Oppenheimer - thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:gratuitous sex scenes and nudity? that's all im hearing

Very unnecessary to have those in the movie. It was too much.

I disagree entirely. First, after reading all the commentary about the sex scenes, I thought we were going to have some sort of protracted headboard banging display of athleticism, when in reality the scenes were relatively brief and tasteful as such things go. Second, I think it *was* essential to the plot because otherwise that aspect of Oppenheimer would be too easily glossed over. (Can you trust him with the bomb? Maybe, but don’t trust him around your wife—that’s an interesting tension fundamental to the movie. Needs to be a little in your face to make the point.)

Really, the objection to the sex and nudity asserted by many boils down to a (tired and superficial) feminist critique that a movie about brilliant and accomplished men that also shows a woman’s bare breasts is inherently problematic due to that juxtaposition. Yawn, ok schoolmarm.

[Anonymous]

No offence to Cillian Murphy, but what did all those women see in the real Oppenheimer? He didn’t exactly meet the early 1900s standard for male hotness.

According to the authors of the book this movie was adapted from, at one point he had 6 different lovers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No offence to Cillian Murphy, but what did all those women see in the real Oppenheimer? He didn’t exactly meet the early 1900s standard for male hotness.

According to the authors of the book this movie was adapted from, at one point he had 6 different lovers!

Because maybe he was smart AF with swagger. He hung out in high end circles, not lowlifes who'd be the 1940s versions of Tiktokers and lower class people. He was known for being very Feynman like and was a fantastic speaker who was able to captivate audiences whenever he spoke. Not only was he a brilliant physicist, he could speak multiple languages and studied humanities. He was an other worldly mind who not only knew stem, but could quote you insane excerpts from Sanskrit. He had an aura.

[Anonymous]

Instead of showing them having sex, they should have focused on the FBI agent in the next apartment listening in on them (illegally) as they were having sex. Maybe even show him masturbating to the sounds he was taping. None of the scientists at Los Alamos had any privacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No offence to Cillian Murphy, but what did all those women see in the real Oppenheimer? He didn’t exactly meet the early 1900s standard for male hotness.

According to the authors of the book this movie was adapted from, at one point he had 6 different lovers!

Because maybe he was smart AF with swagger. He hung out in high end circles, not lowlifes who'd be the 1940s versions of Tiktokers and lower class people. He was known for being very Feynman like and was a fantastic speaker who was able to captivate audiences whenever he spoke. Not only was he a brilliant physicist, he could speak multiple languages and studied humanities. He was an other worldly mind who not only knew stem, but could quote you insane excerpts from Sanskrit. He had an aura.

Maybe the Feynman comparison is apt:

'The usual place we went was a topless bar in Pasadena, called Gianone's. There was always something happening at Gianone's in the afternoon, every day of the week. We'd walk in, grab a table. Feynman knew everybody there—all the ladies; Gianone, the owner; and anybody who was a regular.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I and our 14 year old dd loved it. The nude/sex scenes were fairly brief moments. I think our dd survived.

It is strange how so many parents are okay with their teens watching violence on film but can't tolerate brief sex and nudity.

It's American - we enjoy violent movies but are prudish about naked bodies. All the posters lamenting this, that's what's strange. If you prefer it to be the other way around, there are other cultures like that. Not this one.

You’re describing ‘Merica. The rest of us are ok with some boobs.

I like some good ol’ T&A as much as the next man, but even I thought it was a bit gratuitous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

What do you think of the choosing not to show the many women scientists who also worked on the project? This is one of the reasons I refuse to see it.

Penny wise, pound foolish. You missed a superb movie.

I value the truth and I don't like to see women's accomplishments ignored.

Omg, shut up.

Their roles were absolutely, 10000000% minor compared to Oppenheimer, Teller, Fermi, Lawrence, and the other big names covered in the film. There were thousands of people involved, but the movie cannot cover every minor contribution to the project from 2ndary and tertiary teams and individuals.

The movie is OPPENHEIMER. It is a biopic about one man who was the director of the entire project. It doesn't have time to cover contributions of some bench scientists or other lowly scientists in the trenches. In fact, 85% of the movie isn't even really about the Manhattan Project, it is about the rest of his life after the war and the govt came after him to destroy his reputation.

Way to miss the forest for the trees.[/quote]

https://www.pitt.edu/pittwire/features-articles/oppenheimer-female-physicist-representation-film *I refuse to see this movie and you can keep you forest and your trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:gratuitous sex scenes and nudity? that's all im hearing

Very unnecessary to have those in the movie. It was too much.

I disagree entirely. First, after reading all the commentary about the sex scenes, I thought we were going to have some sort of protracted headboard banging display of athleticism, when in reality the scenes were relatively brief and tasteful as such things go. Second, I think it *was* essential to the plot because otherwise that aspect of Oppenheimer would be too easily glossed over. (Can you trust him with the bomb? Maybe, but don’t trust him around your wife—that’s an interesting tension fundamental to the movie. Needs to be a little in your face to make the point.)

