I thought it was weird that the notice says that applicants must be 5'7", but I looked it up and that's how tall Cillian Murphy is...never realized he's that short!
Oppenheimer - General Information
Posts: 1519
Joined:
January 2013
I wonder if this movie will be Nolan's First Man.
I think First Man is one of the best movies of the past 15 years. Its like Chazelle took the rules of Dunkirk and applied it to a family drama.
Oppenheimer is a period piece, its a biopic but in the press release the film was described as an "...epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic man who must risk destroying the world in order to save it.”
I'm not expecting any war scenes or your typical action set pieces but I think Nolan will apply the rules of action filmmaking and of thrillers to a dramatic character study.
Does this make sense?
I think First Man is one of the best movies of the past 15 years. Its like Chazelle took the rules of Dunkirk and applied it to a family drama.
Oppenheimer is a period piece, its a biopic but in the press release the film was described as an "...epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic man who must risk destroying the world in order to save it.”
I'm not expecting any war scenes or your typical action set pieces but I think Nolan will apply the rules of action filmmaking and of thrillers to a dramatic character study.
Does this make sense?
i really like First Man but the "epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic man" sentence has me thinking that Oppenheimer is going to have a quicker pace than First Man. In my head it's Inception's quick pace where Oppenheimer is in a race against multiple other characters (projections) who are all trying to get something done first. All while being torn about the whole thing, like how some of the Inception crew questions whether they are destroying someone's mind but much more significant. Just a guess.Joshua Strong wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2021, 1:38 amI wonder if this movie will be Nolan's First Man.
I think First Man is one of the best movies of the past 15 years. Its like Chazelle took the rules of Dunkirk and applied it to a family drama.
Oppenheimer is a period piece, its a biopic but in the press release the film was described as an "...epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic man who must risk destroying the world in order to save it.”
I'm not expecting any war scenes or your typical action set pieces but I think Nolan will apply the rules of action filmmaking and of thrillers to a dramatic character study.
Does this make sense?
Posts: 114
Joined:
September 2020
I just finished rewatching Nolan’s entire filmography and his movies are a lot worse when viewed outside the theater. Dunkirk is the worst offender. It’s a terrible movie when watching it on your TV or laptop screen. I am afraid that his films will age very poorly as time goes gone on.
Posts: 1010
Joined:
December 2019
Come on bro, really…??Retskrad wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2021, 2:04 pmI just finished rewatching Nolan’s entire filmography and his movies are a lot worse when viewed outside the theater. Dunkirk is the worst offender. It’s a terrible movie when watching it on your TV or laptop screen. I am afraid that his films will age very poorly as time goes gone on.
Can we stop reacting to Retskrad's and his alteregos' posts? What's the point?
Posts: 1230
Joined:
January 2019
I rewatched First Man recently and it's such a great movie. So, so good.
I know the film was heavily criticized for not showing Armstrong putting the flag on the moon, but it was such a stupid critic, that in fact overshadowed the real subversive side of the film.
Chazelle really doesn't build the character as a hero. On the contrary, he is almost a villain in the amazing landing sequence, risking his life and Aldrin's, when every indication they have should push them to turn back. The shot on Gosling and Stoll's face are quick, subtle, yet they mean so much. Earlier, he abandons his wife at a funeral, taking their car to go home. And then gets mad at White who tells him that he should be closer to his wife in such a hard time. Instead of going to her, and processing their pain together, he refuses to stay at the funeral, and instead just looks at the moon all evening. He hides the pain behind an obsession. Nothing can stop him, because he has an obsession, and if he loses his goal, he would have to face the reality, the pain that he's trying to escape. He becomes quite toxic as the film goes on as he refuses to process his emotions. Chazelle and Gosling are able to paint him at the same time as the hero and the villain of the journey. Impressive stuff. Also Sandgren, Cross and Hurwitz are genius.
That being said, I think there should be structural links between Oppenheimer and First Man, like you could expect Blunt to have around the same screen-time as Foy, for example, the same back and forth between intimacy and epic, contemplative pause, and suspenseful sequence. But I would expect Nolan to not tell the story in a chronological order, and to have various storylines throughout his life culminating together in a very intense third act.
