Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Oppenheimer Discussion (Full Spoilers) | Cinema of Nuclear Dread #3
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2023
- Watch our exclusive bonus episode on Wes Anderson's Asteroid City: nebula.tv/videos/watchcinemao...
Get Nebula with a 40% discount on an annual subscription: nebula.tv/cinemaofmeaning (Signing up using our link also supports the podcast)
Join our Discord community: / cinemaofmeaning
Check out the previous episode here: • Nuclear Fear and Atomi...
About this episode:
In this special 3-part series titled Cinema of Nuclear Dread, we explore cinema’s relation to the atomic bomb, and all the implications it represents, concluding today with an in-depth discussion of Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer.
Sponsorship inquiries: cinemaofmeaning@standard.tv
Check out our video essay channels on UA-cam:
Thomas Flight: / thomasflight
Like Stories of Old: / likestoriesofold
Or on Nebula:
Thomas Flight: nebula.app/thomasflight
Like Stories of Old: nebula.app/lsoo
Follow us:
Tom van der Linden / tom_lsoo
Thomas Flight / thomasflight
Come hang out with us on Discord to jump right into our next series! www.patreon.com/cinemaofmeaning
Two things you misread/misquoted here:
1. Oppenheimer's "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds" isn't all about him. It's not him having some high horse moment where he thinks he's better or bigger than anyone, because the rest of the quote is : "I suppose WE ALL thought that, one way or another". He fully recognizes it's a communal effort and a communal problem
2. Strauss' aide doesn't say "Maybe they were talking about someONE more important than you" [implication: Oppenheimer is more important, possibly the most important man]. Strauss' aide says "Maybe they were talking about someTHING more important" [Implication: nuclear proliferation and the threat of Armageddon is more important than Strauss or Oppenheimer]
And that the saying "I have become death destroyer of worlds" is from Buddhist spirituality says a lot of his mindset as well
The quote is from Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, it's not "from Buddhist spirituality" jesus smh @@musstakrakish
While it's understandable that some viewers might believe showing the aftermath of the nuclear bomb in a film like Nolan's could enhance its impact, there are valid reasons why he chose not to do so. Nolan likely aimed to maintain a certain thematic focus and storytelling style in "Oppenheimer." By leaving out explicit depictions of the aftermath, he might have been emphasizing the perspective of the scientists, the moral dilemmas they faced, and the historical context leading up to the development of the bomb.There are already several powerful and graphic films that delve into the events and aftermath of the nuclear bombings in Japan, such as "Grave of the Fireflies," "Barefoot Gen," and "White Light/Black Rain." These films offer a more detailed exploration of the human suffering and consequences, allowing audiences to engage with the full extent of the tragedy.
Nolan's decision not to show these scenes might also reflect his intent to approach the story from a different angle, focusing on the scientists' internal conflicts and the broader implications of their work. This approach allows for a different kind of emotional resonance, prompting viewers to reflect on the ethical and scientific dilemmas involved in creating such destructive technologies.
To my mind, his choice to omit explicit depictions of the aftermath is a creative one, aligning with his directorial vision and storytelling objectives. For a comprehensive understanding of the events,exploring both "Oppenheimer" and the existing films that address the aftermath can provide a * WELL-ROUNDED PERSPECTIVE *
Oppenheimer is about the internal struggle of a man between his duty as husband, patriot, scientist and human being. Nolan creates a dual structure:
Fission: A man allows himself to be tortured to atone for his sins and justify his live and actions, and he's precisely taken apart to pieces such as an atom. Color represents Oppie's varied vision of the world and contradictions.
Fusion: Two personalities collide, one believes he's responsible for giving humanity the power to destroy themselves and the other an arrogant man who thinks the world revolved around him. Their paths cross to give each one a lesson in humility. Black and White represent Stauss vision of the world: maniquean and limited, as he puts it, the power in the shadows.