Really, the objection to the sex and nudity asserted by many boils down to a (tired and superficial) feminist critique that a movie about brilliant and accomplished men that also shows a woman’s bare breasts is inherently problematic due to that juxtaposition. Yawn, ok schoolmarm.

Yeah, no.
Yes the movie was about highly intelligent men so it makes it even sadder that one of the few female roles was focused on her body, not her mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

What do you think of the choosing not to show the many women scientists who also worked on the project? This is one of the reasons I refuse to see it.

Penny wise, pound foolish. You missed a superb movie.

I value the truth and I don't like to see women's accomplishments ignored.

Omg, shut up.

Their roles were absolutely, 10000000% minor compared to Oppenheimer, Teller, Fermi, Lawrence, and the other big names covered in the film. There were thousands of people involved, but the movie cannot cover every minor contribution to the project from 2ndary and tertiary teams and individuals.

The movie is OPPENHEIMER. It is a biopic about one man who was the director of the entire project. It doesn't have time to cover contributions of some bench scientists or other lowly scientists in the trenches. In fact, 85% of the movie isn't even really about the Manhattan Project, it is about the rest of his life after the war and the govt came after him to destroy his reputation.

Way to miss the forest for the trees.[/quote]

https://www.pitt.edu/pittwire/features-articles/oppenheimer-female-physicist-representation-film *I refuse to see this movie and you can keep you forest and your trees.

It's about Oppenheimer, idiot. Meitner's contributions to the bomb were minor. The bomb would not explode without an explosive lens, and she wasn't even directly part of the Manhattan project. Oppenheimer was the director of the entire project. No one cares about the 1000s of other minor scientists that contributed.

That's like whining about the fact that a biopic about Patton only covers the life of Patton and none of the infantrymen during WW2. Stupid.

Again, 85% of the movie wasn't even about the Manhattan Project, but about what the govt did to him after the war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:gratuitous sex scenes and nudity? that's all im hearing

Very unnecessary to have those in the movie. It was too much.

I disagree entirely. First, after reading all the commentary about the sex scenes, I thought we were going to have some sort of protracted headboard banging display of athleticism, when in reality the scenes were relatively brief and tasteful as such things go. Second, I think it *was* essential to the plot because otherwise that aspect of Oppenheimer would be too easily glossed over. (Can you trust him with the bomb? Maybe, but don’t trust him around your wife—that’s an interesting tension fundamental to the movie. Needs to be a little in your face to make the point.)

Really, the objection to the sex and nudity asserted by many boils down to a (tired and superficial) feminist critique that a movie about brilliant and accomplished men that also shows a woman’s bare breasts is inherently problematic due to that juxtaposition. Yawn, ok schoolmarm.

Wow, are you tiresome.
NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:gratuitous sex scenes and nudity? that's all im hearing

Very unnecessary to have those in the movie. It was too much.

I disagree entirely. First, after reading all the commentary about the sex scenes, I thought we were going to have some sort of protracted headboard banging display of athleticism, when in reality the scenes were relatively brief and tasteful as such things go. Second, I think it *was* essential to the plot because otherwise that aspect of Oppenheimer would be too easily glossed over. (Can you trust him with the bomb? Maybe, but don’t trust him around your wife—that’s an interesting tension fundamental to the movie. Needs to be a little in your face to make the point.)

Really, the objection to the sex and nudity asserted by many boils down to a (tired and superficial) feminist critique that a movie about brilliant and accomplished men that also shows a woman’s bare breasts is inherently problematic due to that juxtaposition. Yawn, ok schoolmarm.

+1

[Anonymous]

The movie covered a lot of ground and was very well done. I’d be shocked if RD Jr doesn’t win an Oscar for this and probably others as well - perhaps even Best Film. I agree with the PP who said the nudity was symbolism for how one might feel in a clearance hearing.

I personally would love to see a second movie about Strauss and his complexities. Played by RD Jr of course.

I wish they had included impact on the Native Americans who lived close to Los Alamos.

[Anonymous]

I finally saw it today when all movies were four dollars. My theater was almost full. I agree that it was mostly very well done, but I found that initially all the time jumping was confusing.

And when finally a woman is in a scene a ways into the movie, five minutes later there are her breasts on display. I found the way they did that disrespect and gratuitous, given how 95% of the movie is devoted to men.

And that last hour. Why? I would have condensed those hearings scenes waaaaay down.

I just keep thinking what if someday we could harness all that kind of genius and find a way to build lasting peace in the world?

[Anonymous]

Trivia question for everyone. How many scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project won the Nobel Prize? No cheating. No Googling.

[Anonymous]

Finally watched it today, $4 IMAX 70mm. I was riveted but my 16 yo DS was a little more critical. He still enjoyed it and we had some great conversation on the way home.