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.
It is interesting that the Liberals are complaining since they control Hollywood and the Academy Awards voting.
Why would anyone be interested or find importance in a movie with a bunch of white men and women like Einstein, Oppenheimer, Szilard, Fermi, Bethe and Lise Meitner when you have a movie about a make believe pink doll? Sounds about right considering our times.
Professor—Excellent post today.
American “macho dads”: the reason we weren’t speaking German after W2.
And the Snubbing of Barbie?? Oh, the humanity!!! 🙂
Cindy Bragg! this is OT, so brief. Thanks to you, I took a look at PBS’ WWII “World on Fire” series. A serious topic, well done.
lin……..I didn’t remember recommending but thank you for the shout out and glad you appreciated the show.
“American “macho dads”: the reason we weren’t speaking German after W2.”
Excellent comment, Cindy. Thank goodness for those dads (and women as well). But today, the left is trying to make them disappear. In the not-too-distant future, they will be needed again. Who is going to protect America from the terrorists within? The Biden administration has let in armies of terrorists who are now trying to blend in and create cells dedicated to the destruction of America.
We will die from within. The process has started. We have a President and many in our legislature beholden to the Chinese and other enemies.
S. Meyer….thank you. Yes, so depressing because it’s true……so many forces, especially a major one: the Biden Regime, daily orchestrating our slow destruction!
People still care about the Oscars?….thought is was become universally transparent as a manipulation. Critics make obnoxious statements to bring the attention to themselves.
A monarchy-adjacent event of gay pride and prejudice on parade full of pomp and circumstance. Let them eat wagyu.
The people don’t – just the media does.
“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.’”
This is why she lost. This is why they had to rig the 2016 primaries to give her the nomination.
It’s always about her. She’s like the greedy monster-in-law who never knows her boundaries.
“It’s always about her.”
Which would be somewhat human if she were hitchhiking on the *success* of others.
But she hitchhikes on their: “Poor, poor pitiful me.”
I can also remember from my youth when movies that dominated the box office did not necessarily win these awards. Does anyone remember how many Academy Awards for on-screen performance were given to the original Star Wars film? It started a sequence of films that dominated the box office for a generation or two, yet none of the on-screen performers were rewarded for the film. On that note, Barbie has some company.
I will also give recognition to Jack Turley for his part in the development of the atomic bomb that was not recognized in the Oppenheimer film.
Movies are made to make profits, not to please critics. Oppenheimer is a hit. Barbie is also a hit. Until the critics get the power to censor movies, who cares what they say? Same for the Oscars and other political prizes.
Sadly, i don’t go to the movies anymore. My mistrust of Hollywood has led me to experience life in the real. However, i do read. Thanks for the article. Thanks to your dad for his service.
I love the fact that Hollywood’s bizarre pathway has led them to lower box office ticket sales. Oppenheimer was a refreshing deviation from this insanity.
Angel Studios success has skyrocketed when they bypassed Hollywood and began their crowdfunding movie project, “The Chosen.” Their viewership is in the 100s of millions. They will release Season 4 in the Theaters next week.
I love watching the underdog succeed in this arena. In the meantime, we watch older movies and read books. Regarding traditional television, it is “57 channels and nothing on.” Oh, I take that back. There are scores of commercials for every show.
If anyone is squeamish about the dreadful decision to use the nuclear weapon, I suggest they read the Pacific War trilogy of books by Ian Toll. These three books are the best historical account of the PTO that I have read. It was a dreadful conflict and it was a matter of making decisions between bad and worse. War is hell.
Let me recommend “Downfall” by Richard Frank… focussed on the use of the atomic bomb. The decision was indeed dreadful – and yet correct under the circumstances. Frank is compelling.
Both the Toll and the Frank books are great. If you have not read it yet, “Implacable Foes,” by Marc Gallicchio is outstanding. Especially the last several chapters, where TPTB discuss the pros & cons of invasion v blockade v bomb for dealing with Japan, post-victory-in-Europe.
https://store.pacificwarmuseum.org/products/implacable-foes-war-in-the-pacific-1944-1945
Chilton and movie makers are doing the same thing: selling product. Chilton sees everyone praising Oppenheimer, so he figures he can differentiate his product and get more attention by denouncing it. Then people will write blog posts either praising or denouncing him. He gets fame while the other critics are barely mentioned.
This critic’s objections to Oppenheimer remind me of another critique the other day in the New York Times of Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue. The criticism reeked with envy, but it was one reader’s pithy response that spoke to me. He said that (I paraphrase) “music is less interesting when subjected to analysis”.
Hillary is so desperate for attention that she’s opining on movies now ? Seriously ? I guess she took a page out of Hunter Biden’s book as America’s New Age Artiste.
Hillary is a pathetic has-been. Her campaign (like Trump’s) was designed around one thing and one thing only: maximizing electoral votes. She lost and now she complains about the irrelevant statistic of popular votes. I heard that she wasn’t able to eat some grapes and then consoled herself that they were probably sour anyway.
I beg to differ. She is a “never was”.
At one time we thought those nuclear physicists and their engineering pals were powerful dangerous dudes. Were we ever wrong. The “destroyer of worlds” department is now manned, er I mean staffed, by the molecular biologists — ladies included.
Instead of complaining about a movie ‘made for men’, why doesn’t he complain about Hollywood not making a movie about the woman who invented Barbie, Ruth Handler? That might be an interesting, historical story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Handler
Thank you Johm for a great article.
One look at this lot of a self-styled foremost authority reveals all we need to know. The hairy chested and muscular heroes who gave their last full measure to preserve the freedom to write that drivel are rolling in their graves. https://redef.com/author/5ecd40fdcae83f2d414af779
“Does Oppenheimer’s award season domination herald a troubling return to Hollywood’s macho ‘dad movie’ days?”
I hope so.
The image of wimpified men is nauseating.
This is definitely the most important story of the day right next to Kevin Morris, whoever he is. Texas border, unprecedented judgment in Trump case, yeah, not worthy of Turley’s attention.
Then write your own blog.
Agreed
So Hillary Clinton has finally found something she does well – film criticism. It’s better than making up conspiracy theories involving Donald Trump.
So the gist from the reviewer is that there should be no movies whose target audience are straight men. Got it.
Maybe it’s okay to make them (the industry does need dollars in order to keep churning out product, especially pet “woke-ish” stuff, which doesn’t generate much return often), but the critics shouldn’t praise them even if excellently done, and the Academy and other bodies should certainly not nominate them for awards.