#especially with the timing of the oppenheimer movie and current world events

[wokeuplaughing]

just beginning to settle for me how reflective of our culture it is that the current biggest meme online is the fact that barbie and oppenheimer coincidentally come out on the same day. barbie is a multi million dollar plot by matel both to sell more products and to increase media engagement since that's where the future is for advertising their products and oppenheimer is a dramatization of the only time nukes were ever used in war that targeted two civilian cities and killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people from the perspective of the man who developed it and viewed it as a necessary evil to end a war that was basically already over. girlbosses and bombs! isn't everyone having fun

[maybuds]

Believe me I’m no fan of late-stage capitalism, but I do feel like that last anon is in a particularly doom-laden mood with regards to creative works right now?! Yes of course the big studios and streaming services have a stultifying effect. But step even a tiny bit outside the mainstream big-budget stuff and there are amazing films being made. Not to mention that non-English language independent films are exciting and interesting and able to reach a bigger audience than ever before, thanks to the internet. Additionally, the sweeping statement that “the music isn’t even that good” just seems…unjustified? There’s loads of amazing music out there right now, even on the most mainstream labels. And you have the opportunity to fund a massive range of creators directly via Bandcamp and Patreon! But beyond that, what about all the people who don’t go to gigs just to take insta-content? What about all the people who go to watch tiny local rock bands play in the pub? Or folk bands play in a barn? Or world music played at a night event in a museum? If you spend a lot of time looking at instagram and TikTok, of course you’ll see the shiny people who only go to activities in order to film themselves there. But there are so many people who don’t do that, who listen and watch and pay attention in the moment. Who close their eyes against tears because they’re finally seeing the band they loved when they were 13, and weren’t allowed to go. Who use VPN to hunt down obscure Hong Kong movies from the 90s. Who go to themed film festivals at their local independent cinema. Yes it’s annoying that the Western mainstream is largely so shallow, but there are so many ways to access more interesting art these days…I just feel like a completely negative view is misguided and misleading. I hope the other anon can find joy in turning their attention away from the most dominant (and chronically online) Western pop culture in favour of things they value and love.

i love those descriptions, and they give me a lot of hope; they’re actually a much needed reminder about what meaningful engagement with creative works out there can still do if we just look for it. but at the same time, i also understand where the other anon is coming from, because there really is something to be said about the state of creative media production these days in general and especially the media engagement that currently happens a lot on social media. so that even if it wasn’t the barbie or oppenheimer movie but, say, some other foreign independent arthouse film from the late ’90s, or of one of the local rock bands, the way people ‘aestheticize’ it and flatten it out on social media is … frustrating to say the least. and the fact that this is one of the surest ways to really get more people to listen or watch is just so bleak to look at right now when you want to share your art to people. in a sense, it’s difficult for those who want to create meaningful art and live off of it, when all you get is this celebrity-obsessed culture. it’s like the way you can earn sufficiently from it is if you made ‘creative content’ that’s as consumable and as palatable to profitability as possible, plus you have to have your ‘identity’ (branding) down too. and even if you decided to exit the mainstream and wanted to go independent, you will still need income anyway. art is not separable from the material world, no matter how abstract it is. the way so many creative minds and energies are being ruined right now by branding and market logic is just a grim reality we’re being faced with more and more, even outside the west. and we get this excess of shallow media, and it’s what’s everywhere right now, and it’s melting all our brains, no matter if we still engage with meaningful art whenever we can.

still!!! i do have to thank you for a very hopeful message re: creative work and genuine engagement to works of art. despite everything genuinely loving art really is what it’s all about! just have to keep looking for more hehe

[harrison-abbott]

A Short Review of Oppenheimer (2023)

Why would you want to make a film about Richard Nixon?

Oliver Stone did that in 1995, with Anthony Hopkins starring as Nixon. Hopkins’ portrayal of the President is one of a chronically paranoid, insecure man who is in charge with heavily charged international matters. He barely seems to comprehend what he’s doing.

And surrounding him are the other characters of 1950s/60s America who were key to geopolitics at the time. They’re also played by terrific actors; such as Paul Sorvino, Ed Harris, James Woods, Joan Allen and Bob Hoskins, among others. They play the parts very well. Especially with Paul Sorvino as Henry Kissinger – who was a great geopolitical villain and pantomime-like character in real life.

