Anyone assuming Nolan is conservative (based on both his films and his previous interviews) just isn't using practical thinking skills.
Honestly really glad this movie is so left-leaning so people would shut up with the assumptions. It's so funny that conservatives are so busy criticizing Barbie for being "woke," that they don't realize the fact that Oppenheimer is just as damning of the right.
Anyone assuming Nolan is conservative (based on both his films and his previous interviews) just isn't using practical thinking skills.
Honestly really glad this movie is so left-leaning so people would shut up with the assumptions. It's so funny that conservatives are so busy criticizing Barbie for being "woke," that they don't realize the fact that Oppenheimer is just as damning of the right.
I think you're so left-leaning that you're assuming that a fact that Nolan is taking Oppenheimer side in this movie, and conservative Strauss portrayed as a villain is enough to say this movie is left leaning.
It's much more complex movie.
The characters that the films treats with most dignity are Chevalier (communist) and Szilard (left leaning). The only one close to the government who gets such a treatment would be Matthew Modine's Bush (but that's because he opposes mccarthysm, his speech during the hearing being the closest with Ehrenreich to Nolan talking directly to the audience).
Also the conservatives Kenneth Nichols (his smile saying "ouch" ) and Boris Pash are some of the best villains in Nolan's filmography.
Anyone assuming Nolan is conservative (based on both his films and his previous interviews) just isn't using practical thinking skills.
Honestly really glad this movie is so left-leaning so people would shut up with the assumptions. It's so funny that conservatives are so busy criticizing Barbie for being "woke," that they don't realize the fact that Oppenheimer is just as damning of the right.
I think you're so left-leaning that you're assuming that a fact that Nolan is taking Oppenheimer side in this movie, and conservative Strauss portrayed as a villain is enough to say this movie is left leaning.
It's much more complex movie.
I said none of what you just said, so you'd be wrong in assuming anything of the sort.
I'm saying the film is highly critical of conservative figures and viewpoints as well as nationalistic ignorance across all party lines. It's also very damning and critical of the dropping of the bombs, which is not a commonly held conservative viewpoint with many people viewing the bombs as "necessary" - an opinion the film resists.
Anyone assuming Nolan is conservative (based on both his films and his previous interviews) just isn't using practical thinking skills.
Honestly really glad this movie is so left-leaning so people would shut up with the assumptions. It's so funny that conservatives are so busy criticizing Barbie for being "woke," that they don't realize the fact that Oppenheimer is just as damning of the right.
I think you're so left-leaning that you're assuming that a fact that Nolan is taking Oppenheimer side in this movie, and conservative Strauss portrayed as a villain is enough to say this movie is left leaning.
It's much more complex movie.
I said none of what you just said, so you'd be wrong in assuming anything of the sort.
I'm saying the film is highly critical of conservative figures and viewpoints as well as nationalistic ignorance across all party lines. It's also very damning and critical of the dropping of the bombs, which is not a commonly held conservative viewpoint with many people viewing the bombs as a "necessary" - an opinion the film resists.
The film isn't resisting necessity of droping the bombs.
It is covering it in artistic way of course, to show Oppenheimer second thoughts and to start debate about the ending.
And that's fine.
You're approach towards this movie is taking much away from it's depth.
I think you're so left-leaning that you're assuming that a fact that Nolan is taking Oppenheimer side in this movie, and conservative Strauss portrayed as a villain is enough to say this movie is left leaning.
It's much more complex movie.
I said none of what you just said, so you'd be wrong in assuming anything of the sort.
I'm saying the film is highly critical of conservative figures and viewpoints as well as nationalistic ignorance across all party lines. It's also very damning and critical of the dropping of the bombs, which is not a commonly held conservative viewpoint with many people viewing the bombs as a "necessary" - an opinion the film resists.
The film isn't resisting necessity of droping the bombs.
It is covering it in artistic way of course, to show Oppenheimer second thoughts and to start debate about the ending.
And that's fine.
You're approach towards this movie is taking much away from it's depth.
The thing about right-wingers is, that they are so desperate for some glimmer of representation in the culture that they will force associate anything with their ideologies to subdue that urge.
Top Gun Mavrick is right-wing, Super Mario is right-wing, Barbie is right-wing, anthing that does well, they try to attach themselves to it, but if it fails, it's woke.
The thing about right-wingers is, that they are so desperate for some glimmer of representation in the culture that they will force associate anything with their ideologies to subdue that urge.
Top Gun Mavrick is right-wing, Super Mario is right-wing, Barbie is right-wing, anthing that does well, they try to attach themselves to it, but if it fails, it's woke.
Agreed. It can go the other way though. Many people surrounded by right-wing atrocities rightfully go out of their way to try to distance themselves from that kind of thinking. And, as a result, people on both ends very coincidentally forget the moments where the film explicitly takes a stance if it helps their own narrative.
I've seen posts on social media being like "I wish the film acknowledged the bomb as a weapon of genocide" from people who are clearly (or ignorantly) unaware that the film has a whole conversation devoted to that. Or the guy replying to me here, saying the film doesn't resist the idea of the bombs being necessary - seemingly clueless of the conversation where Oppenheimer outright tells Teller they unnecessarily bombed a country on its knees. Nolan is clearly calling attention to the bomb as an atrocity while still showing all the angles that allowed such an atrocity to be shaped with potentially noble intentions. That does not invalidate the fact that the film has multiple moments where it almost looks directly into the camera and calls the bomb the worst thing that's ever happened.
