4 ms·

Was anyone else bothered by how Oppenheimer declined to show even a single scene of the devastation that was caused by dropping nuclear weapons on Japan? I oth

Was anyone else bothered by how Oppenheimer declined to show even a single scene of the devastation that was caused by dropping nuclear weapons on Japan? I otherwise liked the film, but I thought it was wrong to hide it from viewers. The bombing was the central plot point of the whole film. It would have been different if it was a new director, or surprise hit or something, but Nolan knew it would be seen by many millions of people. It could have been shown without losing any narration context at all, in the scene where the protagonist is shown slides of the destruction scenes, and the camera only shows him looking away. The director didn't need to force the audience to look away too.

725686 2y ago
I was so bored, that I wasn't bothered by it. I love Christopher Nolan's other movies though.
xvedejas 2y ago
No, it didn't bother me; Oppenheimer himself never saw the devastation, he only could imagine it. It seems suiting for what the film was doing, to focus on his inner emotional state.
- cypherpunks01 2y ago
  He was shown it, with slides in the debrief scene. He chose to look away, and that's all the camera shows.
  - xvedejas 2y ago
    Right, I mean to say he didn't see it in high definition / in person, as it sounded like you were suggesting the movie should have done.
    - cypherpunks01 2y ago
      Yes, and I'm sure the director had that perspective too - that it would have been weird to show a cutaway scene across the world. I suppose just the lack of depicting any human consequences of the bombing was what irked me, I think it could have been done creatively if he wanted to.
voltaireodactyl 2y ago
I for one was not bothered — the film up to that point had exclusively portrayed Oppenheimer‘s subjective experience in life. To showcase the footage you’re talking about would have meant showing events Oppenheimer did not see, but was certainly able to imagine enough that they affected him deeply — which is what WAS depicted in place of the footage. While I understand wanting that outside perspective included within Oppenheimer to more fully reflect the actual historic events, I recognize that Oppenheimer was a film telling the story of one man’s internal perspective on events, and so including scenes like you suggest would have diluted and weakened that central premise and through line. That being said: I am biased in that I do not expect artistic works to reflect a complete reality, but just the reality they choose to explore — I can certainly understand different points of view, especially with regard to such a monumental and tragic real life event.
spinoutx 2y ago
I can understand the artistic choice to portray everything from Oppenheimer's mind / point of view and to not actually show the devastation, but like you I was bothered by how it was done with the bomb drop and also the complete lack of portraying the Nazi threat. Oppenheimer lived the entire war at home and never actually saw the bomb dropped. But it seemed disingenuous to me to show the power of his imagination when contemplating the universe so powerfully at the beginning of the film, then never portray his comprehension of the Nazi threat or the devastation his weapon would have caused. The closest they got was him imagining it in the room with the crowd, but that hardly did it justice in my opinion. That was critical context in many of the scientists' decisions: 27,000 people were dying PER DAY during World War 2 (on average). How you can portray the story of the atomic bomb without that setting (not to mention emphasizing the fear that the Axis would get the bomb first) is kind of beyond me.
dukeofdoom 2y ago
[flagged]
- defrost 2y ago
  > Besides, Japan might ask for reparations one day. For the 72 other Japanese cities thoroughly levelled just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, or just for the two cities each destroyed by a single bomb? Regardless of what the film showed or not there's no shortage of public domain material showing the destruction in Japan and side by side comparisons of the firebombing of Tokyo against the ruins of Hiroshima. It's hard to see the argument that this one film would make or break a reparations claim.
  - 0x1abin 2y ago
    [dead]
  - dukeofdoom 2y ago
    The claim rests on the simple to understand principle that purposely targeting civilians (entire cities of civilians) for destruction is a war crime. Should the American Empire falter one day, the claim will be made with just cause. Just because things are one way today, does not meant forever will be.
    - defrost 2y ago
      So the Tokyo firebombing alone is sufficient then? Coupled with 71 other cities (besides H&N) that were largely civilian targets that seems more than enough. Okay, the question posed above remains, what does that have to do with Hiroshima | Nagasaki, and the (non) depictions within a recent film?
      - dukeofdoom 2y ago
        Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the pinnacle event that solidified the US being a nuclear super power. Its willful use of nuclear weapons on civilians is one of the main ways the US projected power in the last century. The movie not showing how the sausage was made, is because Hollywood has a tendency to show propaganda movies. US good, world bad. This movie had a huge reach. "Economist / YouGov Poll, which found that 32% of U.S. adult citizens say they had seen "Barbie" and 24% had seen "Oppenheimer." A nuclear conflict with Russia, is what is on the table. Perhaps, if US citizens were exposed to graphic brutality of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it might sway political opinion. And for example influence the next election. >So the Tokyo firebombing alone is sufficient then? Is it sufficient for you? It might not be for some people. However, all plausible deniability is lost, that you're not targeting civilians when you nuclear bomb their city. If Putin deployed nuclear weapons on Kiev tomorrow, with the goal of ending the war faster, it would be a war crime. I hope we agree.
hammyhavoc 2y ago
I've yet to see Oppenheimer—but if what I've heard about the little effort put into attempting to speak Dutch is true, I can't say it surprises me. Apparently there's also a lot of other factual inaccuracies—this admittedly put me right off. There comes a point where a director has to ask themselves if they're making entertainment for cash or poignant art. If the language was handled that sloppily, maybe that's the answer. It would be very easy to make a colossal fuck-up in presenting the horror of reality or be seen as cashing in on something absolutely grotesque.
- RocksTaoMounta 2y ago
  Nolan's paymasters wanted some apologetic revisionism, that's all there is to it.
pokstad 2y ago
According to my favorite scene in the movie: Oppenheimer didn’t drop the bomb, Truman did. Now get that cry baby out of here.
dandanua 2y ago
The film was made for entertainment. It doesn't teach morality or answers hard existential questions. It's a comics inspired by reality, in my opinion.

