BreakBeatDJ

Bingo Grid 2 24 35 46 17 08 19 30 41 12 23 34 45 33 05 37 04

Grid #1 22 48 05 12 16 30 28 44 35 11 03 37 07 21 50 46

Yeah, there was definitely science in it, for sure, but it was only tangental part of the arc of developing the bomb. He explains early thoughts on black holes, and also some other concepts, but they were not connected in the narrative to the bomb. When we see the explosion, we have no real idea of how they made that happen. I agree, Interstellar really took a deep dive in to some very complicated concepts. Great point. Yeah, I think you're right, but more than that, I just don't think Nolan wanted to make that movie. He made the movie he wanted to make. He wasn't interested in the craft and process of scientific discovery (and so spent little time on it), he was interested in exploring the consequences of scientific discovery on the people who make them, from a character stand point. At least that is what is on the screen.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Your point about the parallel stories of Strauss and Oppenheimer is well made. I understand your POV about everything above, but the science part. I would respectfully disagree. In fact, this film made an overt attempt to keep the science out of it. If you look at other films with difficult to conceive scientific concepts, they find ways to involve the viewer in the STEM discovery (Moneyball is a math and sports movie, that educates the viewer on the math concepts that drive the narrative). In Oppenheimer, when we reach the goal (the explosion) we don't know enough causation science (other than chain reaction) to be included in their triumph. Instead all we can do is simply view them enjoying their triumph with no real idea of how they did it. And more than that, no real sense of Oppenheimer's genius of having overcome scientific hurdles to do it. I agree that the topic is important, interesting, etc. And like you, I love a good movie about discovery, especially a STEM one. But here, the viewer was not taken on the journey of scientific discovery, we are put in a position to accept that the project was going forward, but were never included on the ride, the scientific ups and downs. What scientific hurdle did we actually see overcome? The only thing was the accumulation of marbles in a bowl. That's how we knew they were ready to go, not because of any moment of discovery that included the viewer, and showed Oppenheimer's genius. The ride we were taken on was a personal/political one, in which security clearances, fractured relationships based on politics and fear, geo-political competition, competition between scientists, those were the hurdles we saw, not scientific ones. STEM films are few and far between and this feels like a real missed opportunity to include scientific concepts coming to life. Dramatizing a daunting problem in an esoteric field was barely attempted in this movie. Blurry calculations in the background, a wide-eyed oppenhiemer viewing fission for the first time, Einstein and Oppi discussing their discoveries . . . but we were never told what concept made fission possible, what was the core craft of discovery, what were Einstein and Oppi's scientific discoveries that they should be held accountable for? . . . that is where the magic of a STEM film is imo. Do we ever see Oppenheimer's genius in the field of physics being active? We see he's a genius because he can learn Dutch in 6 weeks, and can read Sanskrit, but he can't explain to the viewer what his "breakthrough" was. He throws stemware in the corner and watches it break, but what did he see in the breaking? We are invited to accept his genius based on others evaluation, without any active manifestation of that genius in the core scientific concept of what the film is about. It's clear to me early on, that Nolan had no interest in making the science part of the story, but rather wanted to focus on Oppenheimer himself. In fact, the bomb itself was not the story at all, it was the backdrop to Oppenheimer's journey. Nolan is clever enough to have included the science if he chose to, but that was not the film he wanted to make. The fact that the film went on for an hour after the explosion, tells us the arc is not a scientific one, but an Oppenheimer one. Did you see the Showtime series Manhattan? So good, and so bummed it was cancelled. After watching that, I did a deep dive in to the Manhattan project, so fascinating the dynamics of Los Alamos and the way that community functioned. Anyway, if you made it this far, thanks for reading bud, I appreciate the conversation.

I'm curious . . . what is this movie about for you?

Well, thank god somebody made fun of me!! I want to like this movie, I have so many friends whose opinions I respect, who think it's great. But, so far no one has convinced me! I could go on and on with more critique. One thing I'll say, as @hansreinhardt noted, the film is too long, and becomes Strauss's story for the last 35 minutes. Oppenheimer becomes a bystander, sitting in a chair in the last hour listening/watching everyone else carry the story of the film with his name on it? I don't think history will view this film with the same acclaim it is enjoying now.

