Oppenheimer Facts Vs Fiction | Greg Mitchell | TMR

Journalist, author, and documentary filmmaker Greg Mitchell joins the program to break down the facts and fiction of the Christopher Nolan film Oppenheimer. The movie "Oppenheimer," centered around J. Robert Oppenheimer, known as the "father of the atomic bomb," has received praise for its production but also faces criticism for significant omissions. The film delves into Oppenheimer's internal conflict about the weapons of mass destruction he helped create and how officials dismissed his concerns after World War II during the Cold War's rise and arms race. However, critics argue that the movie fails to address the dangers of radiation and the impact on the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, it does not question the necessity of using the bomb, perpetuating the official narrative. The rushed rebranding of Twitter to "X" by Elon Musk is also discussed in contrast to his claim of creating an "everything app." Critics point out that the decision to abandon Twitter's established brand assets, like the blue bird logo, indicates a lack of strategic planning and a disregard for its cultural impact.

#SamSeder #EmmaVigeland #MajorityReport #politics #news #progressive #leftist #democrats #liberal

CHECK OUT MORE from the MR crew:

OTHER LINKS:

[crisppxls]

I enjoyed the movie a lot- not sure about this take though

I think Nolan is too subtle of a filmmaker to show us horror porn of the bombing of Nagasaki / Hiroshima, and it wouldn't make sense in the context of the movie because the movie never cuts away from Oppenheimers perspective (aside from the black and white scenes). I thought showing the psychological effects of him coming to terms with what he played a part in made much more sense from a narrative perspective.

One of my favorite moments is when the bombs are about to leave los Alamos, Oppenheimer asks if he can come to Washington and Groves replies why. And leaves him. They were done with Oppenheimer at that point and he would have no say in what happened next, it was entirely beyond his control at that point and therefore his point of view.

[ratnadipdas]

Personally, I think it would be very tone deaf of Nolan, a Western filmmaker, to have scenes of the Japanese reaction to the bombs. The film is about Oppenheimer's POV, it's foolish I think to say that it's a failing of the director to not incorporate the Japanese POV.


I feel that people like the interviewee are kind of missing the point, showing a filmic depiction of the reality is tantamount, to me, as torture porn.

Why do we have to see Japanese bodies destroyed on film for us to reckon with the horrors of the bombings? That's not the responsibility of the movie. Going to art for politics is a very restrictive viewpoint.

[genlea]

What a really stupid take. This film was about Oppenheimer. If you want the see the Japanese experience you can watch other films or documentaries. It's not as if that is something that's not well known. Oppenheimer took a different take and it should not be attacked just for that.

[billandted]

Let me get this straight.

Chris Nolan directed the single most anti-nuclear bomb film ever made and you guys dedicate a segment to criticizing that it's not anti-nuclear bomb enough.

Ok.

[genlea]

Emma forgot that in the film, Oppenheimer told the President to his face that the land must be returned to the Indians.

[Intrudr]

MJ takes are getting worse each week. Really bad analysis of the film, as many pointed out.

[j.r.b]

Idk why it shocks to hear such misreadings of this film from the majority report. If Nolan had showed the skin melting off Japanese people, there would have certainly been outrage. Instead he showed it through Oppenheimer’s imagination of the event in the gym scene. Also, Strauss is not the boogeyman. He is not the ONLY bad guy. He is one prideful egotistical man in a film full of them, emboldened by greed. The movie is told through the POV of Oppenheimer, and so we may feel sympathetic to him more than others, but the very last thing he says to Kitty reminds us that he, too, is incredibly flawed. Going through the kangaroo court sequences only because he thinks the world might forgive him. I personally can’t imagine watching the movie and not feeling regret over our decision to drop the bomb. I was devastated. Maybe it says more about the people who felt that way walking out than it does of the movie itself.

Also Sam deciding the intentions of the film while prefacing him not having seen it is gold😂

[williamray]

Leftists’ criticisms of Oppenheimer are almost as brain dead as the right’s criticisms of the Barbie movie. Still, I expect better from the majority report.

