@DRDMovieMusings said:

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.

I didn't know that about the beginnings of McCarthyism either. I guess it's just a cyclical repetition of human history, going back to the Catholic church's persecution of heretics, and ancient societies that ostracized those who didn't conform; they always latch onto some righteous cause as a means to maintain power over the masses.

lil off topic but if you want to go down an interesting rabbit hole, check out the story of Orson Welles and how he was basically blacklisted at the height of his career by the McCarthy frenzy. Afaik Welles has never made any political statements, but I guess in the McCarthy era it was en vogue to accuse progressive filmmakers of being communist just because they deviated from the meat & potatoes conservative school of filmmaking.

Anyway as the story goes, he was hours away from being arrested and hauled in front of the tribunal, but his friend Lucille Ball managed to charm the inquisitors and buy Welles some time, with which he packed his bags and scooted off to Europe. This was right in the middle of him wrapping up production of Macbeth, which explains the weird inconsistencies in the final release (done by someone else). Welles did some of his best work in those European years but made no money compared to what he could've made in Hollywood, and that's what really killed his career (sinking all his own money into films that barely broke even, if that).

If someone did a 'tragic genius' film about that I would eat it up because to me, it's the artistic genius who suffered most at the hands of the red scare. No bombs, courtroom dramas or love stories necessary, artistic censorship & persecution gets right to the heart of the sh!+show we call McCarthyism.

@rooprect said:

lil off topic but if you want to go down an interesting rabbit hole, check out the story of Orson Welles and how he was basically blacklisted at the height of his career by the McCarthy frenzy. Afaik Welles has never made any political statements, but I guess in the McCarthy era it was en vogue to accuse progressive filmmakers of being communist just because they deviated from the meat & potatoes conservative school of filmmaking.

Anyway as the story goes, he was hours away from being arrested and hauled in front of the tribunal, but his friend Lucille Ball managed to charm the inquisitors and buy Welles some time, with which he packed his bags and scooted off to Europe. This was right in the middle of him wrapping up production of Macbeth, which explains the weird inconsistencies in the final release (done by someone else). Welles did some of his best work in those European years but made no money compared to what he could've made in Hollywood, and that's what really killed his career (sinking all his own money into films that barely broke even, if that).

If someone did a 'tragic genius' film about that I would eat it up because to me, it's the artistic genius who suffered most at the hands of the red scare. No bombs, courtroom dramas or love stories necessary, artistic censorship & persecution gets right to the heart of the sh!+show we call McCarthyism.

Wow, I did not know, and what a shame that the career of a visionary trailblazing movie maker was derailed. Makes me wonder how any talent of the era had to manage their brand and delicately navigate the landscape to get their material out while not raising flags. Moreover, what might our world have evolved to look like if conservatism had not blanketed/oppressed so much of society.

Thankfully, artists can't help but to keep pushing, keep reaching, keep testing the edges, keep challenging, keep having something to say that may challenge the status quo; and, at the same time, sad that there are always those determined to fight to protect the status quo - I guess, for some, "there'll always be a Candyland!"

Ok really...! this is my last post on the subject. I swear I'm not obsessed 😓

It's just that BBC keeps harping on this film and the headlines are too saucy to resist. But this time they're finally acknowledging what we've been saying here: The film's biggest flaw is that it cowers from any real ethical/historical debate over the use of the bomb. Even worse, it fabricates a 'moral conscience' in Oppenheimer, turning him into a hero which he never was. The real Oppenheimer never objected to the use of the bomb; he was just afraid that the other side will use it on us.

The BBC article points out that Christopher Nolan totally fabricated Oppenheimer's pangs of moral conscience. The real Oppenheimer was just another patriotic scientist beating the drum, blinded by arrogance and the madness of war. He fully supported the use of the bomb and trusted the guvment powers that claimed it was absolutely necessary.

