#oppenheimer essay

[davidpincher]

i posted last week about how i went to watch oppenheimer as part of barbenheimer & then ended up writing a 900 word essay about it. three people asked to see the essay so here it is:

a three hour anxiety attack

i watched oppenheimer; had dinner, watched barbie and then showered. i cant stop thinking about this movie. the thing about christopher nolan movies is that there’s always a part of them that makes me remember why i love movies, a part of me that is reminded of their power in the way that they make me feel things. most succinctly, yes, this movie is a three hour anxiety attack because i spent the entirety of the movie anxious, knowing little about this film other than that an atomic bomb is going to be made and dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki.

while i was much too dumb to understand the timeline of events, christopher nolan still makes such a foreign experience feel personal and familiar. relatable even, even though the times have changed. people have always been people, flawed and trusting and selfish. there’s the case of the spy, a jewish man, much like oppenheimer, that oppenheimer initially trusts out of community in hard times. you can understand oppenheimer’s devotion to the war, as someone so personally affected by it. there’s something personal, in the orchestration of the betrayal by robert downey jr (i cannot remember his characters name, truly, he was not that memorable), and how oppenheimer goes from respected to blacklisted. people are petty and cruel. i don’t think i’ve ever seen a movie with a sex scene that i found added to the plot of characters, but there is something so powerful in jean’s death being the only one explicitly shown on screen: humans are selfish and will be our own demise because we, more often than not, cannot find the empathy to care for people who we don’t know. it’s the trolley problem - the death of a lover or the death of hundreds of thousands, or even, the very end of the world.

there’s one line of dialogue that hasn’t left my mind since i finished watching this movie, almost ten hours ago now. it’s the moment in which they’re discussing what cities to bomb, and one character goes ‘not kyoto. there’s too much culture. plus my wife and i honeymooned there’ or something of the sort. it’s the kind of moment that shocked me, how the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians were held in the hands of a guy making decisions based on his honeymoon. it’s the most memorable example of the question ‘who had the right to power’, regarding people’s lives, that consumes this movie. who has the right to create and use a weapon of mass destruction? another that i think of, is the scene with truman. i think that christopher nolan has portrayed a president more accurately than any other piece of media in the past: the president is not just some boss man, he is a guy appointed to look over entire fields he could not possibly understand the weight of, not even if he tried. truman’s depiction in this movie - as does everyone’s, honestly - feels so real because every single person has flaws. everyone here is so deeply flawed and insufferable, even oppenheimer, who likely is only slightly better because he’s aware of it all.

in high school, i was forced to spend two entire years studying world war two and the cold war from every perspective - japan, germany, italy, the united states, the soviet union, china, france and england. so of course, the questions of the ethics and necessity of the dropping of the atomic bomb came up, and there are so many discussions to be had within that. and yet, there wasn’t enough in this film. maybe this is a good thing, given that would require the opinions and analysis of the work of many historians that would likely derail the vision of nolan’s film, it would’ve meant a lot to the little nerd in me specifically.

oppenheimer opposes the hydrogen bomb because if the united states has one; the soviet union, their enemies at the time, would be forced to make one too. on a side note, another moment in this film that made my gut wrench was when this claim is denied on the belief that russia does not have the resources, or knowledge to compete with the united states. and god what a fucking blessing and curse is hindsight, as underestimating russia and the soviet union during a war is just as relevant today. this makes an interesting biopic to me because everyone knows about the atomic bomb. everyone knows about chernobyl and nuclear power. in fact, in the very basic level science classes i took, the world nuclear power became synonymous with chernobyl. bad things happen, and we know it, and this movie helps to warn us a bit about it.

enough on the history nerd stuff i truly did forget how much of my life i spent studying history, even if i only stopped just over a year ago. the sound design of this movie was fucking insane. every piece of audio, the line delivery, everything, made me feel so much (besides rdj - i get what people say about people having faces that know what iphones are) the shots were fucking masterful and despite being a three hour film, there was not a single moment (beyond the sex scenes mayhaps) that i felt dragged on for longer than they needed to. once again, just to end this off, god i fucking loved the sound of this movie, the build up, the anxiety, everything. while i most certainly have not seen enough christopher nolan to say definitively that this is his best work, i can most certainly see why people would say it is so.