There was no need for Oliver Stone to glamorise the plot in Nixon (1995) because the events occurred in reality. But, what Stone did need to do was make the story a piece of art. As opposed to a documentary.

Well, for one thing, it had to be long. So it finally churned out around three hours in length. In order for it not to be tedious, Stone spliced up the time periods. It couldn’t be a long, linear epic – so he mixed up what happened into short, frenzied scenes with bursts of action. Often using black and white for historical parts and colour for modern; and yet, with present-day scenes featuring Nixon as an older, finished, defeated man.

This mix of content is dense and spanning. But it never gets dull. And it is essentially the portrait of one man. The movie is asking questions about this single person, against a background of mayhem of which he is directly integrated.

I thought the exact same way about Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer (2023): and have rarely seen a pair of films which I found quite so alike.

We have a brilliant lead actor in Cillian Murphy. Who is constantly fraught and uncertain with his plans, which have worldwide consequences. And all around him are these other people who are equally as compulsive in their disastrous ambitions. [And they’re also played by a star studded cast, of Robert Downey Jr, Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Kenneth Branagh, Gary Oldman, etc etc.)

The movie lasts 3 hours. It switches throughout its tenure with an array of time periods and the scenes are short and alarming and the tension never quite ceases. Many of the scenes are shot in different tonalities and this adds to the overall sense of nightmarish delusion.

Why would anybody want to make a blockbuster film about the men (or man) who invented the atomic bomb? If we were to watch Grave of the Fireflies (1988) would that not be enough to make up one’s moral notion of what happened?

What I believe Oppenheimer has triumphed with in being a blockbuster is by making entertainment ambiguous. Which is difficult to do in a mass sense: make a popular movie questionable. There is no doubt that it’s a great film. Many ‘big’ movies come out each year which are only intended for gluttony or indulgence.

However. And, just as a parting thought: is Oppenheimer as disturbing as Grave of the Fireflies? Or Nixon, for that matter?

Of course it’s important to inform people about the past. Just as it is with current affairs.

There are films like Downfall (2004) and lofty television shows like Band of Brothers (2001) which are both historical accounts, and yet have completely different attitudes or modes of expression. Both were about World War II, yes, but, they show very alternative depictions of the conflict.

In Nixon, about 90 minutes into the flick, there is a terrific moment of cinema. Whereby we’re introduced to Nixon’s 1968 inauguration speech – and we see Anthony Hopkins by his podium: just as he’s about to start speaking. But the camera is below the podium. And we can only see his edgy, distressed face. He does not look like a man who is happy at just winning the Presidency of the United States. It’s a fantastic feat, sure. Except he’s in total terror about what to do with his position, or where it will lead.

The camera then spans up and the light and colour changes and Hopkins then smiles and waves to the crowd and the folks applaud and cheer for him.

Quite similar (if you agree?) to the scene in Oppenheimer where he making a speech to the filled auditorium just after the bombs have been dropped in Japan; and he inwardly imagines the explosions going off in his very vicinity, and what they would do to the bodies in the audience.

[denimbex1986]

'Christopher Nolan will be honored by the Federation of American Scientists for his cinematic portrait of J. Robert Oppenheimer in Universal’s Oppenheimer this November. The five-time Oscar nominee will be bestowed with the org’s Public Service Award which recognizes outstanding work in science policy and culture.

The awards ceremony, which will take place in Washington D.C next month, revives a decades-long tradition that began in 1971, which honors the contributions of a diverse group of scientists, policymakers, and tastemakers in pursuit of advancements in science and technology.

“Nolan’s film depicts the scientists who formed FAS in the fall of 1945 as the ‘Federation of Atomic Scientists’ to communicate the dangers of nuclear weapons to the public. We continue to pursue their vision of a safer world, especially as current events remind us that those dangers are real and resurgent,” FAS CEO Daniel Correa said.

Nolan tells Deadline, “I am especially honoured to be recognized by the Federation of American Scientists, a body formed to give scientists a voice in policy making during the very period we attempt to portray in Oppenheimer.”...

Oppenheimer is the third highest grossing movie of 2023 to date at $939.1M worldwide, an unprecedented achievement for a three-hour feature drama movie, in particular one that opened on the same weekend with the year’s highest grossing movie, Barbie, which counts $1.43 billion global.'