this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
19 points (95.2% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

263 readers
1 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I didn’t see much info about it prior to watching, went with some friends. A large part of the movie is about his possible communist affiliations, and his defaming. It wasn’t insanely anti-communist, but it definitely operated under the assumption communism equals bad. Anyone else have some thoughts on it?

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was WAY less anti-communist than I'm used to. I felt like it acknowledged the anti-communist bent of many characters and it distorted Marxism somewhat, but on the whole? I felt like I was watching the same movie liberals were watching, and that's rare. The most anti-communist characters in the movie were political enemies of the protagonist and I feel like the sense of unease they invoked was intentional on the part of the director. It felt like Nolan understood that Franco and the white army were fascists, and that the audience was meant at times to be cheering for people who had held membership in the Communist party. It could have been way worse.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I think communists in the movie were painted fairly favourably, and McCarthyism of the error was less so. I do feel like they intentionally left out Einstein’s socialist preference, but who’s to say

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For such a mainstream epic I thought it was rather critical of US politics around that era. They mentioned that the Truman administration lied about the Japanese never surrending and that the nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were unnecessary to end the war. The red scare isn't painted in a particular good light either, especially where Katherine Oppenheimer is cross-examined and tells them that he simply supported refugees instead of evil communist tyrants and that the insinuation of supporting communists was more of a tool of the ruling elite to control people who didn't parrot the party line.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

It was definitely more critical than I was expecting. Surprising how many on the project dissented to its usage. I guess most had expected to use it against Germany while they were actively fighting. The red scare definitely looked like the needless witch hunt it was. Wartime seems to excuse many deplorable behaviours

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It could have been way worse. Although it feels like their portrayal of Oppenheimer's involvement with the Party consists of...well...coming to house parties, drinking wine, and hitting up women, while more serious stuff was purely mentioned indirectly through dialogue. I feel like they could have balanced more aspects of his life a bit by showing, not just telling (that he sent money to Spain, what he thinks about revolution), his affair with Communist ideas through discussions of theory or ongoing politics.

Overall, it was pretty surface level, but it did highlight how ridiculous the anti-Communist sentiment was at that time (albeit in a slightly weird way), without embracing that sentiment---while the Party was portrayed as seemingly useless (drinking, dining, having sex in a dimly lit bourgeoisie house), the accusations Oppenheimer received seem way more serious than his involvement. I'm sure the audience can feel the injustice and futility at the part where Oppenheimer and Co. tried to fight their way out after the Soviet espionage card was played by the stern men in suit.

Liberal/10, but I nevertheless enjoyed it. 3 hours went past quickly. I feel there was enough wiggle room to form your own opinions on the matter.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I was curious if he was actually more friendly to communism than portrayed or not. It did seem like he was sympathetic to the cause, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he downplayed it after going through all those interrogations.

I don’t know enough about the CPUSA at the time, but I’d imagine they did more than drink and dance. I did like the way they portrayed the hiding of knowledge as problematic, and that sharing discoveries is how innovation really happens, not markets monopolising patents

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think that it's very likely that the other producers or whoever backed the film may have influenced just how prominent the pro communist message could be. Also, at the time you had to be pretty secretive about your affiliations so it felt like part of that was to add to how people might talk about it in potentially mixed company.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand that the film crew has its own bias—it's art, not documentary. I was just giving my 0.02 on what I would do if I were able to modify it.

I was thinking more on the line of a low-key discussion between him and his close friends, not to his suspecting colleagues.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Oh I see, I agree. I think it definitely could have been more exciting; I found the parts where it really focused on his personal life to be really boring and sloppy and that could've really added to it

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Others already mentioned most of the same thoughts I had (accurate for the time, Spanish Civil War) but it was annoying to see the "nuclear bombing of Japan saved lives" thing perpetuated. Not a word of the Soviet front in Manchuria. Was to be expected of a Hollywood movie, but still disappointing.

Silver lining was that the movie through Oppenheimer shows the realization of what absolute horrors the bombings were, and by extent the horror of nuclear war.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

In my perspective, the movie didn't perpetuate the "this is the lesser of two evils" line of thought at all. Yes, that was expressed but with all of the politicians in the room it would be unrealistic for their to be no dialogue of that sort at all. The tone of the scene, to me, felt like it was a poor excuse, and all the while Oppenheimer is convincing himself that that is the only option, like he leaves his guilt behind until after the damage had been done. I didn't leave feeling like he was a hero, or feeling bad for him. It showed him living with the shitty choices that he made that's what he deserved for not being true to his original convictions

[–] SickDuck_ 11 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't say that the movie propagated that communism is bad. In my opinion it displayed how rotten and scared people were in that time. Most were not able to differentiate between a socialist, a communist, a political activist who had interests other than the U.S. . The movie stated something against exploitative government's as far as I remember when Oppenheimer talked to Einstein. I say it is a very good representation of the times back then what you will take from that is yours.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think it operated under the assumption that communism is bad. You can't have a movie about 19th century war/politics without there being politicians demonizing communism, and communists being ambiguous or completely scared at best of openly admitting their affiliations. It's not realistic for a big Hollywood production to come right out with a big banner that says "CAPITALISM EVIL COMMUNISM GOOD" even if Nolan wanted to.

Tbh a lot of criticisms that I've seen online feel like those making them haven't even seen the film. Or they really lack nuance, idk.