What would you change/fix about Oppenheimer?
Posts: 1439
Joined:
October 2019
Posts: 647
Joined:
November 2019
I resonate a lot with the perspectives you two havephysicshistoryguy wrote: ↑November 17th, 2023, 12:20 amThat's a very valid perspective, which is why I tried to not critique it as art (as much, haha) and focus instead on how it functioned as historical adaptation. Obviously there's still an element of subjectivity to that, given differing opinions on what one thinks is important to dramatize from history, but it's personally something I find interesting.Nicolaslabra wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 6:41 pmthe whole judging a film by what id doesnt do or what its not seems like a deeply futile enterprise for me, i care little about he trinity explosion not looking exactly like the real one, not having the same shape, i do care that it feels tactile and that it will remain tactile in 50 years, instead of being a pretty looking CGI shot that will look dated in 10 years, for the same reason that i dont care that the ships in Dunkirk are not 100% accurate to how the real ones that where there looked, i care that they look real because they are, patina is more important in a live action film for me than pedantic details, particularly so in a film so heavy on texture and the little details as this one, so what would i change ? nothing, i dont really consume art to then ponder about my version of the vision the artist gave me id rather want, at least not mostly and not with auteurs.
to me, the tactile impression I get from the Trinity test feels like I will even appreciate more over time. I just try to see it from their point of view far away. If that makes sense, that is.Posts: 52
Joined:
July 2017
Throughout watching, I was always imagining how amazing it would be if Nolan did a ultra-closeup shot of only the face or parts of the face to see their facial expression (for example that super close-up eye shot in the trailer that we sadly never got to see in the final cut). I think it would have been immensely powerful in certain moments. For example when Oppie was standing around and the soldiers were saying "we'll take it from here", etc, or just other spots. Especially since in his interviews he says he discovered that IMAX is also very powerful in that interpersonal or personal facial intimate-level close-up cinematic shot too. I hope he uses ultra-close ups in his future films. Just imagine something akin to the conversation between Clarise and Hannibal with the ultra-closeups (or even just characters pondering within their own mind and thoughts), but in 70mm IMAX........ !!
What the hell.
To be honest? Really honest?
One hour more.
Black and white universal logo.
Could be good.
Posts: 1230
Joined:
January 2019
I understand why they chose to have Damon, one of the most likeable actor, play Groves, but when I read about Groves, it felt unearned, and I thought someone like Christian Bale, Joaquin Phoenix or Alfred Molina could have been closer to the real Groves, though Damon worked for what Nolan aimed for: a protector for Oppi and a bit of comedy.
Also, I feel they could have mentioned in addition to the Fuchs scandal, the death penalty for the Rosenberg. Just a sentence by RDJ when he talks about how Chevalier had to go in exile, and Frank was outcast from university would be enough: it would heighten the stakes and play into the anger the audience develops seeing the justice system at play in the third act. This is still the most tragic/violent thing that came from the McCarthy era in relation to Los Alamos security.
Also, I feel they could have mentioned in addition to the Fuchs scandal, the death penalty for the Rosenberg. Just a sentence by RDJ when he talks about how Chevalier had to go in exile, and Frank was outcast from university would be enough: it would heighten the stakes and play into the anger the audience develops seeing the justice system at play in the third act. This is still the most tragic/violent thing that came from the McCarthy era in relation to Los Alamos security.
Posts: 285
Joined:
April 2023
Personally, and this is my opinion, but the Rosenbergs feel pretty tangential to Oppenheimer’s story, and compared to some other events from around the same time (like Oppenheimer flip-flopping on the H-bomb, Project Vista, his battles with the Air Force, or how he was at one point a perpetrator of McCarthyism giving names of his students as Communist Party members), they don’t feel as necessary to tell Oppenheimer’s story, so they’re pretty far down my own list of things I would’ve wanted to see in the film. And dropping their execution into the middle of Oppenheimer’s story in the way you suggest feels like it would inaccurately raise the stakes for Oppenheimer, since there was no danger in him being executed after his hearings; the worst thing that could’ve happened to him - a loss of his security clearance and a self-imposed exile - is what did happen (as an analogy, it would be like bringing up Giordano Bruno when talking about the Galileo affair to inaccurately raise the stakes in that trial). Plus, it’d be very difficult to portray all the complexities of the Rosenbergs’ trial in a single sentence (more reason to make a nine hour film about the whole saga!Demoph wrote: ↑November 19th, 2023, 9:14 pmI understand why they chose to have Damon, one of the most likeable actor, play Groves, but when I read about Groves, it felt unearned, and I thought someone like Christian Bale, Joaquin Phoenix or Alfred Molina could have been closer to the real Groves, though Damon worked for what Nolan aimed for: a protector for Oppi and a bit of comedy.
Also, I feel they could have mentioned in addition to the Fuchs scandal, the death penalty for the Rosenberg. Just a sentence by RDJ when he talks about how Chevalier had to go in exile, and Frank was outcast from university would be enough: it would heighten the stakes and play into the anger the audience develops seeing the justice system at play in the third act. This is still the most tragic/violent thing that came from the McCarthy era in relation to Los Alamos security.
).Posts: 23
Joined:
July 2012
This is a minor issue, but the Lawerence character is established in the opening 3rd of the film as keenly aware and proactive re: The issue of anyone having Communist associations while being involved with the Manhattan project -- Highlighted by the great scene between Lawerence and Oppenheimer.
Cut ahead to the middle 3rd of the film in Los Alamos, and Lawerence appoints known Communist Lomanitz as his liaison. It's an obvious character contradiction.
Cut ahead to the middle 3rd of the film in Los Alamos, and Lawerence appoints known Communist Lomanitz as his liaison. It's an obvious character contradiction.