Finally watched Oppenheimer. Oh man is this film overrated. Not terrible, just overrated. If it were made by any other filmmaker it would be panned as a three hour montage about security clearance . . . with an explosion. I'm sure some will say, I didn't "get it" . . . I got it, I got it, there wasn't that much to get. It felt like a not so smart film masquerading as a smart film with technique, and effects metaphors, with little character depth: literally anyone could have played the lead role, it required a very narrow range. The movie star cameos/casting felt forced: character arcs compromised to accommodate celebrity casting is not unusual, but here it genuinely got in the way. This was Atlas's first film with Nolan, I wonder what their future will be. If Nolan would have gone full poetry, I'd have been down for that. But the analepsis kept a narrative stamp on the edit, which pulled the poetry out of it for me. Don't flirt with poetic non-narrative, either do it or don't. We didn't need two separate, non-linear, hearings/interrogations: the "he was a commie" theme was played out by hour 2. The transformational science and the way it pushed/pulled him in his relationship to reality and influenced his relationships was interesting; how the reality of the Nazi bomb race forced him to confront his self-indulgent political/theorist self, those were compelling character themes (along with others). But, re-visiting every questionable anti-American interaction he ever had dulled his character development. He became passive in the narrative way too much, constantly giving vague and weak responses to questions with genuine jeopardy (not to mention watching others give the same type of answers to the same questions in different scenes). Even in his relationships, I never once believed any of them (whether they were real, fake, utilitarian, narcissistic, ambiguous, loving, etc., it just never read). I'd love to see a shooting script, I wonder how far this edit is from the shooting script. It felt very much re-structured in post. I don't know if the book tells the story linearly. Now, I didn't hate it, but it is not even close to Nolan's best film. Oh, also, usually continuity issues don't bother me at all, I'm a filmmaker by trade and it just doesn't bother me typically. But my god there were so many continuity issues, and not even on the hard-to-shoot scenes, sometimes just in conversations, shot matching was often poor: coverage / singles should be super easy, not sure what happened to the script-y on this one. The lensing for effect was way too obvious, as well, and not effective. The music was fantastic, and sound design, though I know it's not a popular take, but it did not meet expectations.

The BF Blind Buy GB?

For those who missed the US version last year. It is in stock at near retail, much lower than Ebay prices. SUPERMAN I-IV STEELBOOK 4K SET Ships from a third party with a 4.9/5 rating, and full Amazon backed returns See @Boilersteel comparison with Italian version above for more details.

THEORY11 HARRY POTTER BOX SET BACK IN STOCK

I have all of his books, first edition FSG, including his biography Pilgrim in the Ruins, signed by Jay Tolson who has become somewhat of a “friend” over the years. I swear you’re the first person in a long time that has ever even heard of him. The only true American Existentialist novelist. I read The Moviegoer every year around my birthday. Have you read the essays? I just came across a first edition of Lost in the Cosmos last week in a used book store. I have one already but almost bought it as a backup 🤣. One more nerdy thing . . . His daughter had a bookstore in New Orleans called Kumquat Books, I made my pilgrimage there, met her, and 25 years later still use the bookmark I got in Walker Percy’s daughter’s bookstore in every book I read. The same one. Somehow, I’m sure it makes every book better.

@hansreinhardt what’s your take on the Picard Legacy box? Sale on Amazon right now.

Agreed. I really liked it. There were several moments that paid tribute to the original, but it really felt like a fresh take and it worked for me.

So glad you're a Fletch Quoter. I'm also an habitual Fletch Quoter. I actually won a contest. 🤣 Can I borrow your towel for a sec? My car just hit a water buffalo.

Extra points for a very nice graphic layout with the floor! And 2001 Manta in the hero spot. Obviously you're a creative professional.

I use MyUS.com but rarely use it anymore because I’ve found that unless it is an amazing deal, or the sales you referred to, I can get things on secondary market often for cheaper when including the cost of the service and shipping. But still, glad it’s an option.

did you use a shipping service? Or do you mean back when they still shipped to IS from UK store?

Cool beans, thanks for confirming bud. I hope this is an omen for the future. I didnt realize how much stuff I bought from Zavvi until I couldn’t any more.

there were always a handful of titles you could get shipped here to US. But it seemed to have expanded recently. Just wondering if anyone in the States has noticed.

Anyone else notice that Zavvi US has almost two pages of steels now? For months and months, sometimes they would only have 10 or less available for US, now it's nearly two pages. Not sure it means anything, maybe I just haven't looked for a while.