Nolan has made a true masterpiece not by reducing a historical figure to a three hour movie, but exploring the human condituon through the extrordinary life of one man who is and isn't responsible for the entire humanity.
But as usual, people don't get Nolan just as they didn't get Hitchcock or Kubrick im their time. Now that's Nolan's real life tragedy...
Also, you can see GUILT as a big part of Nolan's work: Lenny for having murdered his wife in Memento, Pacino's character for his coleague, Bruce Wayne for his parents, Cooper in Interstellar for leaving Murph, etc.
Holy W. these youtube guys think their opinions are the objective truth lol
You mention the nuclear explosion being silent. But I don't think they did this for effect.
Light travels much faster than sound so I'm pretty sure the delay between the actual explosion and the sound from the shockwave actually happened in the real life trinity test.
Indeed. The science IS accurate, but, also, Nolan is far too much of a stickler for accuracy to bend the rules merely for effect. Knowing this, in a sense, makes the result all the more impressive, because the delivery of the sound with the accompanying shock wave following the silence is like a punch in the gut when it arrives. This seems to me to emphasise the awful power of the bomb at least as much as our witnessing of the initial flash and expanding orange ball, and also creates the extraordinary effect of experiencing the explosion twice.
@ericdiaz6008 Just as well, too, or Universal would have a class action lawsuit on its hands. LOL.
it's both scientifically accurate, and incredibly cinematic...in the hands of Nolan.
I think the whole Oppenheimer-Strauss dynamic is framed as an analogy for M.A.D.
Strauss strikes Oppenheimer first, but at his own peril. He organised a sham hearing to discredit Oppenheimer because of some paranoia, but like two Scorpion in a tank analogy, gets self annhilated as well.
I would also add the movie is not about bomb or McCarthyism, but nuclear arms race and why majority of the people who made these devices believed their use, if any, or even further proliferation, would be catastrophic. This fear didn't originate just because of their destructive impact, but because of the fact that it would force the rest of the world to get their own arsenal, leading to multiple nuclear factions. This will invariably lead to an unstable system, in which a slightest of paranoia or misinformation can lead to total extinction of the planet
Agreed.
Switching over to show the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would sort of go agaibst the film's logos and what could best be described as it's vibe. It would be breaking the film's own rules. The film _Oppenheimer_ is chiefly told from the respectice perspectives of Oppenheimer (in color) and Strauss (in black and white). Breaking the established dynamic and the rules of engagement that the film sets up from the beginning would break the immersion and the vibe. The fact that we don't see the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki directly but instead see its effects on the characters on screen effectively presents the horror without coming across as exploitative or preachy. The film is centered between Oppenheimer and Strauss and it was the right decision to be resteained and not break that dynamic that the film painstakingly set up. There are plenty of other films that depict the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in muxh better ways, some of which are from Japanese films themselves. The one I would recommend is the 1983 Japanese anime film _Barefoot Gen_ .
"Oppenheimer-Strauss dynamic ... as an analogy for M.A.D." I didn't think of that, thanks.
@@ajiththomas2465 I agree with this. The movie is focusing on the experiences of the characters in America (and a few scenes in Europe). Showing the Pacific theater directly would either require bringing in new characters or a third person perspective, which would distract from the character-driven focus of the movie. Also, the nuclear blast in Los Alamos is literally the centerpiece of the movie, in terms of timing as well as dramatic importance. Showing the explosion repeated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would appear anticlimactic, which is not the effect that should be intended. Instead, Oppenheimer hallucinates the blast taking place at a meeting of his colleagues; he sees the room flooded with white light and the people around him crumbling to dust. This is clearly a hallucination rather than an actual explosion, showing that Oppenheimer is in danger of losing his sanity, but also emphasizing the subjective perspective and how he has internalized his awareness of the bomb and its consequences. The bomb is now within him and he can't escape it.
