Nolan's Oppenheimer

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

He's said in the past that he (and Zimmer it was then) disable the inbuilt filters their sound-editing software had for lower-end frequencies. And sure, sometimes you want that, that's why you can turn them off, but he seems to have no understanding of why they're on in the first place.

It just feels like a classic case of hubris. He doesn't want to admit he's wrong. 

[Gaston de Foix]

Watching it tomorrow, and v. excited.  Thanks for all the reviews.   

[Cashless Society]

In which Nolan hijacks The Facebook Movie, while incorporating some Malick elements here and there.

If you're fan of Nolan's filmography, you'll have a blast seeing Oppenheimer. (I saw this in digital imax, where there were no sound issues).

The issues I had where the same issues I've had with his previous films: Noaln still tries to be as literal as possible, delivering the message with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Perfunctory editing, jumping from one scene to the next to get to the story moving quickly, while not giving the scene time to breathe and for the audience to digest. Nolan still doesn't know how to write and properly film intimate relationships. 

On the positive side, the performances were top notch, they should really make an Oscar category for best ensemble or best casting. And Göransson's score was exceptional, exceeding beyond the many technical components of the film (except maybe the acting) without completely drowning everything out. I'd be surprised if Göransson doesn't win all the awards for his score.

[TheLastWolf]

Oh boy have they outdone themselves! 

Apparently, the aforementioned censors here have gone beyond blurring or like in the old days, zooming to her face and went ahead to use CGI (poor Nolan avoided it and now this, but it was the makers who asked for the Adult certification to be reduced down) to dress up Pugh in a black negligee. Well, I wish that quality extended to where they use VFX for real. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Just got off the phone with the parents, and they were telling me about some protests (well, everything in India can either be celebrated or protested....not too different from here) because of Oppenheimer quoting some Gita verses during a sex scene. I dont know if that has any basis in reality or not, since my parents didnt watch either. 

Protestors also have a way of getting things wrong, so it could simple be the "...destroyer of worlds" quote post-Trinity

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

20 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Oh boy have they outdone themselves! 

Apparently, the aforementioned censors here have gone beyond blurring or like in the old days, zooming to her face and went ahead to use CGI (poor Nolan avoided it and now this, but it was the makers who asked for the Adult certification to be reduced down) to dress up Pugh in a black negligee. Well, I wish that quality extended to where they use VFX for real. 

Oh shit I was wondering how this movie got a U/A rating…they should’ve just let it get an A, it’s barely even enforced nowadays. It’s censored nationwide like this? I’m based in Mumbai.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

21 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Just got off the phone with the parents, and they were telling me about some protests (well, everything in India can either be celebrated or protested....not too different from here) because of Oppenheimer quoting some Gita verses during a sex scene. I dont know if that has any basis in reality or not, since my parents didnt watch either. 

Protestors also have a way of getting things wrong, so it could simple be the "...destroyer of worlds" quote post-Trinity

No bro, people are busy drowning in floods induced by climate change, to care about shit like this right now in india. More than 100 dead across North India already.That must be by the few top 0.0001% who have nothing better to do than complain on social media.

[TheLastWolf]

17 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Oh shit I was wondering how this movie got a U/A rating…they should’ve just let it get an A,

Producers fucking up everything as usual

18 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

it’s barely even enforced nowadays. It’s censored nationwide like this?

Multiplexes enforce, damn driver's license was scrutinized af thrice for JW4. And yeah it's nationwide.

19 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

I’m based in Mumbai.

Explains lol

8 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

No bro, people are busy drowning in floods induced by climate change, to care about shit like this right now in india. More than 100 dead across North India already.That must be by the few top 0.0001% who have nothing better to do than complain on social media.

Are we from the same country or what!? Don't let privilege blind you from remembering who's in power. Righter than Ronaldo.

[DireWolfSpirit]

 

Saw it last night (Sat). Had no issues with the sound mix audio (I could understand all of the dialoge fine) or length other than I wish it wouldve been an additional 2 to 3 hours in length, it couldve seamlessly been much longer.

I hope they havent been forced to cut this down or compromise the Directors cut?

Cillian and Downey Jr were extraordinary, they can cast some O statues for them right now.

[polishgenius]

23 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

they can cast some O statues for them right now.

 

To be fair, I will be astounded if Killers of the Flower Moon doesn't at least throw DiCaprio and De Niro into that conversation.

 

[IFR]

23 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I had trouble following how the problems developed between Oppenheimer and Strauss. Straus didn't like that two of the greatest scientific minds of the time may have sniggered at him behind his back? Surely there was more than that.

And I was a bit underwhelmed by the heavily advertised Trinity test. Maybe Nolan should have used some CGI. He couldn't really disguise the big practical chemical explosion.

 

Spoiler

As Druckard says, this was a matter of policy disagreements and personal disagreements.

