I didn't like this movie, and that does not mean it was a bad movie, it was great, very well done I didn't like it because I really wanted to see a different movie about Oppenheimer. Two books that cover this period 'The White Pill' and 'Stalin's War' have really put me off post WW2 hagiographies. A movie that covers this time period, after 80 years that does not address the criminal double standard that was applied to Right wing and Left Wing authoritarianism is almost anachronistic. Funny enough, the only ones that covered this point in the movie were Oppenheimer's interrogators. As much as we can understand the unfairness he endured, this is a fair point to make: 'When did you adopt a conscience about the weapons you were making?'
I think that was a fair question in the very narrow scope of determining if a person should be eligible for handling our nation's secrets.
This was not someone who merely had some idealistic beliefs about Communism, and workers rights, he was also someone whose associates had deliberately hid and excused the truths about a looming tyranny that could easily have engulphed much more of the world than it had. A few of these also delivered those secrets to the USSR. He may not have had any criminal guilt, but as a leader, he did bear significant responsibility.
To me, the real hero was Kissinger, who remained clear-headed enough to became one of the most potent fighters against Communist authoritarianism, and was vilified for it (and let's be honest, other things) for most of his life. The ideas he pushed, from Mutually Assured Destruction to The approach to China, were ultimately the most effective tools that brought down Communism (as we know it).
I understand what you mean about wanting to see a different movie but I think too much of the criticism over this film falls into that category. The most popular version being that the film doesn't feature the victims. Of course, another film about Oppenheimer could do that but not every film about the bomb needs to do so, not even every film that hopes to send a message about the horrors of the bomb needs to depict the victims. This is what I call the Bud Light fallacy because Bud Light is actually one of the finest beers ever made. But it excels within its specific subgenre of beer. It's a light American lager. People drink it, judge it against the standards of an IPA or European amber lager and conclude that it's not very good. True, Bud Light is a terrible European amber lager. But it's one of the best light American lagers in the world. You wouldn't come out of The Exorcist saying, "that's was the worst comedy I've ever seen!" Point being, Oppenheimer is a particular type of movie and a fantastic example of that type. Many of the people who are unhappy with it actually just wanted to see another type of movie. They wanted a Negra Modelo and they got a Bud Light. You're the first person I've seen make that criticism and be up front about the fact rather than judge the movie unfairly as a result.
It's more than just "pragmatic cherry-picking". Dogma is, above all, a failure of imagination: the inability or unwillingness to imagine situations to which one's dogma is inapplicable, to imagine how someone else might see things differently, to imagine an outcome that addresses their concerns as well as one's own.
Oppenheimer was a man of great imagination. It is tragic but unsurprising that he was persecuted by people with less.
I didn't like this movie, and that does not mean it was a bad movie, it was great, very well done I didn't like it because I really wanted to see a different movie about Oppenheimer. Two books that cover this period 'The White Pill' and 'Stalin's War' have really put me off post WW2 hagiographies. A movie that covers this time period, after 80 years that does not address the criminal double standard that was applied to Right wing and Left Wing authoritarianism is almost anachronistic. Funny enough, the only ones that covered this point in the movie were Oppenheimer's interrogators. As much as we can understand the unfairness he endured, this is a fair point to make: 'When did you adopt a conscience about the weapons you were making?'
I think that was a fair question in the very narrow scope of determining if a person should be eligible for handling our nation's secrets.
This was not someone who merely had some idealistic beliefs about Communism, and workers rights, he was also someone whose associates had deliberately hid and excused the truths about a looming tyranny that could easily have engulphed much more of the world than it had. A few of these also delivered those secrets to the USSR. He may not have had any criminal guilt, but as a leader, he did bear significant responsibility.
To me, the real hero was Kissinger, who remained clear-headed enough to became one of the most potent fighters against Communist authoritarianism, and was vilified for it (and let's be honest, other things) for most of his life. The ideas he pushed, from Mutually Assured Destruction to The approach to China, were ultimately the most effective tools that brought down Communism (as we know it).
I understand what you mean about wanting to see a different movie but I think too much of the criticism over this film falls into that category. The most popular version being that the film doesn't feature the victims. Of course, another film about Oppenheimer could do that but not every film about the bomb needs to do so, not even every film that hopes to send a message about the horrors of the bomb needs to depict the victims. This is what I call the Bud Light fallacy because Bud Light is actually one of the finest beers ever made. But it excels within its specific subgenre of beer. It's a light American lager. People drink it, judge it against the standards of an IPA or European amber lager and conclude that it's not very good. True, Bud Light is a terrible European amber lager. But it's one of the best light American lagers in the world. You wouldn't come out of The Exorcist saying, "that's was the worst comedy I've ever seen!" Point being, Oppenheimer is a particular type of movie and a fantastic example of that type. Many of the people who are unhappy with it actually just wanted to see another type of movie. They wanted a Negra Modelo and they got a Bud Light. You're the first person I've seen make that criticism and be up front about the fact rather than judge the movie unfairly as a result.
It's more than just "pragmatic cherry-picking". Dogma is, above all, a failure of imagination: the inability or unwillingness to imagine situations to which one's dogma is inapplicable, to imagine how someone else might see things differently, to imagine an outcome that addresses their concerns as well as one's own.
Oppenheimer was a man of great imagination. It is tragic but unsurprising that he was persecuted by people with less.
Very well said. What dogmatic types hate even more than their ideological opponents are nuanced types who confound the war they're trying to wage.