[blairbarely]

[iirulancorrino]

Movies that attempt something different, that recognize that less can indeed be more, are thus easily taken to task. “It’s so subjective!” and “It omits a crucial P.O.V.!” are assumed to be substantive criticisms rather than essentially value-neutral statements. We are sometimes told, in matters of art and storytelling, that depiction is not endorsement; we are not reminded nearly as often that omission is not erasure. But because viewers of course cannot be trusted to know any history or muster any empathy on their own — and if anything unites those who criticize “Oppenheimer” on representational grounds, it’s their reflexive assumption of the audience’s stupidity — anything that isn’t explicitly shown onscreen is denigrated as a dodge or an oversight, rather than a carefully considered decision. A film like “Oppenheimer” offers a welcome challenge to these assumptions. Like nearly all Nolan’s movies, from “Memento” to “Dunkirk,” it’s a crafty exercise in radical subjectivity and narrative misdirection, in which the most significant subjects — lost memories, lost time, lost loves — often are invisible and all the more powerful for it. We can certainly imagine a version of “Oppenheimer” that tossed in a few startling but desultory minutes of Japanese destruction footage. Such a version might have flirted with kitsch, but it might well have satisfied the representational completists in the audience. It also would have reduced Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a piddling afterthought; Nolan treats them instead as a profound absence, an indictment by silence. That’s true even in one of the movie’s most powerful and contested sequences. Not long after news of Hiroshima’s destruction arrives, Oppenheimer gives a would-be-triumphant speech to a euphoric Los Alamos crowd, only for his words to turn to dust in his mouth. For a moment, Nolan abandons realism altogether — but not, crucially, Oppenheimer’s perspective — to embrace a hallucinatory horror-movie expressionism. A piercing scream erupts in the crowd; a woman’s face crumples and flutters, like a paper mask about to disintegrate. The crowd is there and then suddenly, with much sonic rumbling, image blurring and an obliterating flash of white light, it is not. For “Oppenheimer’s” detractors, this sequence constitutes its most grievous act of erasure: Even in the movie’s one evocation of nuclear disaster, the true victims have been obscured and whitewashed. The absence of Japanese faces and bodies in these visions is indeed striking. It’s also consistent with Nolan’s strict representational parameters, and it produces a tension, even a contradiction, that the movie wants us to recognize and wrestle with. Is Oppenheimer trying (and failing) to imagine the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians murdered by the weapon he devised? Or is he envisioning some hypothetical doomsday scenario still to come? I think the answer is a blur of both, and also something more: In this moment, one of the movie’s most abstract, Nolan advances a longer view of his protagonist’s history and his future. Oppenheimer’s blindness to Japanese victims and survivors foreshadows his own stubborn inability to confront the consequences of his actions in years to come. He will speak out against nuclear weaponry, but he will never apologize for the atomic bombings of Japan — not even when he visits Tokyo and Osaka in 1960 and is questioned by a reporter about his perspective now. “I do not think coming to Japan changed my sense of anguish about my part in this whole piece of history,” he will respond. “Nor has it fully made me regret my responsibility for the technical success of the enterprise.” Talk about compartmentalization. That episode, by the way, doesn’t find its way into “Oppenheimer,” which knows better than to offer itself up as the last word on anything. To the end, Nolan trusts us to seek out and think about history for ourselves. If we elect not to, that’s on us.

[potatotalksculture]

Potato Tweet: Barbie has already been robbed during the nominations. Now it’s been robbed even more.

I assume it’s common knowledge by now that Oscars are not about art, at least not in the first place. So when I look at the politics of the awarded, I worry. Oppenheimer is good, no questions asked. What I worry about is the politics of not giving an Oscar to Killers of the Flower Moon at all. Through that the Academy kind of admits that it doesn’t care about Native Americans and their story. They care about Mariupol, but doesn't one dare talk about Gaza. They care about gazing at women much less than about taking a quick, light-hearted look at their psyche. That’s sad and irritating.