While Oppenheimer never indicated that he regretted being a part of the atomic bomb program, and while his stance was often ambiguous, and he often indicated he had no guilt in the bombing of Hiroshima, he was very clearly opposed to the prospects of a nuclear arms race. He advocated the position of Niels Bohr - that is, absolute international transparency on nuclear issues, and international control. People like Strauss and Teller vehemently disagreed, and considered the Soviets an absolute threat that could only be dealt with by technical and military superiority (Teller in fact often advocated complete pre-emptive genocide against the Soviets via atomic strikes).

Oppenheimer would often note that there was still strategic use of fission bombs against military targets, but at the magnitude of destruction that thermonuclear devices were capable of, it clearly would only be employed against civilians (ie large cities).

This ideological disagreement, particularly in this atmosphere of uncertainty and Soviet panic, was highly corrosive to their relationship.

Also, it's worth noting that Strauss was often observed as a very black and white thinker, and someone who was exceptional at holding grudges.

An AEC commissioner commented: “If you disagree with Lewis about anything, he assumes you’re just a fool at first. But if you go on disagreeing with him, he concludes you must be a traitor.”

While the movie abridged the relationship somewhat, many of the major incidents were accurately depicted (with the actual recorded dialogue that occurred).

I think in acknowledgement that some of the interactions were edited down, the full extent of Strauss' remarkable hostility against Oppenheimer was reduced.

Strauss had actively coordinated with J Edgar Hoover in the dismantling of Oppenheimer's reputation. He regularly disseminated intimations of Oppenheimer's communism to presidents and other powerful officials. At one time (not the AEC hearing) Oppenheimer was forced to retain lawyers when he was compelled to partake in a trial against a former colleague who was alleged to be a communist, he accrued significant legal fees, more than he could afford. He tried to apply for the institute he taught at to deal with the fees due to the incredible circumstances, and since there had been precedence for other faculty. Strauss openly blocked it. Strauss also attempted to prevent the institute from funding a retirement home for Oppenheimer when he left the university, which the trustees had supported. The list goes on. Strauss was an incredibly petty person, and his animosity against Oppenheimer was for the exact reasons portrayed in the movie. 

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by IFR

[Corvinus85]

3 hours ago, IFR said:

  Reveal hidden contents

As Druckard says, this was a matter of policy disagreements and personal disagreements.

While Oppenheimer never indicated that he regretted being a part of the atomic bomb program, and while his stance was often ambiguous, and he often indicated he had no guilt in the bombing of Hiroshima, he was very clearly opposed to the prospects of a nuclear arms race. He advocated the position of Niels Bohr - that is, absolute international transparency on nuclear issues, and international control. People like Strauss and Teller vehemently disagreed, and considered the Soviets an absolute threat that could only be dealt with by technical and military superiority (Teller in fact often advocated complete pre-emptive genocide against the Soviets via atomic strikes).

Oppenheimer would often note that there was still strategic use of fission bombs against military targets, but at the magnitude of destruction that thermonuclear devices were capable of, it clearly would only be employed against civilians (ie large cities).

This ideological disagreement, particularly in this atmosphere of uncertainty and Soviet panic, was highly corrosive to their relationship.

Also, it's worth noting that Strauss was often observed as a very black and white thinker, and someone who was exceptional at holding grudges.

An AEC commissioner commented: “If you disagree with Lewis about anything, he assumes you’re just a fool at first. But if you go on disagreeing with him, he concludes you must be a traitor.”

While the movie abridged the relationship somewhat, many of the major incidents were accurately depicted (with the actual recorded dialogue that occurred).

I think in acknowledgement that some of the interactions were edited down, the full extent of Strauss' remarkable hostility against Oppenheimer was reduced.

Strauss had actively coordinated with J Edgar Hoover in the dismantling of Oppenheimer's reputation. He regularly disseminated intimations of Oppenheimer's communism to presidents and other powerful officials. At one time (not the AEC hearing) Oppenheimer was forced to retain lawyers when he was compelled to partake in a trial against a former colleague who was alleged to be a communist, he accrued significant legal fees, more than he could afford. He tried to apply for the institute he taught at to deal with the fees due to the incredible circumstances, and since there had been precedence for other faculty. Strauss openly blocked it. Strauss also attempted to prevent the institute from funding a retirement home for Oppenheimer when he left the university, which the trustees had supported. The list goes on. Strauss was an incredibly petty person, and his animosity against Oppenheimer was for the exact reasons portrayed in the movie. 

 

Thank you for this explanation. One question:

Spoiler

What was that guy Borden's beef with Oppenheimer, that he was so willing to quickly accuse him of being a communist? He was barely in the movie.

 

[IFR]

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

Thank you for this explanation. One question:

  Reveal hidden contents

What was that guy Borden's beef with Oppenheimer, that he was so willing to quickly accuse him of being a communist? He was barely in the movie.

 

Absolutely.

