Angus wrote: ↑

August 2nd, 2023, 10:19 am

I had no idea this was even a discussion, haha. But that's the Internet for you. Nolan would probably be mortified to see anyone making an argument suggesting he's left or right. He's not a politician, political activist or a political commentator. He's a filmmaker. His "agenda" is making movies. If he has a political affiliation, it hasn't been explicitly or subliminally stated in any of his work; he's been writing stories with characters who aren't him, who have their own viewpoints that serve the stories he's telling, that might explore themes and motifs that suggest conservative or liberal ideologies, but he's never shown a personal stance for either on film or has tried to persuade audiences to either.

I don't understand America's constant obsession with needing to know where every single person stands on every topic. Stop trying to get into everyone's business. He's allowed to have whatever feelings and opinions he chooses outside of his profession as long as he doesn't push it in his craft, and I have never seen evidence of him doing that. If anything, he stays purposely ambiguous because he wants his films to stand the test of time through discussion and debate, and they are. Inception has been around for 13 years now and people are still talking about it. The Dark Knight has been 15. How many movies do you remember from 2008 or 2010 with "political intent" at this point? Do you remember Green Zone with Matt Damon? Do you remember Wall Street 2? Fair Game? No. Movies that are more politically ambiguous tend to stick around longer, like The Social Network. Oppenheimer will be another one.

natalie wrote: ↑

August 1st, 2023, 2:05 pm

Since when Dunkirk "is arguably his most right-wing film"?

Stuff like this didn't help.....



In recent years, Dunkirk has emerged as more than just a cinematic portrayal of a historical event. It has been appropriated by certain individuals and political factions as a symbol of British resilience and the "stiff upper lip" mentality. This association gained momentum during the height of Brexit anxieties, as politicians like Nigel Farage embraced the film's themes of courage under fire, turning a defeat into a fist-pumping British narrative.

Nigel Farage, a prominent figure in the Brexit movement, saw in Dunkirk a reflection of his own political ideology, particularly the "no deal is better than a bad deal" mantra. By lionizing the Dunkirk spirit, he sought to promote the idea of a strong and independent Britain, disconnected from the European Union. This blending of historical significance with contemporary political ambitions inevitably made Dunkirk appear more politically charged.

The connection between Dunkirk and the Brexit era also sparked debates about the political stance of Nolan. Many speculated that Nolan might be a Tory supporter due to the apparent alignment of his film with the sentiments of the pro-Brexit camp. I think he may even have written an article for the Telegraph upon the film's release. However, attributing a clear political alliance to Nolan is difficult, as he has not explicitly revealed his personal political beliefs.

Moreover, focusing on one particular character in Oppenheimer, sheds some light on Nolan's potential liberal leanings. By doing so, Nolan emphasized the role of Oppenheimer in developing the atomic bomb and touched upon the ethical implications of his work.

Robert Oppenheimer was indeed a figure with liberal leanings. While he played a crucial role in the Manhattan Project, he later became an advocate for international control of atomic weapons and expressed regret for his contribution to the development of the bomb. Oppenheimer's views on the bomb aligned with liberal perspectives, emphasizing disarmament and international cooperation to prevent nuclear proliferation.

In essence, Christopher Nolan's focus on the character of Oppenheimer suggests a more nuanced political consciousness than a straightforward Tory stance. Based off the film, I don't think Nolan is a huge advocate of the Trident scheme in Britain. It indicates a willingness to explore complex historical and ethical themes, encouraging viewers to ponder the consequences of their actions in the context of global politics.

In conclusion, the link between Nigel Farage, Dunkirk, and the heightened Brexit anxieties of the time added a political layer to the film back when it was released in 2017. While some claimed that Nolan's portrayal of Dunkirk aligned him with Tory ideals, his exploration of Oppenheimer suggests a more liberal perspective.

Oh my good God, I can assure you that no one outside the UK ever thought that Dunkirk could be related to any sort of Brexiteer sentiments, and it is insulting to think that any normal person would actually think that if one idiotic politician (Farage) says something about the film, that something would have any credibility.

I don't want to come off rude, but judging Nolan's political views based on his films is absolutely nonsensical. If you (in general) give the slightest credit to anyone who is doing that, you have never understood the guy and his filmography.

