I did not write the following, I've merely stolen it off shitebook:I just want to know if cillian does the line.
Lead actor guy is always good. You should check him out in that other film and the television series.Saw it this morning - I managed not to doze off, or check my watch until 2 1/2 hours in - so it must have been pretty good.
Actually, I thought it was excellent - not what I was expecting - lead actor guy is supurb.
I did not write the following, I've merely stolen it off shitebook:
The only Oppenheimer film I want to see is an account of how he came to his bafflingly horrid translation of that verse from the bhagavadgītā.
In case anyone is interested, here is what was meant to be a short statement on why this haunts me:
I mean, the obvious thing to nitpick is the word choice for "kāla" ... I don't see why you can't translate it as time. True, it may mean death, but the rest of the verse communicates this sense thoroughly enough that the double-meaning carries through in English. Translating it as death loses the cosmic connotations of Krishna's identification as time. But, this is an issue more with Ryder (who Oppenheimer read Sanskrit with) who seems to be generally alright as a translator. I disagree with him, but whatever, his decision at least makes sense.
What really keeps me up at night is where in the hell he gets "I am become" -- there is the fact in many indo-european languages, the word meaning become often gets used as a copula, especially in Sanskrit. So it first comes off as an amateurish over-translation of the verb "bhavati" as 'become' when its really playing the role of 'is'. But there is no 'bhavati' in the verse. Instead, a very marked 'asmi', cognate with English 'am' -- and moreover, he says this in his weird pretentious gloss of verse "I am become" -- so where the become? I'm pretty sure he must have got this from the word 'pravṛtta", given its proximity to 'iha' (now), and this fact breaks me. Its a word which so clearly does not mean become, instead meaning to engage in, proceed etc. It's not incompatible with the sense of becoming, I suppose but unlike the notion of becoming, 'pravṛt' communicates a notion which immediately associates it with its opposite -- 'nivṛt', to move away, cease etc. There is deliberate activity being communicated here, not simply the state of becoming.
And this makes the 'death' part all the more baffling -- while he clearly seems to be imagining himself in the role of Arjuna, who is hearing his totally hetero bestie declare his godhood, the passive submission to the pull of violence carries into Oppenheimer's memory of the declaration itself, and Krishna appears as a mundane observer who happens upon becoming Death -- with a capital 'D', sure, but still the more individual, not the impersonal inevitable passage of time. It seems that despite trying to imagine himself as Arjuna, he cannot help but slip into the mindset of Krishna ... and somewhere in this mind soup he gets "I am become Death", despite nothing at all about becoming being in the verse ... but its odd enough to sound pretentious and so that's what his mind latches on to, and its pithy enough to catch on into the popular consciousness.
I know nothing about Oppenheimer aside from this aspect of him .. I don't know whether any of my observations based on this one verse are true to the man. But if someone were to give me three hours of a single reading session between him and Ryder, showing the clear process of a mind's derangement, I would very much enjoy that. I somehow feel that this isn't what intrigues Nolan about Oppenheimer.
Yeah, it did.
Excellent movie, and for once the sound was used effectively. It was interesting that they told it as a sort of story within a story within a story, which made Oppenheimer more unknowable. Bit more sex and nudity than I expected in a Nolan movie though.
Apparently Nolan said recently he would like at some point to direct a James Bond film, but only if he could pick who gets to play Bond- which I guess it’s not going to happen.
Interesting request as well- seems to suggest Nolan wants control of who the main lead in his films might be, or at least that he reserves the right to veto anyone he might not like to work with.
Shame it’s unlikely to happen. Given what he’s done with the likes of his Batman trilogy, and his trademark spectacular cinematography using practical effects over green screens, I’d love to see what he could with a Bond project.
I guess another stumbling block with the Bond franchise is that they tend to stick with the chosen lead actor for at least 4 films, but not necessarily the same director for more than one film. So they’d have to be fully confident with Nolan’s choice.Directors do usually have control over their lead actors and pretty much all the casting choices, so it's not exactly a weird request. Bond is a bit different because the Bond is usually cast before the director, but it's not like it has to be that way.
I guess another stumbling block with the Bond franchise is that they tend to stick with the chosen lead actor for at least 4 films, but not necessarily the same director for more than one film. So they’d have to be fully confident with Nolan’s choice.
Bond films are too long as it is!
I think one of the strongest parts of the film is its ability to capture the mixture of elation and fear/horror of the people involved in the Manhattan project when the test does work.While I can appreciate a good translator rant, especially when people have come to think it was an accurate translation, one of the few things I knew about Oppenheimer before this film is that his "famous line" kinda was his own creation rather than a quote, because he had translated it so badly. And he'd translated it badly because he wasn't a linguist, let alone someone who could actually translate Sanskrit - he was just doing it for fun, with no real pressure to get it right. But even though he became aware that he'd got that line wrong, his mistranslation was what came to mind when he realised just what he'd unleashed on the world.
He felt like a God, but not in a good way, so the misconnect of a bad translation is more fitting than any true translation ever could be. It's basically "I thought I was clever, but I fucked up," even in the actual translation itself.
Not “Bob”, like his friends did?Oppie - yes they really call him that
I think the Bond producers have a lot of control and i doubt they would give Nolan the level of control he is used to having. Danny Boyle walked from the last film due to that.Apparently Nolan said recently he would like at some point to direct a James Bond film, but only if he could pick who gets to play Bond- which I guess it’s not going to happen.
Interesting request as well- seems to suggest Nolan wants control of who the main lead in his films might be, or at least that he reserves the right to veto anyone he might not like to work with.
Shame it’s unlikely to happen. Given what he’s done with the likes of his Batman trilogy, and his trademark spectacular cinematography using practical effects over green screens, I’d love to see what he could with a Bond project.
I remember a double page spread on it in the Daily MirrorI haven’t seen this film, not sure if I will tbh
Anyway I was listening to something today and learnt that there was a film made in 1989 about the manhattan project directed by Roland Joffe (the killing fields) - called Shadow Makers in the Uk. Oppenheimer is played by Dwight Schultz (howling mad murdoch of the A team is what I know him from) in what feels like unlikely casting. It doesn’t seem to have very good reviews though
Fat Man and Little Boy - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Just seen it and yes to all of that. Wasn't a great fan of the chronological shifts as well. Barely 4/5, not an Oscar (not that I give ashite who gets the Oscar of course).Saw it yesterday - thought it was a massively overhyped and turgid slog.
No way did this need to be 3hrs long. So many baggy scenes where nothing much relevant to the plot happens. I took a red bull with me and I still fell asleep once.
Female characters very 2-dimensional - barely get a look in (and only as foils to Oppie - yes they really call him that). Bizarre bonking scenes that seem to have been shoehorned in at the behest of the producers.
There are some good acting performances (Cilian, Robert Downey Jr, Gary Oldman come to mind), but overall the film is waaay less than the sum of its parts.
I was trying to recall the earlier film I saw about the Manhattan project, could have been this one. I liked it.I haven’t seen this film, not sure if I will tbh
Anyway I was listening to something today and learnt that there was a film made in 1989 about the manhattan project directed by Roland Joffe (the killing fields) - called Shadow Makers in the Uk. Oppenheimer is played by Dwight Schultz (howling mad murdoch of the A team is what I know him from) in what feels like unlikely casting. It doesn’t seem to have very good reviews though
Fat Man and Little Boy - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
No.So I have realised there is an IMAX showing of this near to where I am next week. Worth splashing out?
Cheers. I might go and see Poor Things again then.