That conversation about which cities to bomb really happened. I learned about that at the Peace Museum in Hiroshima. It was Kyoto (original capital of Japan for literally thousands of years), and that guy and his wife really did honeymoon there, and he really did cite that as a reason for taking it off the list. 1:00:18
Yep, it was noted in the source book American Prometheus. Actually, most of the anecdotes in the movie are lifted from the book. A pretty remarkable adaptation.
hearing that you guys are reacting to this film only hours after having seen it the first time makes me wish you'd revisit the discussion now. It took me till the third time seeing it that I felt like I was able to come to terms with what it was trying to be (as far as my interpretation takes me). But I was a bit shell shocked the first time seeing it. I told my brother "it was definitely something, just not sure what."
Great discussion. It echoes so many of my own feelings about the film after a first viewing. I do think that ultimately it didn’t have the moral courage to really confront the horror of nuclear war. The focus in the third act on the red scare and Cold War aspects seemed to diffuse the impact even more.
Edit: I watched it again, this time in IMAX, and I actually enjoyed it more upon a second viewing. The nonlinear structure was easier to follow this time, and the film is visually very impressive in IMAX. I still feel like it could have grappled with the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more, but taken on its own terms it’s still a great film with terrific performances and some incredible visuals.
I find the thematic analogies that can be drawn between Oppenheimer and Sunshine are very revealing. If one watches Sunshine with his future performance in Oppenheimer in mind, you can see a parallel characters logical development. Using Kenneth Burke’s analogy, both films have a purpose/passion/perception tripartite dramatic structure as the main character and his mission partners attempt to unfold a plan of salvation, the descent into the chaos of achievement, and the blistering fulfillment of the chaos in an uncertain future. The fact that Cilian Murphy is the lead in both films further helps the effect of a dialogic interplay. Worth watching Sunshine again with this new film in mind.
What
Switching over to show the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would sort of go against the film's logos and what could best be described as it's vibe. It would be breaking the film's own rules. The film _Oppenheimer_ is chiefly told from the respectice perspectives of Oppenheimer (in color) and Strauss (in black and white). Breaking the established dynamic and the rules of engagement that the film sets up from the beginning would break the immersion and the vibe. The fact that we don't see the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki directly but instead see its effects on the characters on screen effectively presents the horror without coming across as exploitative or preachy. The film is centered between Oppenheimer and Strauss and it was the right decision to be restrained and not break that dynamic that the film painstakingly set up. There are plenty of other films that depict the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in muxh better ways, some of which are from Japanese films themselves. The one I would recommend is the 1983 Japanese anime film _Barefoot Gen_ .Switching over to show the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would sort of go against the film's logos and what could best be described as it's vibe. It would be breaking the film's own rules. The film _Oppenheimer_ is chiefly told from the respectice perspectives of Oppenheimer (in color) and Strauss (in black and white). Breaking the established dynamic and the rules of engagement that the film sets up from the beginning would break the immersion and the vibe. The fact that we don't see the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki directly but instead see its effects on the characters on screen effectively presents the horror without coming across as exploitative or preachy. The film is centered between Oppenheimer and Strauss and it was the right decision to be restrained and not break that dynamic that the film painstakingly set up. There are plenty of other films that depict the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in much better ways, some of which are from Japanese films themselves. The one I would recommend is the 1983 Japanese anime film _Barefoot Gen_ .
My favorite quotes from the film, seem to speak to Nolan himself somehow.
"You see beyond the world we live in, there’s a price to be paid for that."
"Now it’s your turn to deal with the consequences of your achievement."
1.) Oppenheimer realized that the Soviets and eventually the Chinese and other political states would develop their own.
2.) The display of National resolve to 'use' the weapon on civilians was the perceived threat 'before' the onset of MAD.
3.) The Allies knew for a fact that the loss of life for both sides during an invasion of Japan would be many times more than the bomb's destruction.
4.) Oppenheimer never felt that he could 'contain' the use of these weapons - that was the purview of the political apparatus.