You're def right, that's the tour de force. Have you seen Todd Haynes' movie Safe, Julianne Moore? For some reason that always struck me as a 1990s version of Woman/Influence. Stylistically completely different, but embracing and exploring the complications of the lives of women under the pressure of domestic definition, women as the anti-victim, suffering from that "problem with no name" (Betty Friedman). Highly recommend any Todd Haynes movie actually.

I don't want to bog down this thread with a history of cinema rant . . . but, Cassavetes also invented Kickstarter. The dude was a force. ------- The story goes like this: it’s 1956, and John Cassavetes is an ambitious young actor teaching workshops in New York City. One night, Cassavetes appears on Jean Shepard’s late night talk show, Night People, to promote some of his upcoming projects. On the show, Cassavetes starts griping about the artificiality of Hollywood and his disdain for the repetitive and formulaic drivel the studio system churns out. In a general sense, he insults the very project he was supposed to be there promoting. Cassavetes then tells listeners that if they want to see something authentic, unpolished, and intimate, that they should send him money and he’ll make it happen. Shockingly enough, money started rolling in. Cassavetes amassed about $2,000 from the appearance. So he made good on his promise, and his directorial debut Shadows was born. Along with the crowdfunding and financing from friends, as well as his paychecks from acting jobs, he secured $40,000 for the film. Compared to the amount studios usually spent on films at the time, this was nothing. (For some perspective: Paramount spent around $1.75 million on Sunset Boulevard in 1950.) _____ I'll stop now. Enjoy your adventure through 60s/70s independent cinema!

So glad you watched this film @hansreinhardt !!! My avatar thanks you. This is the most important film in Independent cinema history. It is literally the first American "New Wave" independent movie ever. This movie changed everything. A generation of filmmakers, including Scorsese, Coppola, et al, credit this film as being the one that set them free (Scorsese noted - ". . . after Shadows there were no more excuses."). The 60s cinema, and Irving Penn's true masterpiece Bonnie and Clyde, don't happen unless Cassavetes makes this movie. It was a colossal moment in film history that is almost impossible for us to imagine now. With a 16mm camera, an ensemble of young hungry actors, and 2 years, he literally lit the fuse that would eventually bring down old Hollywood, with this one little movie. Here is what I wrote for Challenge 12 about Cassavetes, mentioning Shadows. ______ JOHN CASSAVETES (probably not a surprise to those of you who looked closely at my vague avatar) The beginning of the end of old Hollywood began with one director and one film: John Cassavetes' 1959 Shadows. Scorsese noted - after Shadows there were no more excuses. Cassavetes inspired a landslide of filmmakers to challenge studio system control and fight for creative freedom, both in style and content. We take it for granted that studios want to hear what Fincher, Lynch, Nolan, and others mentioned here, have to say. When Cassavetes made Shadows, a movie about the adventures of three black siblings in New York, with his stolen shots and 16mm verite loose camera, no one was interested. He made it anyway. And he kept making them. Over the next two decades Cassavetes funded his independent films (Husbands, Faces, A Woman Under the Influence, Minnie & Moskowitz, etc.) by appearing as an actor in movies like The Dirty Dozen and Rosemary's Baby. Cassavetes took great joy in using Hollywood money to undermine Hollywood itself. His avant garde filmmaking style is disarming to many. His camera is never judgmental. It doesn't guide the eye to where you should look, it forces you to open your eyes. He doesn't tell you what you should think, the action plays out in front of you and you are forced to participate. It's the cinema of embracing the complexity of being authentically human, not by pointing it out, but by experiencing it. My favorite Cassavetes' film is Husbands. But, I love his wife and collaborator Gena Rowland's brave and shocking performance in A Woman Under the Influence. By the time Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde becomes a counter culture darling of individualism and self-expression in 1967, old Hollywood was diminished. And the independent film wave of the 90s (Soderbergh, PTA, Linklater, Ferrara, Egoyan, Haynes, Leigh, Jarmusch, Sofia C., Tarantino) blew up what was left. John Cassavetes lit the fuse for all of them. ______

Yeah, I agree. The first one was so ridiculous, but, I can not stop watching it once I start. This one will hopefully leverage some great effects to be even more over the top. I'm hoping to see Glenn Powell vertically surf an F5 on a flying cow.

And still do.