What increases my discontent is the amount of statuettes Poor Things has left the ceremony with. And I’m not gonna moralize about the sexuality of a child, I’m not a Victorian lady… I’m rather wondering about all the similarities between Yorgos Lanthimos’ film and Greta Gerwing’s film. Both staring a well known woman, who’s also a co-producer of the respective piece. The protagonist of each film is what seems to be a grown ass lady, who differs from the common understanding of “normal” and “suited for a society” in one way or other. Both Barbie and Poor Things are visually stunning.

The categories in which both films were nominated are:

best picture

supporting actor (where it was kind of obvious it’s gonna be Robert Downey Jr., but I was holding onto the glimmer of hope it’s gonna be Ryan Gosling, so that the Academy can say “Hey, we awarded this pink movie something! Sure, it’s for the male supporting role in a very feminine movie, but we awarded it something!)

adapted screenplay

costume design

production design

The only two categories in which Barbie was nominated and Poor Things wasn’t, are:

actress in a supporting role

original song (with “What Was I Made For?” and “I’m Just Ken”)

Which scores it the total of 8 nominations in 7 categories.

Meanwhile Poor Things scored 11 nominations all together. It was nominated, except for the already mentioned, for:

actress in a leading role

cinematography

directing

editing

makeup and hairstyling

original score

For some perspectve: Oppenheimer got nominated in 13 categories.

What I'm trying to say here, is that it was understandable for me that Barbie got robbed cuz it's too entertaining, too pink, too commercial for the Academy. It wasn't the greatest production of the year. But it was an event! And just because of that it's already earned a very special place in the cultural history of the western world. I'd be interested to know how much of the commercial success of Oppenheimer was carried by Barbie and the other way around. The double-feature-premiere was a worldwide event of a scale of its own. Meanwhile Poor Things showed up rather late to the party. It's not a multiplex film. It's a Mubi film. It's artsy. It's different. It's also a story about women's sexuality written and directed by a dude, based on a novel by a dude. And the Academy likes it more than a story by women for women about what it's like to be a women, which also allows it to prove how much they care about Art. AKA how pretentious they are. That's my beef.

[battlekidx2]

Barbie Thoughts

I think my favorite thing about Barbie is that on top of everything else it tackles it’s also a touching exploration of the beauty of life and the creation of art.

The line: “Ideas live forever.” which has been featured in most of the trailers has a completely different meaning through this exploration. It shows that it’s people who create meaning. Be it through movies, comics, toys, etc. It’s their life, experiences, and creativity that make something of the ideas and art that are made in the world.

Barbie herself wouldn’t have meaning if not for the personal inspiration that drove Ruth to create her or the way she impacts the people who play with her (at least until the end). It’s this desire to be seen and understood (and inspire) and help others to feel less alone that drives creation and creates meaning.

That meaning put into creation is found in all aspects of life. And Barbie emphasizes that life isn’t perfect. Life is hard and painful and rife with change and conflict but it’s also beautiful in its own way. Barbie is inherently optimistic about life and shows the beauty of aging. Of mistakes. Of learning and growing. And that’s what makes its final message about creation and connection hit harder. Life is imperfect and doesn’t last but you can find and create meaning in it.

And it’s this aspect of the movie that hit me the hardest and makes it really great to me.

[dykeishheart]

Oppenheimer is coming out soon, and with it being an American movie about the man who helped build the first nuclear weapons (that the United States dropped on civilians) it probably won't be a very honest account of the war. Apparently it's based on a legit biography of the man but it will likely be very heavily dramatized in favor of the United States and its ambitions in the war.

With that in mind, here is an excellent video delving into the subject of the atomic bombs' use by the United States, as well as the political background leading up to the event both in the US and in Japan. The horrors of the bombs are not the focus of the video, but nonetheless viewer discretion is advised.