5.) I must firmly agree with your notice of the analogy of the 'atmosphere on fire' to the proliferation of the weapons.
Thank you guys for your exposition and discussion. You've made many, many interesting and profound points concerning the movie.
That's the thing about art, there is no expectation for it to require it to be conveyed emotionally. I hear that from so many critiques saying because t doesn't grip the viewer emotionally, that it fails as a film. If every film did that there would be no art as it becomes just a structure to be met like a quota in a business. Furthermore, this film is also being praised for being predominantly accurate to historical context. Bar one or two scenes, the film doesn't twist historical events to suit a more typical narrative or emotional payoff. That takes skill.
Overall, I really enjoy the conversations the two of you have, and I've seen a lot of nuance drawn out with some of my favorite films. But I also think that this one specifically deserves an extra rewatch and a revisit to the conversation.
The main overarching theme of the film to me seems to be in how to resist evil in the world without proliferating it. It seems like Nolan's pointing to the fact that Oppenheimer wasn't just tortured by his work on the bomb, but motivated to do better. The "tarred and feathered" comment has more to do with his wife not understanding him than him being a defeated man. She wants him to go up in opposition, but he's seen (through the atomic bomb) that all opposition causes is proliferation. That it takes a different kind of stand not based in power plays and direct opposition. His entire character from the beginning was shown by Nolan to be one who looks into things no matter the cost and waits to see the outcome before moving forward. A skeptic, but not an inactive one. Overall, it seems to me the character arc is one of overcoming fear, and the way it makes us unsafe when we act on it. The final scene shows this clearly, where his and Einstein's fears proliferate what would eventually become the case against him.
To me, the entire movie is a process of letting go of a clear enemy, and striving for nuance. The first half of the movie was fission, which involves separation. And the second half of the movie was fusion, which involves reuniting. The film seems to be about how to prevent an atmosphere from igniting by hoping and acting for the sake of good in the world, rather than simply trying to eradicate evil (which always backfires).
With this in mind, I'm kind of surprised that wasn't picked up on when you were watching the movie. I've heard both of you talk about things like the myths of masculine purpose, or why a hero mentality can be problematic. It seems to resonate with mich of those threads.
In your podcast, you posed the prospect of adding moments of silence in the film, giving time for the viewer to grabble with the gravity of Oppenheimer’s perspective; thereby expanding the meaning of the subject matter. By granting this time to reflect on these defining moments, allowing one to put the pieces together, it was hopeful the viewer would grasp a deeper appreciation and understanding of the events and Oppenheimer’s choices. But I wonder, in the bigness of Oppenheimer’s life, his contribution to catapulting science, the never-ending game to beat the bad guy so to speak; with so many ongoing moving parts, was there truly time for Oppenheimer to reflect and contemplate what the future might hold? As I watched the film, I wondered if it was a venue for us as the viewer to experience, that when our own subjective world is spinning so fast, and whatever ball we have our eye is all we care about; that until we have one of those reality moments, where a shattering startling explosion imposes an about face halt, do we truly retrospect. As light was cast on the density of what was uncertain for Oppenheimer, a peek into his internal private world, at best we got a shadowy glimpse of his perspective. As these very public events unfolded, Oppenheimer bravely grasped these with a moral reflection. In these moments I was moved to reference my own personal tragedy.
When the timeline of Trinity escalated, echoing an insurmountable urgency, human emotions were at their peak. After the test, the roaring rumble of this scientific race went still; revealing a new imprint on our world. This new landscape exposed to Oppenheimer the vengeance, the politics, the military aspirations; inspiring an urgency within him of his dutiful responsibility, to fight for what was good, to do the right thing.