British newspapers like the BBC and The Guardian are carrying this story, but I'll bet you anything that American newspapers won't touch the debate. After 80 years I guess it's still 'too soon' 😑

@rooprect said:

Ok really...! this is my last post on the subject. I swear I'm not obsessed 😓

It's just that BBC keeps harping on this film and the headlines are too saucy to resist. But this time they're finally acknowledging what we've been saying here: The film's biggest flaw is that it cowers from any real ethical/historical debate over the use of the bomb. Even worse, it fabricates a 'moral conscience' in Oppenheimer, turning him into a hero which he never was. The real Oppenheimer never objected to the use of the bomb; he was just afraid that the other side will use it on us.

The BBC article points out that Christopher Nolan totally fabricated Oppenheimer's pangs of moral conscience. The real Oppenheimer was just another patriotic scientist beating the drum, blinded by arrogance and the madness of war. He fully supported the use of the bomb and trusted the guvment powers that claimed it was absolutely necessary.

British newspapers like the BBC and The Guardian are carrying this story, but I'll bet you anything that American newspapers won't touch the debate. After 80 years I guess it's still 'too soon' 😑

Americans will not dare. There is only one truth. Oppenheimer is the Father of the Atomic Bomb and he saved the world. The audience love him: he is a (super)hero:

"An audience at the Times Square AMC theater erupted into the type of cheer one would see at a Marvel movie during a screening of Oppenheimer after the titular character gave his iconic “now I am become death” speech, according to those in attendance.

“It was so fucking sick. So fucking sick. Actually getting to hear Oppenheimer say ‘now I am become death’ on the big screen was 100% my ‘Avengers, assemble’ moment,” said moviegoer and nuclear physics fan Tyler Hancock.

“As soon as he said it, the audience just went absolutely nuts. I mean, we cheered really loud when Einstein showed up — and everyone went nuts when he stuck out his tongue — but people were standing up and clapping for the ‘I am become death’ line. I’ve never felt such electricity in a movie theater before.”

“Probably the most fun I’ve had in the theater in a long time. I was doing the Leo pointing meme every time someone mentioned a famous scientist or horrific bombing,” said Linda Michael.

“There was one hilarious scene where Oppenheimer and his buddies are debating if they should nuke Japan and one of them just straight up hits the button, and then they’re like ‘Did you just… did you just do the bomb?’ and then Oppe is like ‘yeah, we may have just done the bomb.’ Everyone was laughing so hard, I’m gonna have to watch it again at home to catch all of the dialogue I missed.”

“We know it’s dumb fun, but all the little references to the lore and the goofy moments… sure, you might call it ‘empty content,’ but it’s what we nerds love. And the best part for me? Seeing everyone go crazy after the credits when it said ‘Oppenheimer will return.’ We’re not just making one movie — we’re making a world. And Oppenheimer is gonna blow it up.”

One day his 'creation' will be worshipped - videoclip 😔

@rooprect said:

Ok really...! this is my last post on the subject. I swear I'm not obsessed 😓

It's just that BBC keeps harping on this film and the headlines are too saucy to resist. But this time they're finally acknowledging what we've been saying here: The film's biggest flaw is that it cowers from any real ethical/historical debate over the use of the bomb. Even worse, it fabricates a 'moral conscience' in Oppenheimer, turning him into a hero which he never was. The real Oppenheimer never objected to the use of the bomb; he was just afraid that the other side will use it on us.

Sadly, we could and did indeed anticipate this vapid angle.

Not interested.

@wonder2wonder said:

He saved the world and the audience love him as a (super)hero:

"An audience at the Times Square AMC theater erupted into the type of cheer one would see at a Marvel movie during a screening of Oppenheimer after the titular character gave his iconic “now I am become death” speech, according to those in attendance.

“It was so fucking sick. So fucking sick. Actually getting to hear Oppenheimer say ‘now I am become death’ on the big screen was 100% my ‘Avengers, assemble’ moment,” said moviegoer and nuclear physics fan Tyler Hancock.

“There was one hilarious scene where Oppenheimer and his buddies are debating if they should nuke Japan and one of them just straight up hits the button, and then they’re like ‘Did you just… did you just do the bomb?’ and then Oppe is like ‘yeah, we may have just done the bomb.’ Everyone was laughing so hard, I’m gonna have to watch it again at home to catch all of the dialogue I missed.”