[rickchung]

Nerdstalgic x "How Two Iconic Directors Handled the Same War".

Christopher Nolan and Hayao Miyazaki are two filmmakers that work under the unifying theme of obsession. Though Oppenheimer and The Wind Rises were released almost 10 years apart, the themes of war, obsession, and consequence run through both films.

[amoonfullofstars]

i watched tonight 3x08 and I'm fully brainrotting on it so are you telling me that twin peaks and oppenheimer are somehow linked???

I mean, at first I was like: BOB appearing during the trinity test?? it must be a metaphor for the evil men do😴

then I was like: wait a second... is this about the birth of BOB?? oppenheimer (indirectly) caused it in twin peaks universe??? because atomic bombs are the greatest weapons of mass destruction ever created by mankind and their detonation brought inconceivable pain suffering and death on earth! and black lodge spirits are fueled by all of this!!!

and also BOB=Robert... ROBERT J. OPPENHEIMER??? is this a reference? what about Leland saying that he knew some guy named Robertson when asked about BOB?? Robertson = son of Robert = BOB as (robert) oppenheimer's "son"!!!

last thing: can we discuss the laura palmer thing like??? she was sent on earth to oppose BOB like some kind of jesus just to suffer and die??? heartbreaking this is insane poor child

i feel like this rn:

[nemrut]

Oppenheimer: A Film About Guilt (Cope)

[willowwormwood]

Guess what I’m gonna go seeeee

[thefallenperfection]

Here me out,

I wanna do a new story that makes people question things

Being a kid of morpheus and now you’re capable of doing things and slightly convincing themselves that they are making everyone hallucinate this entire thing, and that nothing is real until someone breaks through and realizes that earth is nothing but a desert plane and has to figure out to live in and get people to come to that side and wake up.

Anyways, i wanna be supported and get the stuff i need to write with and if you wanna see more stuff

My instagram is babybratbat

And my cashapp if you wanna support me is $babybratbat03

[indelen]

Watch "Oppenheimer: Why Tell Stories of Great Bad Men" on YouTube

I don't post a lot of YouTube stuff, but I'm making an exception here because this wonderful in depth video by a Colombian creator José Maria Luna explores the value of making art about historical or fictional people who do bad things and really takes apart the eternal debate about just how much should a "bad" protagonist narratively suffer in order to assuage the morality worries of the audience or if that is ever necessary or needed in the first place.

[mossy-green-aka-ferrythem]

(Edit) I really don’t post stuff like this on my blog specifically, but sometimes I feel like boosting content on YouTube that I genuinely think is quite good.

This video is genuinely so good. Foreign offers a foundational, irrefutable critique of Oppenheimer than cannot be ignored, and he does it insanely well. He gets the point across excellently.

Really opened my eyes about Oppenheimer.

I don't hate the movie, hell, I have a bit of a strange soft spot for it, a sort of love for the work of cinema. But damn it really does have to be called out for the conceptual nature of the type of movie it is, and what it entails.

(Do keep in mind this video is mostly about Oppenheimer, the Barbie section is more critical of Barbie as a concept, he doesn't really discuss the movie in that section.)

(Also do keep in mind I'm not a video essay nerd. This one is just really good I think. Also if you're unfamiliar with Foreign's content, don't mind the thumbnail.)

[gothic-chicanery]

I just realized if I want to write about Oppenheimer for my final paper for my west class I probably have to rewatch it and it is So Damn Long. I’m also writing about it in comparison to a production I saw of Doctor atomic (the Oppenheimer opera (yes there’s an Oppenheimer opera)) but that will be a little bit easier bc I’m pretty sure no footage exists of that production so like at least I don’t have to rewatch that

[marbleheavy]

i hate hate hate the oppenheimer slide show tik tok trend. like we get you’re fucking annoying. you’re the problem, we understand, please stop acting like you’re dunking on profs by sending the most nonsensical bullshit email that’s ever been. a humanities major would never!

[ivytwines]

I have no idea who hbomberguy or James somerton are— is this 4 hour video really worth it lmao