So how do we in these defining moments, stop the particles, stop the running dialog of solving that problem, dial down the passion of achievement, and truly reflect on the morality of our choices? The effects of these choices on others lives, that what we create is now defining the tools that can be weaponized, where power and control holds an insatiable hunger. How often do we have sufficient awareness to stop in silence, to pause the movie and analyze? As I reflect on the tragedy I was a part of, the catastrophic effects on so many people’s lives. How so many of us were naïve, our biased perspective was framed with a compartmentalized blind-sidedness. And now my view of the world is always looking through this tragic lens.
To watch Oppenheimer harness every bit of his being to do the right thing, to ingeniously do his best to overcome every obstacle, wrestling the psychological limitations that held him in an internal torment, he relied on his wit and fervor to persevere. One might say, the will of the gods spoke as loud as thunder, harkening the dark horror of man’s new creation. And for those who possessed some moral construct were humbled to their knees unlike ever before. This creation opened a forbidden gate granting the prospect to employ death as an easy bargaining chip, offering the means to control the chaos of humanity without eyes. Human existence has its darkness, it begs one to willfully embrace their moral service, and possibly realize that attempting to eradicate the darkness externally will albeit nothing more than a band aid fix.
Maybe Nolan wanted us individually to experience our own subjective cathartic moment, and maybe walk away with how do we make those pauses to stop and reflect; as we weil our own fervor of chaos and hubris, to really ask are we doing the next best right thing and what that serves?
The city was Kyoto BTW…..
Amazing
The film was INCREDIBLE! Appreciate that you "go there" on the deeper existential aspects of cinema. My soul is full!
As for the "dutch" scene at the university of Leiden: in the german dub they actually had him speak dutch. Wouldve probably been too time intensive to have Murphy learn both for the movie.
Thr movie requires multiple viewings. I have seen it three times, and has become richer with each viewing. You can soak in more of the subtext. I will also say that the book American Prometheus, for which the movie is based, is almost required reading.
I would agree about the rewatch! On the first viewing, after i came out of the theatre, i was questioning whether i like the movie or not and im guessing i got that question because i wasn't objectively looking at the movie but rather was more engrossed in what actually happened with the creation of the gadget and its consequences and the ordeal Oppenheimer had to go through.
Forsure, the pace and amount of consistent information makes a rewatch almost necessary, especially if your not fully educated on the history before hand. I still do think the movie could’ve paced itself better and it could’ve really built and focused on the climax being a true deep visual weight and impact of the quote of Prometheus by showing more intimately the destruction of earth due to that idea of an atomic reaction. The overall climax of that final scene with Einstein and Oppenheimer realizing that fire was truly given to man could’ve had more momentum that could’ve expressed that message extremely impact-fully
Don't mistake complexity for substance is my take on this and many Nolan movies. Ultimately, I felt there was so much information being given that it didn't seem worth it to try to follow it and as a result it lost me as a viewer. It is almost as though people get so overwhelmed by all the info being thrown at them, they can't actually feel what they're feeling. I found myself enjoying thinking about it after but didn't actually enjoy watching it.
Reading American Prometheus before experiencing the film was vitally important for me.
I totally agree about having more moments of silence. He did a great job in Interstellar when Dr. Mann blew up the docking station. It was total silence for a few seconds and it worked great
It was total silence because it would have been totally silent in space. But I also appreciate that he had several effective moments in that film where he didn't have soundtrack underneath or anything. It's one of my favorite films!
@@melissapagonis5940 yes, same!!
Gosh after watching this discussion, I'd really love to hear both or either of your thoughts on
Better Call Saul and the emotional baggage of understanding or the failure to understand the consequences of your actions.
True Detective S3 and the subjective experience of emotional baggage like guilt and trauma and struggling with agency.
I'd love to say more about these two works I absolutely adore despite their imperfections but I'll leave it at that.
In the press I’ve seen for this movie Nolan is talking way more about Eisenstein than Tarkovsky. These are like opposite dudes. The “shot A + shot B = thought C” Soviet montage stuff is pretty different from Tarkovsky who would show everything he needed in a 5 minute one take. I do like Tarkovsky much more than Eisenstein, but I thought Oppenheimer had the right amount of lingering.
still waiting for it to be uploaded. we wont see it here 😣
This is a movie that needs multiple viewings. I saw it twice - with 17 days break between the first and second viewing - and I loved it even more.