Angus wrote: ↑

August 2nd, 2023, 10:19 am

I had no idea this was even a discussion, haha. But that's the Internet for you. Nolan would probably be mortified to see anyone making an argument suggesting he's left or right. He's not a politician, political activist or a political commentator. He's a filmmaker. His "agenda" is making movies. If he has a political affiliation, it hasn't been explicitly or subliminally stated in any of his work; he's been writing stories with characters who aren't him, who have their own viewpoints that serve the stories he's telling, that might explore themes and motifs that suggest conservative or liberal ideologies, but he's never shown a personal stance for either on film or has tried to persuade audiences to either.

I don't understand America's constant obsession with needing to know where every single person stands on every topic. Stop trying to get into everyone's business. He's allowed to have whatever feelings and opinions he chooses outside of his profession as long as he doesn't push it in his craft, and I have never seen evidence of him doing that. If anything, he stays purposely ambiguous because he wants his films to stand the test of time through discussion and debate, and they are. Inception has been around for 13 years now and people are still talking about it. The Dark Knight has been 15. How many movies do you remember from 2008 or 2010 with "political intent" at this point? Do you remember Green Zone with Matt Damon? Do you remember Wall Street 2? Fair Game? No. Movies that are more politically ambiguous tend to stick around longer, like The Social Network. Oppenheimer will be another one.

THIS. Thank you. I'm an American and this entire thread is achingly boring. I know, I should just not read or respond, but people's fascination with taking something beautiful and trying to make it... not that way by over-analyzing political bullshit and trying to attach meaningless labels to something that transcends simple-minded thinking is bizarre to say the least.

DHOPW42 wrote: ↑

August 2nd, 2023, 2:57 pm

Oh my good God, I can assure you that no one outside the UK ever thought that Dunkirk could be related to any sort of Brexiteer sentiments, and it is insulting to think that any normal person would actually think that if one idiotic politician (Farage) says something about the film, that something would have any credibility.

I don't want to come off rude, but judging Nolan's political views based on his films is absolutely nonsensical. If you (in general) give the slightest credit to anyone who is doing that, you have never understood the guy and his filmography.

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm interested in the politics in his films. I think Dunkirk certainly has a more conservative message, however I think Oppenheimer has a liberal message. I'm not trying to speculate who Nolan votes for.

I'm just interested in the conversation he's having with the audience about politics. The tendency of many to view this topic with instantaneous dismay says a lot.....

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cu0JnSAvede/

I don’t think Republicans support women.

I'm more interested in knowing his reasoning for casting Affleck. Is he just oblivious to the news and trends of the day, or did he do it despite knowing all that has gone down. Surely someone from Universal would have mentioned it due to it being potentially a bit of a bad publicity. I don't even remember them officially announcing his casting. It's not even some secret that the guy has kind of been in movie jail for a while.

Like you can wear all the pussy hats and march with women and all that jazz, but where it really counts, you use your power and privilege to disparage their movement and promote a terrible offender? I've been a super fan of Nolan for nearly two decades, but I gotta say, that's just a terrible look.

Angus wrote: ↑

August 2nd, 2023, 10:19 am

I had no idea this was even a discussion, haha. But that's the Internet for you. Nolan would probably be mortified to see anyone making an argument suggesting he's left or right. He's not a politician, political activist or a political commentator. He's a filmmaker. His "agenda" is making movies. If he has a political affiliation, it hasn't been explicitly or subliminally stated in any of his work; he's been writing stories with characters who aren't him, who have their own viewpoints that serve the stories he's telling, that might explore themes and motifs that suggest conservative or liberal ideologies, but he's never shown a personal stance for either on film or has tried to persuade audiences to either.

I don't understand America's constant obsession with needing to know where every single person stands on every topic. Stop trying to get into everyone's business. He's allowed to have whatever feelings and opinions he chooses outside of his profession as long as he doesn't push it in his craft, and I have never seen evidence of him doing that. If anything, he stays purposely ambiguous because he wants his films to stand the test of time through discussion and debate, and they are. Inception has been around for 13 years now and people are still talking about it. The Dark Knight has been 15. How many movies do you remember from 2008 or 2010 with "political intent" at this point? Do you remember Green Zone with Matt Damon? Do you remember Wall Street 2? Fair Game? No. Movies that are more politically ambiguous tend to stick around longer, like The Social Network. Oppenheimer will be another one.

