Bacon wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2023, 4:15 pmI 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.physicshistoryguy wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2023, 4:04 pmBacon wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2023, 3:26 pm
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.
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.
Does 'Oppenheimer' finally tell us that Nolan isn't a Tory?
Posts: 285
Joined:
April 2023
Posts: 28
Joined:
February 2023
Just wanted to point out this one exchange from the film. Not sure how it plays into everything else that's being discussed here.
But there's a moment after they're looking at images from Hiroshima/Nagasaki post-bombing (the one where Oppenheimer looks away). Outside, he tells Teller that he just learned from Stimson that they "bombed an enemy that was essentially defeated". I remember this exchange further complicating the motivations behind dropping the bomb.
Can anyone point out the purpose of the inclusion of this moment in the movie? And how it ties into real history, i.e. the bomb/invade discussion.
But there's a moment after they're looking at images from Hiroshima/Nagasaki post-bombing (the one where Oppenheimer looks away). Outside, he tells Teller that he just learned from Stimson that they "bombed an enemy that was essentially defeated". I remember this exchange further complicating the motivations behind dropping the bomb.
Can anyone point out the purpose of the inclusion of this moment in the movie? And how it ties into real history, i.e. the bomb/invade discussion.
Posts: 285
Joined:
April 2023
Well it is true that after the war (and very quickly too, within months of the atomic bombings), Oppenheimer began to feel, and say publicly, that the atomic bombs were used against an already defeated enemy (and didn't criticize books that were critical of the decision to use the bomb or ascribed it to more complicated motivations, even if Oppenheimer himself advocated using the bomb during the war and didn't explicitly express regret over it later). On this, Bird and Sherwin say that "after the war [Oppenheimer] came to believe that he had been misled, and that this knowledge served as a constant reminder that it was henceforth his obligation to be skeptical of what he was told by government officials." Now, I don't think we know how or when Oppenheimer came to this conclusion; I'm not sure he got it from Stimson (although they met at least once after the war), and I don't know if Stimson ever explicitly put it this way.viggykich wrote: ↑August 4th, 2023, 1:11 amJust wanted to point out this one exchange from the film. Not sure how it plays into everything else that's being discussed here.
But there's a moment after they're looking at images from Hiroshima/Nagasaki post-bombing (the one where Oppenheimer looks away). Outside, he tells Teller that he just learned from Stimson that they "bombed an enemy that was essentially defeated". I remember this exchange further complicating the motivations behind dropping the bomb.
Can anyone point out the purpose of the inclusion of this moment in the movie? And how it ties into real history, i.e. the bomb/invade discussion.
As for how it ties into the bomb/invade discussion, I should first clarify that the idea that American officials framed the end of the war in terms of a binary choice between using the atomic bomb or invading is a post-war myth (in fact, you can date its origin to a magazine article from February 1947 ghostwritten by McGeorge Bundy for Stimson to justify the atomic bombs in the wake of criticism of their use). From what I understand, the general idea was that the Allies were throwing everything they had at Japan - firebombing, a blockade, the atomic bombs, the Soviets, the invasion - and if one or more of these ended the war, then good, but nobody could be sure that the war would be over without an invasion. As Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear historian, has put it, the way it was framed wasn't "bomb or invade" but rather "to bomb and to invade, and to have the Soviet invade, and to blockade, and so on." Now how does this factor into the fact that Japan was essentially defeated (as they arguably were)? Well defeat is not the same as surrender. Although there was a faction in the Japanese government trying to see if there was an option to end the war through the Soviet Union without surrendering unconditionally (as the Truman administration was well aware, having intercepted these communications), the dominant military faction was resolutely opposed to surrender. It can be argued, however, that Japan would have surrendered around the same time due to other factors - primarily the Soviet invasion of Manchuria - and it's still a matter of debate among historians whether the Soviet invasion was more important than the atomic bombings in leading to Japan's surrender (at the very least, the Soviet invasion was just as important).
