Oppenheimer (Christopher Nolan)

McGrath5

Saw it last night in Rathmines. Overall thought it was fantastic even if the jumping from scene to scene took a little getting used to. The sound is incredible in parts, really what going to the cinema is all about. RDJ and Emily Blunt are brilliant, surely they will get a nomination here.

The Trinity test scene alone was worth the ticket price.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120920448#Comment_120920448

This is not a Marvel movie, or an action movie, it's not even a war movie in my opinion considering it's subject matter.

It's about Oppenheimer, his perspective on things and the happenings of other people around him who are impacting his world.

He was in every scene in colour and the B&W scenes were impacting him.

The audience knows what happened in Japan and the devastation. There simply no need to show it. Anyhow, a studio would not be put off as I don't see how a devastation scene would effect a domestic audience but it's clear to me that Nolan knew exactly how he wanted to make this film and he's big enough of a name know with a successful record that a studio would not interfere in his planning.

Showing a scene in an entirely new location would have taken you out of the entire rhythm and mood of the film.

It was very clear to me watching the film that Oppenheimer was greatly conflicted and traumatised by the results of his work and the closing scenes confirmed this. Nolan knows his audiences are intelligent enough to join the dots themselves and do not need spoon feeding.

Your point about war crimes is a raging debate that has existed since the event and will do so till the end of time and even when I ponder it I am greatly conflicted as there are two sides to both arguments.

I remain convinced though that Nolan portrayed Oppenheimer's conflict very clearly and I think this movie will stand up as one of his finest as time passes and I expect it to be a dominant presence come awards season next year.

FortuneChip

This is Oppenheimer's story, and Nolan is showing us the man responsible for the Trinity test.

Strauss says in the movie something along the lines of "Oppenheimer wanted to be famous for Trinity but not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I gave him that". Truman also states in the movie "Nobody cares who built the bomb, I'm the one that dropped the bomb".

I think it's a deliberate exclusion to leave you questioning why they didn't show it, putting you into Oppenheimer's shoes a bit where one draws the line at responsibility for what happened in Japan. Culminating in Oppenheimer's reflection in the final scene.

It also takes away from the cinematic spectacle of the Trinity test if they started showing multiple detonations.

johnny_ultimate

Also, the film’s very cinematic form would collapse if they broke from the two perspectives reflected in the film. The colour sequences are Oppenheimer himself seeing the world (and his internal imagining of events) and the black & white ones are Strauss. I’d have to go back and watch to confirm for absolute certain, but I’m pretty sure Nolan sticks to that visual idea in every scene - everything portrayed is in the direct periphery of those two characters, and anything shown beyond that is Oppenheimer’s subjective perspective on the same.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120924578#Comment_120924578

Agree entirely, it does not take long to realise this.

Just one point, weren't the B&W scenes of the closed hearing, without Strauss in the room? So it wasn't always his perspective or is my memory failing me and he was there?

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120924607#Comment_120924607

I don’t recall actually - if that is the case, you could certainly see it as Strauss trying to impose his version of history even if he’s not physically present.

I think that Nolan himself has argued that colour is a ‘subjective’ perspective (hence why there’s more room for expressive representations of Oppenheimer’s own imaginings) while black & white is ‘objective’.

Zero-Cool

Speaking of scenes not involving Strauss or Oppy, it did a great job portraying Opp's internal struggle of what he believes has happened and how it's affecting him. Like with Jean..

Spoiler Warning

In the bathroom. Oppy imagines her holding her own head and then flipping to a very quick shot of a hand holding her head instead as he is trying to picture how she died.

Riddle101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120924808#Comment_120924808

Spoiler Warning

When I first saw the suicide scene I thought Jean had been murdered when I saw the hand holding her head in the bathtub. Like maybe her ties to the communist party led to someone having her murdered or something, but on further investigation it could have been Oppy imagining it. Maybe Oppenheimer’s guilt for believing her was the cause of her suicide.

Drumpot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120924641#Comment_120924641

I was thinking maybe the black and white scenes are ones with Strauss playing a significant role in events , not just it being his view.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926555#Comment_120926555

I wonder was that intentionally left open to interpretation because I think in the documentary I watched , there was alot of questions surrounding her death that hinted all was not necessarily a suicide. So we got what the official line is and what some suspect?

kirk.

Story ville doc on bbc4 now

Spon Farmer

David Baddiel is complaining about Cillian Murphy being cast as Oppenheimer because Murphy isn’t Jewish.

His reason is so stupid that I can’t properly put it into words And unless I’m very much mistaken Oppenheimer was not even a believer and his parents were not religious.

Don't know what he is trying to achieve by moaning about “authenticity” now after the film is released?

SupaCat95

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120924808#Comment_120924808

I imagined something similar myself.

the.red.baron

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120929306#Comment_120929306

perhaps the film would have been better if Baddiel had played both roles

Tony EH

David Baddiel is complaining about Cillian Murphy being cast as Oppenheimer because Murphy isn’t Jewish.

Oh FFS. 🙄

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120929306#Comment_120929306

There has been an attempt by some online to try and make "jewface" a thing; that is, complaining when & if jewish characters are not played by jewish actors. TBH what little I've seen of it has been confined to American Liberals doing what they do best - self-sabotage their own cause - but this is the first I've seen non-US celebrities attempt to plead offence or discrimination.

Drumpot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120929306#Comment_120929306

This is such nonsense. It’s like when some say that gay people should only play big gay roles. I was thinking of Tom Hanks saying he’d never play the gay man he played in Philadelphia movie. Why?