Some of the takes here made me embarrassed, but it's also a case of the film making way more sense on rewatch. It's hard to appreciate the fast pace of the beginning until you realize it's all about the whirlwind of excitement around scientific discovery.
Either way, the through line is clearly spelled out in text at the very beginning, namely the Prometheus story, and even on my first watch, I didn't understand why other people missed that. Like he literally put it in text at the beginning of the movie.
But the first watch is admittedly overwhelming. Oppenheimer is built to be rewatched, and it's one of those films where your opinion is incomplete until you've seen it a second time
I think this podcast episode is more helpful to show how first reactions are generally bad, especially for a complex work of art, rather than any meaningful analysis of the film. It may have been better to sit on this film a few days before recording
It took me till my third viewing before I could accept it and experience the movie for what it was, rather than for what I figured it should be, and it was an incredible and unforgettable experience. You got it on the second viewing...some of us are just slow. lol
PS my third viewing was when I was finally able to see it on the 70mm IMAX film projector, so that made a huge impact on the experience.
Movies that became my favorite after multiple viewings: Django Unchained, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, Tenet, Cloud Atlas
I disagree pretty strongly with you guys on the holding back on showing scale of destruction and suffering in Japan. I think it reflected perfectly the sentiment at the time. What Thomas is talking about around 1:00:12 was the entire point of it. I have four thoughts to back this up.
1. Oppenheimer was *not* a "good person". He was incredibly vain, elitist, and rarely shied away from reminding people of his brilliance. He says as much to Chevalier. "We're horrible people" or something like that, as he's handing over his baby.
2. Oppenheimer actively pressed the military to drop the bomb on a large population center, preferably at night. He needed this to be the spectacle no one would ever forget. He needed the pilots to aim "visually" so that they wouldn't miss, and was calculating altitude at which to detonate the bomb for maximum destruction.He thought that this was the way he's going to make war obsolete, and this was the price to pay. Showing the scale of destruction would not have worked here, because he wasn't actually all that remorseful for what happened. In fact, he insisted on it, and during his security clearance hearings, he said as much.
3. I thought the auditorium sequence worked really well *because* of how unrealistic some of the practical effects were (in my mind, deliberately). Injuries looked like paper peeling off the skin. That's because we hasn't seen the real impact of what this does to humans: burning them alive, giving them cancer weeks after the incident. In fact, a lot of this physics wasn't fully calculated until after explosions in Japan. When Oppenheimer sees what it actually looked like, he looks away because it was nothing like what he imagined it to be.
4. Oppenheimer thought that building the bomb and showing off its awful power was going to end all war, because surely no one would dare go to war when there are our weapons. But he was entirely wrong. He wasn't even a cog in the machine, he was simply a very useful wrench that helps it go. In his vanity, he assumed that as the father of the atomic bomb, he could and would influence policy and prevent the world from falling to nuclear disaster. That was an arrogant assumption, and he was humbled by how inconsequential he ended up being in the way we produced, stockpiled, and deployed nuclear weapons. He wanted the world to stop working on the hydrogen bomb, but that wasn't his decision to make. In times of war, under pressure, the world of powerful people is like a nuclear chain reaction that, once started, is self-perpetuating. Small decisions decaying into large consequences. Small men with big egos fending for themselves.
So, at the end of it all, showing the massive destruction would imply a certain level of regret from Oppenheimer, because the rest of the movie focuses so much on his perspective. And that simply would be false.
24:09 It moves to fast to feel and a movie shouldn't need to be watched twice to be good
Thank you!
47:19 Hot take: Openheimer didn't matter, the social, scientific, and political momentum was such that a country somewhere would have made the bomb and someone could have replaced Oppenheimer.