725686 2y ago

I was so bored, that I wasn't bothered by it. I love Christopher Nolan's other movies though.

xvedejas 2y ago

No, it didn't bother me; Oppenheimer himself never saw the devastation, he only could imagine it. It seems suiting for what the film was doing, to focus on his inner emotional state.

cypherpunks01 2y ago
He was shown it, with slides in the debrief scene. He chose to look away, and that's all the camera shows.
- xvedejas 2y ago
  Right, I mean to say he didn't see it in high definition / in person, as it sounded like you were suggesting the movie should have done.
  - cypherpunks01 2y ago
    Yes, and I'm sure the director had that perspective too - that it would have been weird to show a cutaway scene across the world. I suppose just the lack of depicting any human consequences of the bombing was what irked me, I think it could have been done creatively if he wanted to.

voltaireodactyl 2y ago

I for one was not bothered — the film up to that point had exclusively portrayed Oppenheimer‘s subjective experience in life. To showcase the footage you’re talking about would have meant showing events Oppenheimer did not see, but was certainly able to imagine enough that they affected him deeply — which is what WAS depicted in place of the footage. While I understand wanting that outside perspective included within Oppenheimer to more fully reflect the actual historic events, I recognize that Oppenheimer was a film telling the story of one man’s internal perspective on events, and so including scenes like you suggest would have diluted and weakened that central premise and through line. That being said: I am biased in that I do not expect artistic works to reflect a complete reality, but just the reality they choose to explore — I can certainly understand different points of view, especially with regard to such a monumental and tragic real life event.

spinoutx 2y ago

I can understand the artistic choice to portray everything from Oppenheimer's mind / point of view and to not actually show the devastation, but like you I was bothered by how it was done with the bomb drop and also the complete lack of portraying the Nazi threat. Oppenheimer lived the entire war at home and never actually saw the bomb dropped. But it seemed disingenuous to me to show the power of his imagination when contemplating the universe so powerfully at the beginning of the film, then never portray his comprehension of the Nazi threat or the devastation his weapon would have caused. The closest they got was him imagining it in the room with the crowd, but that hardly did it justice in my opinion. That was critical context in many of the scientists' decisions: 27,000 people were dying PER DAY during World War 2 (on average). How you can portray the story of the atomic bomb without that setting (not to mention emphasizing the fear that the Axis would get the bomb first) is kind of beyond me.

dukeofdoom 2y ago

[flagged]

defrost 2y ago
> Besides, Japan might ask for reparations one day. For the 72 other Japanese cities thoroughly levelled just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, or just for the two cities each destroyed by a single bomb? Regardless of what the film showed or not there's no shortage of public domain material showing the destruction in Japan and side by side comparisons of the firebombing of Tokyo against the ruins of Hiroshima. It's hard to see the argument that this one film would make or break a reparations claim.
- 0x1abin 2y ago
  [dead]
- dukeofdoom 2y ago
  The claim rests on the simple to understand principle that purposely targeting civilians (entire cities of civilians) for destruction is a war crime. Should the American Empire falter one day, the claim will be made with just cause. Just because things are one way today, does not meant forever will be.
  - defrost 2y ago
    So the Tokyo firebombing alone is sufficient then? Coupled with 71 other cities (besides H&N) that were largely civilian targets that seems more than enough. Okay, the question posed above remains, what does that have to do with Hiroshima | Nagasaki, and the (non) depictions within a recent film?
    - dukeofdoom 2y ago
      Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the pinnacle event that solidified the US being a nuclear super power. Its willful use of nuclear weapons on civilians is one of the main ways the US projected power in the last century. The movie not showing how the sausage was made, is because Hollywood has a tendency to show propaganda movies. US good, world bad. This movie had a huge reach. "Economist / YouGov Poll, which found that 32% of U.S. adult citizens say they had seen "Barbie" and 24% had seen "Oppenheimer." A nuclear conflict with Russia, is what is on the table. Perhaps, if US citizens were exposed to graphic brutality of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it might sway political opinion. And for example influence the next election. >So the Tokyo firebombing alone is sufficient then? Is it sufficient for you? It might not be for some people. However, all plausible deniability is lost, that you're not targeting civilians when you nuclear bomb their city. If Putin deployed nuclear weapons on Kiev tomorrow, with the goal of ending the war faster, it would be a war crime. I hope we agree.

hammyhavoc 2y ago

I've yet to see Oppenheimer—but if what I've heard about the little effort put into attempting to speak Dutch is true, I can't say it surprises me. Apparently there's also a lot of other factual inaccuracies—this admittedly put me right off. There comes a point where a director has to ask themselves if they're making entertainment for cash or poignant art. If the language was handled that sloppily, maybe that's the answer. It would be very easy to make a colossal fuck-up in presenting the horror of reality or be seen as cashing in on something absolutely grotesque.

RocksTaoMounta 2y ago
Nolan's paymasters wanted some apologetic revisionism, that's all there is to it.

pokstad 2y ago

According to my favorite scene in the movie: Oppenheimer didn’t drop the bomb, Truman did. Now get that cry baby out of here.

dandanua 2y ago

The film was made for entertainment. It doesn't teach morality or answers hard existential questions. It's a comics inspired by reality, in my opinion.