Posts: 28
Joined:
February 2023
Very very interesting. Thank you!physicshistoryguy wrote: ↑August 4th, 2023, 12:42 pmWell it is true that after the war (and very quickly too, within months of the atomic bombings), Oppenheimer began to feel, and say publicly, that the atomic bombs were used against an already defeated enemy (and didn't criticize books that were critical of the decision to use the bomb or ascribed it to more complicated motivations, even if Oppenheimer himself advocated using the bomb during the war and didn't explicitly express regret over it later). On this, Bird and Sherwin say that "after the war [Oppenheimer] came to believe that he had been misled, and that this knowledge served as a constant reminder that it was henceforth his obligation to be skeptical of what he was told by government officials." Now, I don't think we know how or when Oppenheimer came to this conclusion; I'm not sure he got it from Stimson (although they met at least once after the war), and I don't know if Stimson ever explicitly put it this way.viggykich wrote: ↑August 4th, 2023, 1:11 amJust wanted to point out this one exchange from the film. Not sure how it plays into everything else that's being discussed here.
But there's a moment after they're looking at images from Hiroshima/Nagasaki post-bombing (the one where Oppenheimer looks away). Outside, he tells Teller that he just learned from Stimson that they "bombed an enemy that was essentially defeated". I remember this exchange further complicating the motivations behind dropping the bomb.
Can anyone point out the purpose of the inclusion of this moment in the movie? And how it ties into real history, i.e. the bomb/invade discussion.
As for how it ties into the bomb/invade discussion, I should first clarify that the idea that American officials framed the end of the war in terms of a binary choice between using the atomic bomb or invading is a post-war myth (in fact, you can date its origin to a magazine article from February 1947 ghostwritten by McGeorge Bundy for Stimson to justify the atomic bombs in the wake of criticism of their use). From what I understand, the general idea was that the Allies were throwing everything they had at Japan - firebombing, a blockade, the atomic bombs, the Soviets, the invasion - and if one or more of these ended the war, then good, but nobody could be sure that the war would be over without an invasion. As Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear historian, has put it, the way it was framed wasn't "bomb or invade" but rather "to bomb and to invade, and to have the Soviet invade, and to blockade, and so on." Now how does this factor into the fact that Japan was essentially defeated (as they arguably were)? Well defeat is not the same as surrender. Although there was a faction in the Japanese government trying to see if there was an option to end the war through the Soviet Union without surrendering unconditionally (as the Truman administration was well aware, having intercepted these communications), the dominant military faction was resolutely opposed to surrender. It can be argued, however, that Japan would have surrendered around the same time due to other factors - primarily the Soviet invasion of Manchuria - and it's still a matter of debate among historians whether the Soviet invasion was more important than the atomic bombings in leading to Japan's surrender (at the very least, the Soviet invasion was just as important).
If, if, if Nolan was a right-winger... so what?
... wait so this is not a meme, people actually ever thought Nolan was conservative ? wow.
By Hollywood standards, yes... Especially after TDK, TDKR, Dunkirk and TENET (the controversy of non-postponement). Where I live most leftwing people don't like him very much. The people further to the rightwing are always praising his work. Believe me. Here everything is politicized now.Nicolaslabra wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 4:45 pm... wait so this is not a meme, people actually ever thought Nolan was conservative ? wow.
the fuck is this thread
Posts: 255
Joined:
August 2020
It’s funny because I feel TDK and TDKR are pretty apolitical films and if you can say TDKR is right wing for using the 99% rally as a way to construct your villains, you can do the same for movies like Spider Man: Homecoming or Black PantherLeoCobb wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 10:54 pmBy Hollywood standards, yes... Especially after TDK, TDKR, Dunkirk and TENET (the controversy of non-postponement). Where I live most leftwing people don't like him very much. The people further to the rightwing are always praising his work. Believe me. Here everything is politicized now.Nicolaslabra wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 4:45 pm... wait so this is not a meme, people actually ever thought Nolan was conservative ? wow.
I’d say Dunkirk isn’t afraid to show that Churchill was completely okay with every soldier on that island dying because he needed to save their resources for the next battle. Nolan’s decision to never show any war leader or politician but to focus on the soldiers shows his empathy and interest for the little guy over the leaders.
I think Nolan tends to go for more of a nuanced read in his stories rather than preaching an agenda. And regardless, his movies often are about obsessive and overly ambitious men who go through great lengths with their missions at the cost of others around them which is hardly a right wing thought.
