Independent movie critic Louis Chilton has caused considerable controversy with a recent column raising concerns over Oppenheimer, a film that is not only a commercial blockbuster but a critically acclaimed work with five Golden Globe (including best picture) and 13 Academy Award nominations. The success for Chilton was ominous and prompted his own Oppenheimeresque moment of wondering if “I am Become Death, the Destroyer of [Movies].” He denounced the film as a return to making movies for “macho dads.”
There is widespread alarm among celebrities over Barbie being “snubbed” from nominations for the Best Director and Best Actress categories. Hillary Clinton joined in by lamenting the nomination of “Kenough” while suggesting that she knew how Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig felt when you “win the box office but not take home the gold.”
Former Obama Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri joined the irate crowd in declaring “It’s still so easy for Hollywood to overlook and discount artistic contributions of women – EVEN WHEN ITS THE POINT OF THE YEAR’S BIGGEST MOVIE!”
I did see “Oppenheimer” and I am indeed a Dad — as well as a history buff. I also had no interest in seeing “Barbie” though my wife and daughter loved the film. That all may confirm the demographics for Chilton and critics. However, the Independent went further in the article titled “Does Oppenheimer’s award season domination herald a troubling return to Hollywood’s macho ‘dad movie’ days?”
Putting aside that Oppenheimer was hardly a physics-based version of True Grit or Die Hard, it was a film based on dramatic real events leading to the use of the first atomic bomb. As someone who primarily reads and enjoys historical accounts, it was a refreshing choice.
While acknowledging that the movie was “meaty, intelligent and wonderfully crafted,” Chilton declared that “[n]o matter how reductive this assertion may be – that Nolan’s film is simply “one for the boys” … [with its] bombs and the evils of war – and it’s easy to see why the film has been pigeonholed as a quintessential ‘dad movie.'”
Like many such woke objections, the criticism contains an overtly sexist bias. There are plenty of women who are interested in history and, yes, even “bombs and the evils of war.” Many did not exclusively go only to that movie. Many went to both and loved both — as did my wife.
What is most notable is how the objection is that Oppenheimer represents a regression from the “progress” made in moving away from “Dad movies.” We have been discussing how such social agendas have shaped films at companies like Disney and recently led to various shareholder fights. Disney, for example, has had a string of relative flops and has lost its position as the most profitable film company. Even the CEO Bob Iger admits that the companies political and social agenda has undermined profits.
Disney recently seemed to acknowledge that it is facing its own Bud Light moment. In its annual SEC report, Disney acknowledges that “we face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products.”
Other companies have also faced disasters in moving away from a significant part of their markets. The most vivid example is BudLight and the comments of Alissa Heinerscheid, vice president of marketing for Bud Light, before the company went into a market dive.
Before the devastating boycott over the Mulvaney promotion, Heinerscheid was lionized by many for pledging to drop Bud Light’s “fratty reputation and embrace inclusivity.” Bud Light lost its top position among beers and, despite many insisting that the opposition would be short-lived, it has continued to suppress sales.
Other businesses have faced similar backlash. For example, Sports Illustrated has just laid off most of its staff and previously faced similar criticism.
For these companies, the business and legal question is whether social and political agendas undermine the fiduciary obligation of the boards to shareholders and investors. Notably, Oppenheimer was a massive hit both financially and critically. Yet, the concern is that it is returning to the “bad old days” of movie making.
Chilton noted that “[t]he roster of significant male characters…is deep and illustrious” while objecting that female characters are less prominent and well developed. Yet, this is a movie on a historic secret program where the principle characters were almost exclusively male. That certainly reflected the times and the limited opportunities for many women in the field. However, there is a reason why the principal characters are largely male because they were playing male historical figures.
My only objection is that the movie left out one male figure of enormous and unheralded historic importance to the development of the atomic bomb: my father. While he was training as a telegraph officer at the University of Chicago in the Navy, Jack Turley was told to stand guard over a football field and squash court. They never told him why. They gave him a shotgun with a bayonet taped to the end. With that curious weapon, he was told to “guard” the site. The sailor who he was replacing told him that his primary threat was a prostitute named Rosie who brought customers under the stands. He found out later that Enrico Fermi and his colleagues had achieved the first chain reaction under Stagg Field. I can only imagine what would have come of the experiments and the Manhattan Project if my father had not kept the Russians (and Rosie) at bay. You are welcome, America.