“We know it’s dumb fun, but all the little references to the lore and the goofy moments… sure, you might call it ‘empty content,’ but it’s what we nerds love. And the best part for me? Seeing everyone go crazy after the credits when it said ‘Oppenheimer will return.’ We’re not just making one movie — we’re making a world. And Oppenheimer is gonna blow it up.”

These comments are so vile to me I'm wondering if it's a joke article.

I mean, are we really to believe "Director Christopher Nolan said he was pleased to hear people are enjoying the film the way it was meant to be seen. 'Oppenheimer is designed to be watched in a big rowdy crowd who just loves this shit,' Nolan said."?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@wonder2wonder said:

He saved the world and the audience love him as a (super)hero:

"An audience at the Times Square AMC theater erupted into the type of cheer one would see at a Marvel movie during a screening of Oppenheimer after the titular character gave his iconic “now I am become death” speech, according to those in attendance.

“It was so fucking sick. So fucking sick. Actually getting to hear Oppenheimer say ‘now I am become death’ on the big screen was 100% my ‘Avengers, assemble’ moment,” said moviegoer and nuclear physics fan Tyler Hancock.

“There was one hilarious scene where Oppenheimer and his buddies are debating if they should nuke Japan and one of them just straight up hits the button, and then they’re like ‘Did you just… did you just do the bomb?’ and then Oppe is like ‘yeah, we may have just done the bomb.’ Everyone was laughing so hard, I’m gonna have to watch it again at home to catch all of the dialogue I missed.”

“We know it’s dumb fun, but all the little references to the lore and the goofy moments… sure, you might call it ‘empty content,’ but it’s what we nerds love. And the best part for me? Seeing everyone go crazy after the credits when it said ‘Oppenheimer will return.’ We’re not just making one movie — we’re making a world. And Oppenheimer is gonna blow it up.”

These comments are so vile to me I'm wondering if it's a joke article.

I mean, are we really to believe "Director Christopher Nolan said he was pleased to hear people are enjoying the film the way it was meant to be seen. 'Oppenheimer is designed to be watched in a big rowdy crowd who just loves this shit,' Nolan said."?

Dear lordy lord, I hope that article is a satire. But it rings too true to be funny.

This whole thing reminds me of Veerhoven's "Starship Troopers" which was a satirical anti-war film (he's clear about this in the director's commentary). But American audiences were so clueless they got a big patriotic shot in the arm from it. Go team, squash them bugs!🤦

The article is probably meant as satire, presenting - ridiculing or critiquing - in an exaggerated comedic way the reactions of the audience.

"The movie was good because it elicited a range of emotions among the audience. Each time a well known actor from other movies and television shows - e.g. Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Stranger Things, Darkest Hour, Dune - appeared there would be cheers and applause. Nude and sex scenes were met with embarrassed chuckles and giggles. There was an almost complete silence during the serious dramatic scenes and a mixed reaction with the detonation of the bomb. Some were shocked, others clapped and cheered - perhaps because of the cinematic sound and visual effects (?) and not because they supported the bomb . When Oppenheimer said "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds", it must have reminded many of what a Marvel villain would say. The appearance of Einstein - no he did not stick out his tongue here - was so unexpected that some in the audience once again clapped and shouted. As with so many movies, when the credits rolled down, the audience again applauded, showing their appreciation for Nolan's biopic which entertained and at the same time would also encourage many to think about the consequences of the use of (tactical) nuclear weapons."

"Three hours is a long time for a movie and perhaps there should have been some more debate about the bomb, but that would be dull for so many, who just want to see another Nolan' masterpiece with their popcorn."

If you're interested, you can find a lot of videoclips and memes in the social media - e.g. X, TikTok, YouTube - with funny edits and reactions of the audience.

@rooprect said:

Dear lordy lord, I hope that article is a satire. But it rings too true to be funny.

Thankfully, it appears it was indeed satire.

This whole thing reminds me of Veerhoven's "Starship Troopers" which was a satirical anti-war film (he's clear about this in the director's commentary). But American audiences were so clueless ...