[KatieCooper-ip]

1) The film is meant to focus on Oppenheimer, his life through a lense of security clearance.
2) They absolutely mention the natives having land taken a few times.
3) By not showing scenes of Hiroshima, Nolan showed the torture through Cillian’s eyes, the other scientist crying with his wife, another throwing up. He used sound and intense closeups to show the horror. You didn’t need to see it. But also that’s why there were moments where he was seeing the people in front of him with skin melting off or turning into dust. Or stepping on a child buried alive. Not omits but a creative way to showcase this.

[tomharris]

Emma said the film wasn't political enough but said the last hour which was focused entirely on politics was the weakest part, lol.

[SamTorontoRealEstate]

The subtilty of the bomb being soundless, while the celebratory feet stomping in the ensuing scene being deafening, does more to drive home the horrors of the bombings than any scenes of Japanese people having their "skins melted off" or vaporizing. Or how about that one single scream spliced in with the jubilant ejaculations of the audience? There is no mistaking what that meant. The issue with viewing art through a primarily political lens, as the right likes to do so often and as Majority Report is guilty of in this case; is that subtility is eroded in the attempt to emphasize a 'point'. What Oppenheimer did was far more effective.

[louisnemzer]

I think one of the biggest messages of the movie is that Oppenheimer *didn't* get to decide whether to drop the bomb. He has the illusion of moral agency, but once he built the bomb, it was in the hands of Truman and the military about what to do with it.

[NightDocs]

This wasn’t a movie about the bomb. This was about the human being J Robert Oppenheimer. Everything shown in the film is almost exclusively from his perspective every historical beat is there to serve the purpose of telling his story.

This guy has good and important points but he misrepresents the omissions in regards to radiation (merely my opinion). The movie doesn’t talk as much about the radiation but they do and an attempt is made to make the point passionately in the film. I also feel like he’s critiquing the film on what he thinks it should have been about and that’s simply not what it was. The omissions are not meant to repaint history. Their inclusion would have distracted from the main story

The film was incredibly true to history (save a few minor things).

Currently reading American Prometheus which is what the movie is made from after I finished Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. They both draw from similar sources and I’ve been really impressed with Nolan’s adaptation being able to keep it true in spirit while also making it a good film in its own right which is an incredibly difficult line to walk.

[faynarawn]

This film was more a study of the man than the event, it was trying to present his story in a non-judgmental way and let audiences draw their own conclusions. That said, I absolutely came out of it with the message of how terrible nuclear warfare is. If you think that wasn't conveyed strongly enough, you may be spoiled by typical Hollywood films that beat you over the head with their message because they assume the audience is stupid. And no mention of indigenous people? I guess you missed the scene where they ask Oppenheimer "what should we do with Los Alamos" and he replies "give it back to the Indians".

[tylerhackner]

Very glad this film is doing as well as it is

[SuperBat]

Is this some illogical hit-piece on Christopher Nolan and his newest masterpiece in order to prop up that corporate, Barbie cash-cow garbage?! I saw both and Oppenheimer was way better. This film was about J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER, NOT THE ATOMIC BOMB! The film is already 3 hours long, showing what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have dragged the pacing and hurt what the film was trying to accomplish.

[mattparker]

Emma saying the film ignores the Natives living on the land just isn’t true. I concede that the film could have benefitted by showing them, but to say they aren’t mentioned at all is misleading.

[mrbriscoe]

The question is not faced because it's resolved.There was absolutely no indication Japan was willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped. Even after the emperor made the decision to surrender after the two bombs were dropped, there was a bloody coup attempt at the emperor's dwelling the day before his radio address.The generals who were the power behind the emperor were terrified of their own junior officers corps, ( who had staged multiple coup attempts and assassinations over the years)who were more fanatical about never surrendering than the generals.The guest's s lack of research and intellectual laziness is astounding.A good book to start with would be Evan Thomas' " The Road to Surrender".

[Etherchannel]

The movie is already 3 hours long. Everything he mentions that were not included in the movie are not relevant to the story. It is a biopic on Oppenheimer.

[loluk]

Sam, I usually love your videos, but you dropped the ball on this one. The film categorically does not erase the magnitude of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, it makes it abundantly clear how horrific and inexcusable those events were. In fact, if you leave the film thinking that it advocates or even remotely condones nuclear weaponry, you clearly weren't paying attention. Maybe you should see the film before critiquing it.