Thoughts?

  • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or, it’s about Oppenheimer. We all know what the bombs did to Japan. It’s well known history. Not every detail of a world needs to be explored and explained again when we already know it. I don’t think most World War II war movies detail the end of the war. Most movies don’t detail singular deaths with accuracy.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, but the major shift in his life was over the devastation of Japan, and yet they do it entirely off screen. “Tell don’t show” isn’t typically considered a trait of great film making/story telling.

      And, yes, they did show Robert’s imagination of the cheering audience being burned alive, which was horrifying. But it could also be argued that it is a bit insensitivity to the real loss that they had to use white American people burning alive as stand ins to give you that visceral emotional punch instead of the actual Japanese people that actually died.

      Also, no story should ever assume the audience is intimately familiar with history. It only becomes common knowledge by exposing people to it over and over. If you assume everyone knows it and so nobody ever shows it again, people never have a chance to gain that knowledge that makes it common. Particularly for something as steeped in propaganda as this event was. I’m a pretty well educated person and I have regularly learned shit in my adult life that my history lessons casually glossed over. The Nuclear bombing of Japan, specifically, is 1000% one of the most glossed over events in American education, in my experience.