From your previous columns, it is clear that you are a researcher par excellence, not to mention a thinker who can connect quite a series of apparently disparate dots. Today you outdid yourself, all based on the hook of a movie. This is quite an interesting - and revealing - column.
I agree overall with the judgement. I also feel like the movie was more powerful to me without using the known and brutal images of Japanese civilian victims. But I am not 100% sure.
They showed Oppenheimer those pictures, there was a scene in the movie. They only showed his face. To see what he saw and get closer to feeling what he might have felt could have been a reasonable choice. I understand taking the other route, but it's not simply "because it's a biography about Oppenheimer" that Nolan couldn't have shown Japanese victims.
Excellent! I’ve heard some of the rumblings but couldn’t believe it was serious but alas....the movie was based on a biography of Oppenheimer and was NOT a history of the development of the atomic bomb, WW II, or the socio-cultural realities of 1940’s America.
I read the bio years ago and found the film an honest, incredibly well made replication of the book and it’s main character. The man Oppenheimer was the whole idea of the book and film and to argue that it should have been about something else is well, stupid and juvenile.
And then focus on a history such as that of Oppenheimer could lead many of us to look at these other issues in light of what Nolan’s movie presented. Your article made me think about the feel good movie about women in baseball - A League of Their Own. It has been criticised, lightly at the time of its release because of the absence of social media, for its failure to address LBGT and racial issues. However, it seems that for the movie to even get made in 1992 and present a story with gender equality themes, it had to leave out these other issues. The writers and director were not unaware of the issue, including a single scene with black women watching from the ‘cheap’ seats to highlight their absence and hinting at another story. Then last year a TV series was made that presented this history from another perspective, attempting to show gay and black storylines.
Good article. Humans have a propensity to view ourselves as “us” and “them” (or more accurately “thems”). We will always find some way to distinguish and group. I wonder if it’s related to our propensity to see patterns?
I disagree with a lot of what you write, and I disagree with some of this, but overall its a reasonable take. I appreciate that you have gone after the unreasonable academic diversity cultists.
Wow!
From your previous columns, it is clear that you are a researcher par excellence, not to mention a thinker who can connect quite a series of apparently disparate dots. Today you outdid yourself, all based on the hook of a movie. This is quite an interesting - and revealing - column.
Thank you, Sir.
Fascinatingly nuanced
Excellent article that shows why art and history matter more than culture war critics.
Brilliant.
I agree overall with the judgement. I also feel like the movie was more powerful to me without using the known and brutal images of Japanese civilian victims. But I am not 100% sure.
They showed Oppenheimer those pictures, there was a scene in the movie. They only showed his face. To see what he saw and get closer to feeling what he might have felt could have been a reasonable choice. I understand taking the other route, but it's not simply "because it's a biography about Oppenheimer" that Nolan couldn't have shown Japanese victims.
Excellent! I’ve heard some of the rumblings but couldn’t believe it was serious but alas....the movie was based on a biography of Oppenheimer and was NOT a history of the development of the atomic bomb, WW II, or the socio-cultural realities of 1940’s America.
I read the bio years ago and found the film an honest, incredibly well made replication of the book and it’s main character. The man Oppenheimer was the whole idea of the book and film and to argue that it should have been about something else is well, stupid and juvenile.
Really well thought out and interesting. Brave too. Touchy subject. Thank you.
And then focus on a history such as that of Oppenheimer could lead many of us to look at these other issues in light of what Nolan’s movie presented. Your article made me think about the feel good movie about women in baseball - A League of Their Own. It has been criticised, lightly at the time of its release because of the absence of social media, for its failure to address LBGT and racial issues. However, it seems that for the movie to even get made in 1992 and present a story with gender equality themes, it had to leave out these other issues. The writers and director were not unaware of the issue, including a single scene with black women watching from the ‘cheap’ seats to highlight their absence and hinting at another story. Then last year a TV series was made that presented this history from another perspective, attempting to show gay and black storylines.
It would have been a disservice to history not to have presented it the way it was presented.
Good article. Humans have a propensity to view ourselves as “us” and “them” (or more accurately “thems”). We will always find some way to distinguish and group. I wonder if it’s related to our propensity to see patterns?
I think it is just the optimal strategy when there is not enough food for a few months.
I disagree with a lot of what you write, and I disagree with some of this, but overall its a reasonable take. I appreciate that you have gone after the unreasonable academic diversity cultists.