pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
What about you @Clinamenic? What didn't work?
What should version watch next - Tenet ot Oppenheimer?
- Thread starter linebaugh
- Start date
kid charlemagne
Well-known member
i found the score, as well as tenet's score, to be the best of any nolan film. this new guy he is working with is brilliant
pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
I'm bored of the Scandi noir adjacent tone in film and tv. It's exactly the same as what's happened to hiphop. Shits stuck in a dead end cul de sac...
(of shit)
(of shit)
pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
@OnlyVRBabe
2 weeks agoThis film is overrated., Ridden with shoddy slurred dialogue and over reliant on artsy farty cinematography.But it gets far worse.The editing is absolutely diabolical and amateurish .Nolan is best suited directing Science Fiction..His attempts at historical work's are laughable.Nolan is teetering on the brink of being a bum filmmaker about to be found out and exposed (The First two Batman films were great)
Corpsey said he wept with national pride seeing Dunkirk.
kid charlemagne
Well-known member
i welled up a bit during the ending of dunkirk, but with tenet logic, I was already unconciously aware of my future in london even though i hadnt been yet, so my emotions were valid
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
I personally like the subject matter and some of the history and seeing historical figures portrayed by cool character actors and whatnot, but overall it seemed to lack interiority, aside from Robert Downey who I think maybe gave the best performance. Plus Benny Safdie was good too.
So the lack of interiority (i.e. we don't really get into Oppenheimer's head, despite the 3 hour film being being about him), plus a lot of the sequences felt like Nolan shoehorning content into the film which he presumably thinks is important but which just came out a bit contrived (jean tatlock making him read bhagavad gita during sex, the poison apple scene, etc).
Also, the pacing made it feel like one extended trailer for itself, maybe with the exception of the trial scenes at the end. This also I think has to do with the constantly tense score, plus the lack of interiority made it tough for there to be a character arc for Oppenheimer. Its clear in the film that his mind changed regarding the rationale for developing the bomb, and how he handled comms around communist associations, etc, but again the lack of interiority made this development seem one-dimensional to me.
Its definitely a fantastic production, and Cillian Murphy did as well as I think the film could have let him. And its very rare I'm this critical about movies, but I thought this one could have been so much more. Might have been better as a two-part or three-part thing like Dune, not sure.
pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
Contrived is the word.
Nolan is always trying so hard to be clever. Sometimes he hits it, many times he ham fists it.
Nolan is always trying so hard to be clever. Sometimes he hits it, many times he ham fists it.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Yeah and Inception I think is an example which ultimately works, even though he really spells it out for the audience. Plus as usual there are prior inspirations (e.g. Paprika) and source material and whatnot, but overall I thought Inception was clever and well-executed. That and Interstellar are my favorite films of his.
As for which of his I think are the best, I recently just went through all ~1,850 films I've seen on Letterboxd and gave 0-5 stars for each film. For his films, I gave Oppenheimer, Inception, and Interstellar 4 stars each, but in thinking about that I might bump Interstellar and Inception down to 3.5 and keep Oppenheimer at 4, i.e. I'd probably say thats his best film, as flawed as I think it is.
kid charlemagne
Well-known member
concerning interiority, i think a part of the point with the film was how dubious and indecisive oppenheimer was with his own beliefs and handling of all the public prominence that came with his accomplishments. like rdj said, while he had some remorse and wariness in the film, he never once said he regretted the m project. through how he is battered in the court at the end, and the various interactions with people of different military and political paths, he has no real non scientific stances. its like safdie says in the court scene, how he felt oppy was confused with his own beliefs. hes not a character hes a real person, and he made his own arc. i think itd come out quite tedious if it were multiple parts, the fast paced still kept a great focus on the larger theme
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Fair points, and I think if it was intentional to either not let the audience inside his head, or if he simply lacked that sort of emotional interiority to begin with (which is plausible), it kinda makes sense why the emotional trajectory of the film was so dominated by the score, i.e. the film needed some "extrinsic" factors to guide the emotions of the viewers, beyond just the portentousness of the subject matter.
linebaugh
Well-known member
Ya the general sonics of both tenet and oppy are often derided but theyre an essential part of what makes them good. All the overlapping sounds in Oppenheimer was like ASMR in an aircraft hangar
kid charlemagne
Well-known member
the dichotomy of beliefs is best displayed in how he interacts with his science colleagues, who are more skeptical and ambivalent towards their own efforts, and the military and political figures he comes in contact with, who are the opposite. And thats how he acts, the opposite towards both. With the other scientists, he is a leader of thought and organization, he unifies them all to get the most out of their minds to accomplish indeed what they did accomplish, so why does he have regret, remorse, ambivalence still? Does he just enjoy the high status and everything that comes with that, or does he truly believe in what they are doing despite what after effects come with it? I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think he is either, which is again my main dish here. Then of course in all the court scenes, he is "defending his life", and the political and military figures are all portrayed as the stereotypical overbearing demanding giants to the weak boned feeble scientists, exemplified by the scene where matt damon jokingly says he can just have the scientist, who just quit, killed. I think oppy has some guilty conscious from the team he leads and their skepticism that he rubs off onto his political/military overlords who of course shoot him down due to their own rank and power, but hes too infused and in love with his own ego to make anything of that guilty conscious. Oppy plays the both sides bit and never takes a hard enough stance and falls into his own hole he dug.
kid charlemagne
Well-known member
fucking hell thinking and talking about this film make me want to watch it again. love this shit
kid charlemagne
Well-known member
oppenheimer also has 2 tarkovsky references which just thrill me as a tark enthusiast. makes sense linebaugh is in agreement with me on oppy with him partly introducing me to tark
linebaugh
Well-known member
High level genius in this thread stsrting on page 2
Ian Scuffling
Well-known member
I get frustrated talking about Oppenheimer at this point because every time I do I feel like people are projecting onto it very hard. Everyone who dislikes it dislikes it for very different, sometimes even opposite, reasons and their evidence seems to always be so based in their affective response that they often ignore evidence concretely to the contrary of their take. I've heard people say they hated for being too in Oppenheimer's head, which is certainly the worst take I've heard but I think that and the idea that we don't get enough of his interiority are both off the mark. I think it's a masterpiece, but I am generally quiet about this because I have yet to be able to fully articulate why I think so, and this is why I'm more interested in the observations of its nuances by people who loved it, like kc's. What I will say is I'm of a similar mind to him in that I think the film is above all about the tension between cowardice and pride in men who want to be like gods.