An artist can take a clear stance on a topic and still show nuance to said issues. Media literacy is legitimately suffocating, and it sucks.
But no, Nolan's not a conservative and anyone reading his films (especially this film) that way is missing or willfully ignoring some pretty enormous thematic statements.
The thing about right-wingers is, that they are so desperate for some glimmer of representation in the culture that they will force associate anything with their ideologies to subdue that urge.
Top Gun Mavrick is right-wing, Super Mario is right-wing, Barbie is right-wing, anthing that does well, they try to attach themselves to it, but if it fails, it's woke.
Agreed. It can go the other way though. Many people surrounded by right-wing atrocities rightfully go out of their way to try to distance themselves from that kind of thinking. And, as a result, people on both ends very coincidentally forget the moments where the film explicitly takes a stance if it helps their own narrative.
I've seen posts on social media being like "I wish the film acknowledged the bomb as a weapon of genocide" from people who are clearly (or ignorantly) unaware that the film has a whole conversation devoted to that. Or the guy replying to me here, saying the film doesn't resist the idea of the bombs being necessary - seemingly clueless of the conversation where Oppenheimer outright tells Teller they unnecessarily bombed a country on its knees. Nolan is clearly calling attention to the bomb as an atrocity while still showing all the angles that allowed such an atrocity to be shaped with potentially noble intentions. That does not invalidate the fact that the film has multiple moments where it almost looks directly into the camera and calls the bomb the worst thing that's ever happened.
An artist can take a clear stance on a topic and still show nuance to said issues. Media literacy is legitimately suffocating, and it sucks.
But no, Nolan's not a conservative and anyone reading his films (especially this film) that way is missing or willfully ignoring some pretty enormous thematic statements.
Well although the film does include the Oppenheimer/Teller conversation where they briefly mention Blackett's thesis, it also, during the Interim Committee scene (if I remember correctly, since I haven't seen the film in a week and a half), relies on the "bomb or invade" myth that's so prevalent and so disregarded by current historical scholarship. That tends to be used as the typical conservative justification for the use of the bomb, so its inclusion here is probably something conservatives will latch onto without realizing it's a myth.
The thing about right-wingers is, that they are so desperate for some glimmer of representation in the culture that they will force associate anything with their ideologies to subdue that urge.
Top Gun Mavrick is right-wing, Super Mario is right-wing, Barbie is right-wing, anthing that does well, they try to attach themselves to it, but if it fails, it's woke.
Agreed. It can go the other way though. Many people surrounded by right-wing atrocities rightfully go out of their way to try to distance themselves from that kind of thinking. And, as a result, people on both ends very coincidentally forget the moments where the film explicitly takes a stance if it helps their own narrative.
I've seen posts on social media being like "I wish the film acknowledged the bomb as a weapon of genocide" from people who are clearly (or ignorantly) unaware that the film has a whole conversation devoted to that. Or the guy replying to me here, saying the film doesn't resist the idea of the bombs being necessary - seemingly clueless of the conversation where Oppenheimer outright tells Teller they unnecessarily bombed a country on its knees. Nolan is clearly calling attention to the bomb as an atrocity while still showing all the angles that allowed such an atrocity to be shaped with potentially noble intentions. That does not invalidate the fact that the film has multiple moments where it almost looks directly into the camera and calls the bomb the worst thing that's ever happened.
An artist can take a clear stance on a topic and still show nuance to said issues. Media literacy is legitimately suffocating, and it sucks.
But no, Nolan's not a conservative and anyone reading his films (especially this film) that way is missing or willfully ignoring some pretty enormous thematic statements.
Well although the film does include the Oppenheimer/Teller conversation where they briefly mention Blackett's thesis, it also, during the Interim Committee scene (if I remember correctly, since I haven't seen the film in a week and a half), relies on the "bomb or invade" myth that's so prevalent and so disregarded by current historical scholarship. That tends to be used as the typical conservative justification for the use of the bomb, so its inclusion here is probably something conservatives will latch onto without realizing it's a myth.
I agree. But that's my point. People confuse art presenting an oppositional viewpoint as the piece of art "supporting" it - even when the film explicitly supports the other viewpoint and is only showing the oppositional viewpoint to add nuance and to add a better understanding of the angles surrounding an issue. And unlike what poplar is trying to say, a film isn't somehow made worse or less complex because it actively chooses to take a stance. Art can do both. It's always been able to. A movie can present two conflicting ideologies, give nuance behind both perspectives, while also working as a statement from the author to support one over the other.
The film can take the stance that dropping the bomb is bad and unnecessary while also explaining why the scientists made it and why Oppenheimer may have felt pressured by the government to encourage/excuse its use.
The same guy who states they have to "use the bomb or be invaded" is painted as an irreprehensible representation of American nationalistic ignorance when he says they've chosen not to bomb Kyoto because he and his wife vacation there.