The biopic seems to be a genre with a lot of rules to follow, but in fact, it's not really a genre. It describes the topic of the film but not the approach of the director like "film noir", "romantic comedy" would. In fact, at least 4 of my favourite movies of the last decades are biopic and they hardly could be more different from one another: First Man, The Wind rises, The Irishman, Roma.
There is lots of room for Nolan to make the genre his own. Usually with Nolan, it starts with the structure. And then the structure implies all the rest. Like with the film noir: the way he structures Memento allows to associate the specificity of two very different branch of the genre which I'd call the "Double Indemnity" branch: revealing the end and putting all the interest of the film on the "how" instead of the "what", and the "Laura" branch, which relies on telling the story in a very biased way to the the audience, to give room for twists. Memento shows you the end, but its structure allows it to still have a lots of twists.
I know the film was heavily criticized for not showing Armstrong putting the flag on the moon, but it was such a stupid critic, that in fact overshadowed the real subversive side of the film.
Chazelle really doesn't build the character as a hero. On the contrary, he is almost a villain in the amazing landing sequence, risking his life and Aldrin's, when every indication they have should push them to turn back. The shot on Gosling and Stoll's face are quick, subtle, yet they mean so much. Earlier, he abandons his wife at a funeral, taking their car to go home. And then gets mad at White who tells him that he should be closer to his wife in such a hard time. Instead of going to her, and processing their pain together, he refuses to stay at the funeral, and instead just looks at the moon all evening. He hides the pain behind an obsession. Nothing can stop him, because he has an obsession, and if he loses his goal, he would have to face the reality, the pain that he's trying to escape. He becomes quite toxic as the film goes on as he refuses to process his emotions. Chazelle and Gosling are able to paint him at the same time as the hero and the villain of the journey. Impressive stuff. Also Sandgren, Cross and Hurwitz are genius.
That being said, I think there should be structural links between Oppenheimer and First Man, like you could expect Blunt to have around the same screen-time as Foy, for example, the same back and forth between intimacy and epic, contemplative pause, and suspenseful sequence. But I would expect Nolan to not tell the story in a chronological order, and to have various storylines throughout his life culminating together in a very intense third act.
The biopic seems to be a genre with a lot of rules to follow, but in fact, it's not really a genre. It describes the topic of the film but not the approach of the director like "film noir", "romantic comedy" would. In fact, at least 4 of my favourite movies of the last decades are biopic and they hardly could be more different from one another: First Man, The Wind rises, The Irishman, Roma.
There is lots of room for Nolan to make the genre his own. Usually with Nolan, it starts with the structure. And then the structure implies all the rest. Like with the film noir: the way he structures Memento allows to associate the specificity of two very different branch of the genre which I'd call the "Double Indemnity" branch: revealing the end and putting all the interest of the film on the "how" instead of the "what", and the "Laura" branch, which relies on telling the story in a very biased way to the the audience, to give room for twists. Memento shows you the end, but its structure allows it to still have a lots of twists.
I think it’s going to have a quicker pace too. I just wonder how much time the movie is going to spend on the aftermath of dropping the bomb.jetsdude wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2021, 10:30 ami really like First Man but the "epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic man" sentence has me thinking that Oppenheimer is going to have a quicker pace than First Man. In my head it's Inception's quick pace where Oppenheimer is in a race against multiple other characters (projections) who are all trying to get something done first. All while being torn about the whole thing, like how some of the Inception crew questions whether they are destroying someone's mind but much more significant. Just a guess.Joshua Strong wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2021, 1:38 amI wonder if this movie will be Nolan's First Man.
I think First Man is one of the best movies of the past 15 years. Its like Chazelle took the rules of Dunkirk and applied it to a family drama.
Oppenheimer is a period piece, its a biopic but in the press release the film was described as an "...epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic man who must risk destroying the world in order to save it.”
I'm not expecting any war scenes or your typical action set pieces but I think Nolan will apply the rules of action filmmaking and of thrillers to a dramatic character study.
Does this make sense?
I imagine that Nolan will be cross cutting between different points in time to keep the pace up.
Been terribly quiet. The film will probably be developed in total secrecy until BOOM, just like the nuclear bomb development - you'll know it after it has happened. Hasn't happened yet.