The timing though is everything. The United States getting the bomb first is of paramount difference.
We all matter ;)
The only reason we saw her alcoholism was for the misdirect. Going deeper into her struggle would be a pointless distraction.
I watched it in Mexico dubbed in Spanish
The only issue with the dub itself was that Truman sounded like a woman when speaking over the radio
My only gripe with the movie is actually that while I agree Nolan did go for "show" vs telling as usual, in one key bit he did the exact opposite
Bc my cousin (from Mexico) and I agreed that the one thing we'd change was INTRODUCING the moment where Strauss' was humiliated rather than just giving it to the audience
The movie gives u "here is the moment where he was embarrassed, here's why it was embarrassing, and it was central to his motivation"
It works bc it's repeated several times (My other family members, who only vaguely knew about the topic, understood the point of the scene and that it showed why Strauss was angry)
But it's also annoying bc it's repeated several times. So we both thought that it would've been much more natural and effective if we were just shown more of the events and interactions between Strauss and Oppenheimer that led them to that moment through flashbacks spread throughout the film
Like the hearing could've been referenced by Oppenheimer jokingly thought the movie accompanied by incomplete flashbacks, making us think they both remember it fondly, give the audience enough information to suspect that it would have actually been rather humiliating for Strauss, and then finally the end of the flashback that reveals Strauss' reaction to Oppenheimer's testimony and accompanied by the rant he gave in the movie where he revealed his resentment
MAYBE that wouldve been less effective but for example my family members who did understand why Strauss did what he did, also couldn't explain WHY... so I don't think it would've hurt an audience's understanding more than what the movie went with
That and other small issues my enjoyment of the movie was (questions and disagreements with the portrayal of this history aside)...
8/10!
I disagree with you both about the need to show the devastation of the bomb. It was an artistic choice and the restraint to maintain the perspective of the titular character was powerful. That was more unique than the typical Hollywood showing grotesque things
The chronology artistically of black and white vs color didn't seem consistent and was ultimately disorienting for me. 6:43
Watch New Rockstars breakdown of the movie, is actually simpler than you probably think...
disorienting? it was pretty easy to follow
So Nolan watched 5 minutes of Tarkovsky?
I don't believe him.
Don't mistake complexity for substance is my take on this and many Nolan movies. Ultimately, I felt there was so much information being given that it didn't seem worth it to try to follow it and as a result it lost me as a viewer. It is almost as though people get so overwhelmed by all the info being thrown at them, they can't actually feel what they're feeling and see Nolan isn't giving us an emotionally engaging movie. I found myself enjoying thinking about it after but didn't actually enjoy watching it.
sounds like a skill issue
Complexity and substance are not mutually exclusive. Most of the time Nolan's film structures are about subjectivity.
@@pdzombie1906that's the problem, if people get lost in the complexity then they won't enjoy the subjectivity presented.
It's not flawed. It's one of the greatest movies ever made.
I follow and enjoy your work, but IMHO "Flawed" is a bit too strong for this Noland film.
Looking through the welders glass at Trinity was the perfect metaphor for the artistic-over-limitation-prison which Nolan's hyper-competence gives him the hubris to put himself, and us, into. Neither fission or fusion was achieved, Nolan pulled defeat from the jaws of the most exciting mashup, Nolan+Oppenheimer, i could have possibly imagined. Gargantuan missed opportunity. Edit: to answer a Q from the hosts, as a Berkeley and UCSD political science BA and Masters grad, I’ve never heard of Strauss, and despite knowing many people for whom a security clearance is an important part of their jobs, couldn’t care less about a losing one as stakes for a 70-year old living legend public figure in his time.
If it were possible to easily tally up the number of times amateur know-it-all Thomas Flight uses the word "like" during this one hour and twenty-three minutes, surely it would explode the Internet.
Lmao
Great analysis. Nolan would be proud.
What a pitty. Can't complete a sentence without saying "like" 20 times.