This happens. There's a great article in which Carroll O'Connor is clear on his thoughts about his iconic character Archie Bunker. https://doyouremember.com/139112/carroll-o-connor-bigotry-archie-bunker. Whereas they wrote the character to lampoon his bigotry, people who saw themselves in Archie Bunker embraced Bunker as a hero to them. They weren't going to learn from the show that bigotry is wrong; they embraced the character as a champion of their own racism.

The problem is, while many of the artists behind these productions are thoughtful, contemplative about the human condition, comparatively fewer in the audience are the same to any commensurate degree, such that cerebral, symbolic art too often flies over their heads.

But, then, if you make the message clear, explicit, obvious so anyone should get it, they recoil, "too preachy, don't shove it down our throats." (see my threads on Suburbicon, Forrest Gump, or Edward Scissorhands), it's rather astounding!)

Can't win for trying.

I don't really get why you lot are still arguing about this. Yes history should be taught in high schools in combination with critical thinking, yes America is blinded by patriottism, yes reviewers or critics are not omnipotent or always on your side. Yes some (most?) audiences used to Marvel and the like are primitive in reacting and grasping, gasping at the blinking lights. This was all known and has been the case since forever?

'My audience' was silent and laughed at the rare joke. 'My country' was merely used as a puppet of the US (during the cold war, maybe even today depending on your preferred school of international organisational strategy), as were and are many European states; maybe this sentiment was large among audiences. No sense of joy or pride and glory was felt. The impact of the bomb was restated time and time again, which hammered down on the audience, demotivating all things positive, as was seen in their eyes and gestures.

I stick to my initial response in that I found the second half to be redeeming in quality what was lacking in the vapedness of forced added romance and drama of the first half. Take the piece of art, take the original source (this movie is now an original too) and stop discussing based on what others found and said, even mr. Nolan himself. It's not a documentary, it's not objective (nothing ever is), and even if it were trying to be, the fact remains that the bomb was made (which I hate deeply, of course), which processes the movie displays and explains more or less accurately.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

Dear lordy lord, I hope that article is a satire. But it rings too true to be funny.

Thankfully, it appears it was indeed satire.

This whole thing reminds me of Veerhoven's "Starship Troopers" which was a satirical anti-war film (he's clear about this in the director's commentary). But American audiences were so clueless ...

This happens. There's a great article in which Carroll O'Connor is clear on his thoughts about his iconic character Archie Bunker. https://doyouremember.com/139112/carroll-o-connor-bigotry-archie-bunker. Whereas they wrote the character to lampoon his bigotry, people who saw themselves in Archie Bunker embraced Bunker as a hero to them. They weren't going to learn from the show that bigotry is wrong; they embraced the character as a champion of their own racism.

The problem is, while many of the artists behind these productions are thoughtful, contemplative about the human condition, comparatively fewer in the audience are the same to any commensurate degree, such that cerebral, symbolic art too often flies over their heads.

But, then, if you make the message clear, explicit, obvious so anyone should get it, they recoil, "too preachy, don't shove it down our throats." (see my threads on Suburbicon, Forrest Gump, or Edward Scissorhands), it's rather astounding!)

Can't win for trying.

Fo sho. Ignorance always wins, just by being too stupid to realize that it lost.

It’s like every election season when some Republican candidate uses the song “Pink Houses” (‘Aint that America, home of the free’) at their campaign rallies. The songwriter John Mellencamp always issues a cease and desist order, not only because he’s decidedly anti Republican but because anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together will see that the lyrics are sarcastic, all about poverty and class inequality in ‘America home of the free’.

But apparently there aren’t many brain cells at these Republican rallies because they keep using the song. Just like the Archie Bunker disciples, ignorance always beats thoughtful contemplation.

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

Dear lordy lord, I hope that article is a satire. But it rings too true to be funny.

Thankfully, it appears it was indeed satire.

This whole thing reminds me of Veerhoven's "Starship Troopers" which was a satirical anti-war film (he's clear about this in the director's commentary). But American audiences were so clueless ...

