimer...
jsbisviewtiful 3y ago
Articles keep appearing criticizing the film for a myriad of reasons, but most of those reasons turn out to be a) staying on its narrative focus of Oppenheimer, the man b) Not being enough of a commentary on the dangers and horrors of nuclear weapons. As someone who appreciates film, writing and Nolan’s first grounded, character-driven work in quite some time these criticisms are not only frustrating, but seem geared toward being nothing more than rage inducing click bait.
mpalmer 3y ago
Where exactly are you seeing any pointed judgement of the film in the piece? The author didn't even ask Nolan about the Congo when he had the opportunity, nor does he now express regret that he didn't. Crucially, the title is actually fairly thoughtfully worded (for once). "didn't show", not "failed" or "neglected to".
pauldenton 3y ago
It also chose not to show the Japanese or German nuclear weapons program. Hmmmmmm

rasse 3y ago

Especially when it's a movie that's made from a biography. The mines weren't in the book, so they're not in the movie.

jebarker 3y ago

Indeed. There's countless movies that could be made around other aspects of this period in history. Personally I found this movie kind of a disappointment as Oppenheimer's story is one of the less emotionally engaging aspects to me. It did look good though.

moritzwarhier 3y ago

I think the topic of the article is very relevant and connected to the subject of the movie. Yes, the movie is subjective and a biography. It also seems to be interested in the necessities for the development of the bomb. What humans needed to contribute and how they saw the moral implications of the weapon, as well as what efforts were needed to realize the bomb. The article opens with a very memorable and important scene in the movie. Then it connects this to the realities of uranium mining. Which are relevant until today. Why is this not an omission? Is the movie not a document of zeitgeist itself, does it not meam to evoke any thoughts or questions? It does not need to be a documentary to be omitting something, especially because Oppenheimer's biography has moral and political aspects that the movie seems interested in. I don't read the headline of the article as some kind of accusation against the movie. The headline is supposed to spike interest in facts that many people don't seem to know or care about, despite having opinions on them.

jhbadger 3y ago

Yes, not talking about the Japanese who got bombed or the miners who suffered from uranium mining is understandable from the point of a movie focused on Oppenheimer and Los Alamos. The one thing that I think is relevant is when people criticize the line in the movie that "nobody lives here [site of Los Alamos] -- there is just a boarding school and some Indians who come here for ceremonies". This wasn't true. There were farmers (mostly Hispanic) who were forced to leave their lands.

esafak 3y ago
Relevant, recent article: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-08-26/oppenheimer-movie-los-alamos-plateau-evictions-reparations https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-08-26/oppenheimer...

jsbisviewtiful 3y ago

Articles keep appearing criticizing the film for a myriad of reasons, but most of those reasons turn out to be a) staying on its narrative focus of Oppenheimer, the man b) Not being enough of a commentary on the dangers and horrors of nuclear weapons. As someone who appreciates film, writing and Nolan’s first grounded, character-driven work in quite some time these criticisms are not only frustrating, but seem geared toward being nothing more than rage inducing click bait.

mpalmer 3y ago

Where exactly are you seeing any pointed judgement of the film in the piece? The author didn't even ask Nolan about the Congo when he had the opportunity, nor does he now express regret that he didn't. Crucially, the title is actually fairly thoughtfully worded (for once). "didn't show", not "failed" or "neglected to".

pauldenton 3y ago

It also chose not to show the Japanese or German nuclear weapons program. Hmmmmmm