The Independent movie captures the debate that continues to rage across various industries. However, it is striking to see a major work of cinematic art subjected to such handwringing and angst. Of course, Oppenheimer admitted that he was never truly prepared for “the fact that the world is full of cruel and bitter things.” It appears that his eponymous movie is experiencing the same realization.
What a shallow take on “Oppenheimer”. The success of the movie testifies to the genuine interest in how America pulled together — achieving tremendous political cohesion and technical wizardry to win WWII. The leadership was anything but macho….it was very intelligent, creative-yet-realistic men and women who led the war effort. When I think about women in WWII, I think about the WAVES working as code-breakers, intelligence-gatherers, and hospital nurses. Yes, it took some adjusting on the part of SOME officers, but guess what?…the people in charge knew instinctively that women would bring something of an advantage to the effort, as Germany and Japan were the “macho” adversaries — brimming with alpha male bravado and mindless aggression, and needing to be defeated.
I think about how the women who served in WWII, both militarily and in the civilian industries, as been permanently changed by the experience of being taken seriously, playing meaningful roles outside the home, enjoying female earning power and agency — and after the war bringing up their sons and daughters to complete the cultural shift to equality of the sexes. This reviewer maybe fell asleep during the movie, or knows little about what it took to win WWII. He is blind to what really happened, and how the experience matured our nation….improved our nation….decidedly for women and others marginalized who suddenly were asked to play an important role.
“Macho” movies?
Did the ordinary Soldier who jumped into the dark over Normandy or who waded ashore onto the beaches that day or in the Pacific Battles do so because they were “macho” or because they were able to overcome their fears and attend to their Duty in defense of their Nation and its population?
The Scientists and others were not being “macho” but did have to deal with their own fears as to what the outcome of their work would be….a different but just as significant kind of valor.
Don’t demean the service and sacrifice of those who stood up, showed up, and by doing so paid such a heavy price for our freedom that we enjoy today.
The one thing we should do is be the kind of American their sacrifice deserves.
“Woke” is exactly the wrong way to honor those who defended us.
Oppenheimer a “macho dad” movie?
Nope. Not even.
MacArthur would be macho. Patton remake would be macho. The Engola Gay story would be macho. 30 Seconds over Tokyo would be macho.
(Longest day remake, Battle of the Bulge… ) Those would be macho dad movies from the WW II era. There are other ones…
But a story of the guy leading the project to build the bomb? Not as macho as the bomb crew that actually risked their lives to deliver it.
-G
Trump/Patrick 2024
______________________
Real President Donald J. Trump
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick
Better than Deval
“I am become death!”
Get the bugs out.
____________________
“Chinese lab crafts mutant COVID-19 strain with 100% kill rate in ‘humanized’ mice: ‘Surprisingly’ rapid death”
“In a Wuhan-esque study, Chinese scientists are experimenting with a mutant COVID-19 strain that is 100% lethal to “humanized” mice.”
– New York Post
__________________
China released “China Flu, 2019” and is fully and solely responsible for $100+ trillion in damages worldwide.
Get your checkbook out Mr. Xi Xi Ping Pong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-K990t7qFM
A fine example of a low budget sequel to Oppenheimer.
* Chainsaw used for sound effect of flying van
* CO2 Fire Extinguisher used as retro-rocket
* Water Tank jug & Paper Cups as thursters
* Nylon stocking and oranges for Mutant’s makeup
* Ping-pong ball gun as sidearm
* Measuring tape as two-way radio (Bonus, you can easily and precisely tune the antenna to the appropriate wavelength of the channel you are transmitting!)
* Oscar-worthy acting at a commensurate salary
Beauty, Eh?
A friend of mine noted that when making a film such as this, the LOWER the budget the better the humor.
You havent seen humor and low budget go hand in hand until youve seen Patrick Swayze’s 1989 Road House film. The over the top macho bravado can warm your heart but only after downing 4 shots of Jägermeister
Look on the bright side. If Oppenheimer et al hadn’t invented the atom bomb, we would never have had great Tom Lehrer songs like these:
https://youtu.be/1U2fpzw4qNI?si=L4FUDE0sAx0tIX6S
https://youtu.be/oRLON3ddZIw?si=2CSrMV_gDLXz8O9l
I think the real reason Professor Turley’s Dad’s story was left out of Oppenheimer is because it deserves its own movie. Maybe Greta Gerwig could direct. Margot Robbie could play Rosie.
Instead of Macho dad movies, Louis Chilton apparently prefers “little boy” movies instead. if you know what I’m saying.
NAMBLA
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) will compel acceptance of these abusive criminal perverts and freaks.