I think it's simply that the movies do indeed touch upon these themes as part of their narratives, especially the Dark Knight trilogy, that makes people go one step further and be like "this is his intended message" or even just "this is what they're saying". I agree that he's not deliberately going out of his way to make movies that clearly commentate his own views on society, which I think is smart since it allows more of an open ended conversation about his films, but it also means that people can then very much bring forth their own interpretations and readings and take what's there and be like "Oh you're trying to say X!". Plus Nolan has sometimes given explanations on the themes of the narrative too, like in The Nolan variations where he did say that TDKR was critical of the Demagogue method which I think the film does back up. And some of his films, even the Non Batman ones, have readings you can abide by.

As for Oppenheimer, he does very much come down on the Red Scare of the past and whilst there's not a direct attempt to parallel this with the present, you can find similarities with a major public figure being scrutinised by certain people just for merely having some left wing views, even before there's any kind of suspicion put on him because of the Spying business. Whilst it's emphasised that Kitty was a former member of the Communist Party, that Oppenheimer wasn't a full on Communist and his affliations were a problem, none of these are used to full on say that being a Communist is bad, just that it was bad back then. That's my read and if I were to read in anything personal, I do think got a little tired of certain readings of his work and was like "I'm gonna show a directly left wing character being persecuted and sympathise with him for it"

Waitedalongtime wrote: ↑

August 3rd, 2023, 7:23 am

Angus wrote: ↑

August 2nd, 2023, 10:19 am

I had no idea this was even a discussion, haha. But that's the Internet for you. Nolan would probably be mortified to see anyone making an argument suggesting he's left or right. He's not a politician, political activist or a political commentator. He's a filmmaker. His "agenda" is making movies. If he has a political affiliation, it hasn't been explicitly or subliminally stated in any of his work; he's been writing stories with characters who aren't him, who have their own viewpoints that serve the stories he's telling, that might explore themes and motifs that suggest conservative or liberal ideologies, but he's never shown a personal stance for either on film or has tried to persuade audiences to either.

I don't understand America's constant obsession with needing to know where every single person stands on every topic. Stop trying to get into everyone's business. He's allowed to have whatever feelings and opinions he chooses outside of his profession as long as he doesn't push it in his craft, and I have never seen evidence of him doing that. If anything, he stays purposely ambiguous because he wants his films to stand the test of time through discussion and debate, and they are. Inception has been around for 13 years now and people are still talking about it. The Dark Knight has been 15. How many movies do you remember from 2008 or 2010 with "political intent" at this point? Do you remember Green Zone with Matt Damon? Do you remember Wall Street 2? Fair Game? No. Movies that are more politically ambiguous tend to stick around longer, like The Social Network. Oppenheimer will be another one.

I think it's simply that the movies do indeed touch upon these themes as part of their narratives, especially the Dark Knight trilogy, that makes people go one step further and be like "this is his intended message" or even just "this is what they're saying". I agree that he's not deliberately going out of his way to make movies that clearly commentate his own views on society, which I think is smart since it allows more of an open ended conversation about his films, but it also means that people can then very much bring forth their own interpretations and readings and take what's there and be like "Oh you're trying to say X!". Plus Nolan has sometimes given explanations on the themes of the narrative too, like in The Nolan variations where he did say that TDKR was critical of the Demagogue method which I think the film does back up. And some of his films, even the Non Batman ones, have readings you can abide by.

As for Oppenheimer, he does very much come down on the Red Scare of the past and whilst there's not a direct attempt to parallel this with the present, you can find similarities with a major public figure being scrutinised by certain people just for merely having some left wing views, even before there's any kind of suspicion put on him because of the Spying business. Whilst it's emphasised that Kitty was a former member of the Communist Party, that Oppenheimer wasn't a full on Communist and his affliations were a problem, none of these are used to full on say that being a Communist is bad, just that it was bad back then. That's my read and if I were to read in anything personal, I do think got a little tired of certain readings of his work and was like "I'm gonna show a directly left wing character being persecuted and sympathise with him for it"

Interesting. In my opinion portayal of communist left circle in late 30's and 40's intellectual elite in America was very negative.

nolan is a tory if you don’t think about the themes for more than five seconds

b-man spying on people is not portrayed in a positive light and the consequences in part 2 are abundantly clear

michael caine and matt damon are the villains for prioritizing a few lives over the common man

dunkirk’s last shot is a kid who is almost certainly being sent back to war to die