This happens. There's a great article in which Carroll O'Connor is clear on his thoughts about his iconic character Archie Bunker. https://doyouremember.com/139112/carroll-o-connor-bigotry-archie-bunker. Whereas they wrote the character to lampoon his bigotry, people who saw themselves in Archie Bunker embraced Bunker as a hero to them. They weren't going to learn from the show that bigotry is wrong; they embraced the character as a champion of their own racism.

The problem is, while many of the artists behind these productions are thoughtful, contemplative about the human condition, comparatively fewer in the audience are the same to any commensurate degree, such that cerebral, symbolic art too often flies over their heads.

But, then, if you make the message clear, explicit, obvious so anyone should get it, they recoil, "too preachy, don't shove it down our throats." (see my threads on Suburbicon, Forrest Gump, or Edward Scissorhands), it's rather astounding!)

Can't win for trying.

Fo sho. Ignorance always wins, just by being too stupid to realize that it lost.

It’s like every election season when some Republican candidate uses the song “Pink Houses” (‘Aint that America, home of the free’) at their campaign rallies. The songwriter John Mellencamp always issues a cease and desist order, not only because he’s decidedly anti Republican but because anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together will see that the lyrics are sarcastic, all about poverty and class inequality in ‘America home of the free’.

It would be funny if it (the gap between thoughtfulness and cluelessness) weren't also so frightful.

But apparently there aren’t many brain cells at these Republican rallies because they keep using the song. Just like the Archie Bunker disciples, ignorance always beats thoughtful contemplation.

Idiocracy indeed.

:-(

@NeoLosman said:

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.

On that note, Mus:

What are your thoughts on Witcomb's words here?

Dark humour is complex. Not always bad. Not inherently always good, either. Depends on context.

Laughing at a topic that causes others pain is a luxury because it's not the pain of the person laughing. But when the tables turn, and others are laughing at something important or painful to that person, all of a sudden, it's not so funny. That double standard is a function of power and, too often, attempting humour with a topic that is painful to "others" is an expression of being in that power position.

Case in point - when conservatives like a movie that has conservative values, and progressives don't like the message, conservatives will say things like "F YOUR feelings." But then, when conservatives don't like a movie with progressive values, all of a sudden, it's not fair, stop picking on "us regular guys who just want to live and let live". Why does "F your feelings" not go both ways? Because "F your feelings" is not a principle, it's a convenient weapon, a dismissal of the dignity of the other to have the right to be as pissed off about something as the person in power does when something pisses them off.

Western society was steeped, for example, in Black folk not being allowed to express emotions, which were saved as a privilege of white people. Hence, the slightest little thing, and "Karens" have their meltdowns, while "others" are told to just "move on." White criminals "had a bad day" while Black criminals "must be held accountable for their actions." Etc. Etc. This idea is also why an arrogant prick a the office is a "go getter with upper management written all over them" while a woman with the same behavioural traits is "a pushy bitch." It's not the thing, but how the thing is weaponized as the privilege of the empowered.

As such, my issue with dark humour isn't so much it itself, but its use as a weapon by those in power. When laughing at a topic is dismissive to those who are hurting in the topic, it's less funny to me. Especially when laughing it off is a convenient sidestep to actually doing something to fix the issue, which is less urgent when the issue does not affect those in power as much as it does those marginalized.

I prefer to comfort the troubled, and trouble the comfortable; the comfortable don't need more comfort, and the troubled don't need more trouble.

You asked. I've answered.

@NeoLosman said:

Laughing at a topic that causes others pain is a luxury because it's not the pain of the person laughing. But when the tables turn, and others are laughing at something important or painful to that person, all of a sudden, it's not so funny. That double standard is a function of power and, too often, attempting humour with a topic that is painful to "others" is an expression of being in that power position.

Kids, this is what happens when one blindly goes along with all the crud you hear in classes on Critical Theory, the likes of which are rarely critical of CT itself. One's capacity to understand jokes is the first thing to go, and those who've really drank The Kool Aid on all of this nonsense get prone to preachiness and overthinking the ever living piss out of everything

Because underthinking is oh, so virtuous.

@NeoLosman said:

Lucid and cogent thinking is what we aim for

And yet, you keep missing.

At any rate, I'm tired of you. Enjoy my no longer bothering to waste time addressing you. I sure will.