If that’s the way things should be in then no gay person should be allowed to play straight characters. No Jew should be allowed to play roles written as non Jews or where a Jewish backround fits into the character.

Acting by its very definition is about a person imbodying a character real/fictional. If there is an actor who is superior at playing a role it shouldn’t matter what race, sensual preference, religion etc that that personally represent. They aren’t promoting their ideals on screen, they’re playing somebody else’s.

A quality actor can make or break a movie. Having a poorer quality actor “cause I’m offended you’d use an actor who doesn’t practise the role they are playing in real life” is just a very misguided principle.

Ironically, a lessor actor (but 2 actual gay couple actors ) playing the role Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderes played in the movie Philadelphia , probably wouldn’t of won an Oscar and brought so much attention to AIDS and how gay people are persecuted (and had to hide their sexuality).

Sometimes certain causes score own goals with quite silly beliefs. They also do more damage to the cause they profess to care about by actually singling their cause out “you can’t play me, I am unique , it’s an insult for you to try” and isolating their cause at expense of common sense.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120929616#Comment_120929616

So, when Jews play non-Jews, should everyone else complain?

Baddiel's always been a bit of a plonker, but this is a stupid hill to die on.

FortuneChip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120929306#Comment_120929306

Wait until he finds out Cillian Murphy isn't even a physicist!

This is such a non-starter,. And I wouldn't have thought Jewish people were particularly under-represented in the film industry.

Electric Nitwit

I still like David Baddiel but he's miles wide of the mark here

One comment I saw highlighted the hypocrisy. Baddiel wrote the screenplay for The Infidel, in which a Muslim man finds out he was born to a Jewish family and adopted. He's played by Omid Djalili who is neither Muslim or Jewish. And, obviously, it didn't matter one bit

He also said that there's no mention of Oppenheimer's Jewishness in the film which is just not true. There's a conversation about it on the train, and the point that Hitler's antisemitism will give them a chance to catch up the time lost to the Nazis in development.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120930035#Comment_120930035

TBH, I've heard Jewish points of view who are very much of the "it's acting, this is nothing" and they'd have been very liberal to begin with. You've also had American liberals wringing their hands about X actor not being "black enough" for certain roles and other kinds of hyper sensitivity. Like I said, American liberals are determined to self-sabotage their own agenda - but it's frustrating to see people adopt that mentality this side of the pond.

Spon Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120929418#Comment_120929418

“Both roles” ?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120929653#Comment_120929653

I didn’t know Tom Hanks had said that. I also ask why?

I wonder if someone will ask Baddiel why he waited so long to comment on it - surely not because after the release when it scoring big attention that he could get big attention? Surely not that?

I remember some half wit celebrity doing that “Jewface” thing over Tony Shaloub playing a Jewish man on THE MARVELLOUS MRS MAISEL. I can’t remember if anything was said about Rachel Brosnahan but I do remember several Google headlines that made it seem like no one knows what her religious background is if any. Why would they even want to know?

The guy who plays Sheldon in BIG BANG THEORY is gay but no one objects to him playing straight men on TV and movies. Imagine if he was told “sorry the role is for a heterosexual man”.

Ed Skrein quit HELLBOY after some public outcry of whitewashing because his character was supposed to be “Japanese-American”. No outcry when Daniel Dae Kim took the role. Same for John Cho playing Sulu in the new STAR TREK films. Kristen Bell isn’t allowed voice a mixed race character in CENTRAL PARK but Titus Burgess is? Wouldn’t want him replaced by the way. He is bloody perfect. So was Bell though.

All is nonsense we seem to agree. I given it too much of my attention

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120897964#Comment_120897964

Strangely I know what you mean, with interstellar and inception anyway...I have rewatched the dark Knight and batman begins numerous times however....if I see either on when I'm channel hopping I tend to get drawn in for at least a half an hour like a fly to a pot of honey

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120929653#Comment_120929653

That makes 100% sense to me..

But it's always instructive to see how many morons would find a way to argue with it.

the.red.baron

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120931219#Comment_120931219

the two big jewish roles in the film not played by jewish actors

Spon Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120931694#Comment_120931694

Okay, don’t know how I didn’t understand that. There is nothing else you could have meant by it :P

the.red.baron

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120931892#Comment_120931892

He was giving out that a Murphy wasn't jewush

Spon Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120932274#Comment_120932274

I know that, I’m the one who first posted it.

What I meant is that at first I didn’t understand what you meant by “both roles”, but it is obvious you meant characters so I don’t know why I didn’t understand.

Shelfie

Saw this last night.

Cillian Murphy is phenomenal as Oppenheimer. Hope he wins the Oscar for his career defining performance (so far!)

However, I found the last 30 - 40 minutes very slow. Didn't enjoy the B&W scenes from Strauss's perspective. Just didn't find that story-line compelling enough and it paled in comparison to earlier scenes.

In my humble opinion, the story should have stayed with Oppenheimer.

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120898395#Comment_120898395

Yeah, I found that quickfire editing a bit too much over the first hour - it's just relentless this-is-happening-now-this-is-happening-now-this-is-happening-now-this-is-happening. After they get to Los Alamos I found the pacing and scene-flow worked better, but that first hour really felt like a montage, as you say.

Just saw it again, exceptional film.

I can understand the gripes people have though.

Cillian Murphy has to get an Oscar. He's incredible.