Spoiler

Even though Borden only briefly appears, the movie covers the essense of the issue pretty well. For Borden, his motivation was purely ideological. At the time, the means of payload delivery was via aircrafts and the Strategic Air Command. Borden foresaw the technical development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would be very difficult to defend against, and he believed that it was imperative that the United States develop this technology first, and accelerate nuclear capabilities. Borden considered any hindrance to this tactically unsound. Which, of course, Oppenheimer was of the exact opposite position, with his philosophy of international transparency and control of nuclear technology. Borden, like Strauss and Teller, felt that by not pursuing the hydrogen bomb and advocating any sort of delay would simply give the Soviets an advantage that could be highly deleterious to the security of the United States.

Also, Klaus Fuchs, who had a very essential role in the development of the implosion device, was revealed as a Soviet spy. Fuchs was not enlisted by Oppenheimer, but Borden viewed Oppenheimer as responsible for Fuchs.

Also, consider this. We in modern times constantly are bombarded by stories like the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard debacle. People will, with whatever extent of information they have, make up their minds about who is the guilty party. People with no knowledge of either Depp or Heard will grow a deep antipathy based on their convictions. And this is for the frivolous issue of a celebrity couple.

With Oppenheimer, the question of whether he actually posed a real security concern to the nation would have been a grave matter. Retrospectively, it seems pretty clear that he wasn't (indeed, in consideration of the information available now it seems absurd). But Oppenheimer had extremely subtle, nuanced views, and that sort of thing can be lost in the noise. In light of Oppenheimer's previous affiliations and acquaintances, and the fact that he opposed development of the hydrogen bomb and instead proposed international cooperation with the Soviets - this all convinced Borden that Oppenheimer was an agent of the Soviets. And like the movie explained, Strauss heavily encouraged this view.

Now this was a very hard thing to prove. So what did they do? Well, like a police officer who plants evidence on someone they know is guilty, Borden and Strauss worked hard to manipulate circumstances so that Oppenheimer would be exiled from any chance at affecting policy on a national level.

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by IFR

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

On 7/22/2023 at 7:39 PM, Spockydog said:

Totally. Though it’s amazing how quickly ones mind adjusts to it. It’s like the spirit of Nolan was massaging my skull. I had no issues with sound. Some people around me jumped a little at the “boom”. I love this movie. 

The theatre was fucking packed. The couple next to me were chuckling at everything, because they’re morons.

I knew everyone was in the but I was surprised at some of the casting. Stellar cast.

The pacing was very unusual. There’s definitely a change after the boom. It didn’t feel like 3 hours. 

I was unaware:

Spoiler

… of any Jean Tatlock conspiracy theories.

I was aware:

Spoiler

Of the rivalry between Strauss and Oppenheimer. Also that Nichols had a bit of a chip because Groves treated him like shit. In the Oppenheimer miniseries there’s also some friction between Oppie and Nichols. 

ETA: 15 perf 70mm rocks.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[IlyaP]

21 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've got some friends and family who have to work with sound mixing/general editing. Most of them love Nolan, but they also say they could fix a lot of his issues with their laptops. It breaks their brains that he's allowed to be this bad at it. He's the athlete that's amazing at 90% of the game, but that 10% flaw is so obvious.

Are they able to explain why so many movies are so *loud* lately as well? MI7, for instance, was just insanely loud, and by the time I walked out of the cinema, I felt like I'd been sonically and visually assaulted, and felt tired and drained, rather than elated and on an endorphine high. It's like someone took Balfe's score and just upped the EQ to achieve, like, maximum skull-cracking. 

I've read discussions online that suggest this trend began back in Crimson Tide, with Hans Zimmer's score, whereas others have suggested that Nolan's Inception was the start of this trend towards this different style of sound mixing. As I'm not trained in this area of technology, I can't speak to it with any real intelligence - thus the above questions. It was something that definitely caught my attention when watching older films, recently. The Flash, for instance, has this same sonic...intensity, for want of a better term, but older films, like The Last of the Mohicans, or A Knight's Tale, or even to use a film in a somewhat similar genre to MI7 - the Ocean's Quartet, even their mixing isn't as intense.

So why does Nolan engage in this sort of approach, and why do other films also do this? Does it have something to do with trying to find a mix that will work for every single kind of theatre speaker system? Like a one size fits all approach? Or is it something else? 

[IFR]

For those interested, here is an interview with Oppenheimer where he speaks of his post-war views.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

He destroyed a theatre, son.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Smug sonofabitch.

 

[3CityApache]

Watched it yesterday and the theater was packed (though it was a moderate size screening room).

I liked it. Great performances from Murphy, Downey Jr. and few others. I liked the structure of it, the parallels between two hearings etc. But I don't think I would call it the best Nolan work.

[DireWolfSpirit]

22 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

To be fair, I will be astounded if Killers of the Flower Moon doesn't at least throw DiCaprio and De Niro into that conversation.

 

True, I was being flippant there.

Im thinking Joaquin Phoenix is going to amaze us as Napoleon when that comes out later, though not entirely sure it will be released early enough to qualify for this season?