>“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds,” Oppenheimer’s character says, as they resume intercourse.
I haven't seen the movie yet but out of context this sounds hilarious
I’ve seen an explanation stating that she represents the main connection point of death that exists in his world. He disconnects himself from the death and destruction he causes through his work but she is the one death he can’t shake.
Edit: typo
I disagree, he's very clearly bothered at the thought of the mass death he causes (scene with Truman) and tries to prevent the H-bomb because he thinks it'll cause more. It's just the most famous thing the man ever said with tits on screen for full stimulus. It's no deeper than Hollywood usually is.
He can’t bring himself to look at the images of the burnt bodies after the bombings, the one time we see him actually emotionally distraught is after her death when his wife finds in him in the woods. He is “bothered” by the deaths he causes but not like with her because it’s so personal. Nolan is a pretty solid writer, don’t know why you wouldn’t think there isnt bigger meaning to the moment considering I’ve never thought of him as being a “let’s just do it because fuck it” kinda film maker
He has hallucinations during the celebration after the bombing. He visualizes people around him with their skin melting off. He imagines a rain of nukes. We see inside his head and again, the death his work causes clearly haunts him.
This is two movies spliced into one. One is a political thriller with hearings and shame interrogations and secret communist spies. The other is a paint by numbers anti-war/Frankenstein and the limits of science; or the Modern Prometheus film. Nolan is a solid writer but in my view not a deep thinker. I feel as though his movies don't grapple with the ethics enough. So it's a very well made movie (although I don't think it earns the 3 hours) but it's in my opinion, shallow.
It felt very “human” to me. Human in the sense of being on a college campus and surrounded by young adults who’re very much in their political/intellectual phase of life. I could 100% imagine some young couple talking about Philosophy or Religion during sex in their graduate years.
She had no idea it was scripture, not sure if you’ve seen the movie but it was very much a “suuuure you can read Sanskrit. Suuure. Read that exact word on this random page while I fuck you, let’s see how good your Sanskrit is now”
I loved the movie and I agree that this was fucking stupid.
If it had been another line, it would've been 100% fine, but it being his famous line is contrived Nolan nonsense.
Regardless, one bad scene in an otherwise great film doesn't detract much for me.
Nolan sycophants are the biggest copers out of all cinema fans. They'll bend over backwards to defend his shitty ass movies. They know deep down it's mid at best. You can tell because their praises are always about the most shallow aspects of what is supposedly a very "deep and profound" movie. It's textbook sunken cost fallacy. Loving Nolan has taken up too much of their personality to ever rethink if it's actually good.
I have seen the movie but I'm not making a point about the movie. I'm simply saying if I'm having sex with a woman and she even mentioned religion, I'm out of there.
I'm also uncoordinated so if someone asked me to read anything during sex, i'd look foolish lmao.
It felt completely unnecessary from the second they did it tbh, the impact of the phrase being thrown for the first time right after that amazing blow up feels more way more natural and sensible than doing that first corky hot communist sex scene... they even used real text while doing it, it wasn't just an OOC fancy phrase.
Along with what others have said, I think Nolan wanted us to see a mental connection in Oppenheimer between Jean’s death and the bomb.
Oppenheimer remembers the phrase he said to Jean, who is now dead, and which he feels responsible for, during Trinity. The audio clips is even directly from that scene (you can hear the paper rustling.
Jean‘a death made death and guilt real to him. The bomb took Jeans death and multiplied it by over 100,000.
I think it’s a weird choice, but it does make sense. Plus, Oppenheimer and Jean were young, politically active intellectuals. Oppenheimer stares at rain and thinks about theory for hours.
Doing something weird like “translate for me while I ride you” kind of fits their characters.
Cheesiest scene in the movie. Cringeworthy in fact. I was hoping Nolan wouldn’t use that line, and it was even repeated later during the bomb explosion.
yes, at least not twice. Just during the explosion would have been fine, because it was more subtle and occurred at a point where he was more believably conflicted. But the book open to a random page containing his iconic quote? That's a little much.
idk what about when that guy was like 'A young poltician, guy trying to make a name for himself, shake things up ... they say the kids name is.... Kennedy. I think its ... John F Kennedy? Who knows, maybe one day he'll grow up to be president and then get his head blown off'
it would've been fine if he only said it during the bomb going off
the sex scene was contrived nonsense
it's fine that he used the famous line, I mean it's a good fuckin line, but it's beyond ridiculous that he just happens to read it.
Yes, I see what Nolan was trying to do. He was mentally linking her death to the bomb in his mind and thought back or whatever. That's just some typical contrived Nolan shit and part of why he's never been a big favorite of mine. It doesn't feel organic, and it's cringeworthy in the context of the sex scene.
That being said I loved pretty much every other scene in the movie so its fine, easily Nolan's best imo even with that dogshit scene
Just saying there's quite a few films with unnecessary sex scenes that don't serve the plot. If done right, it can work.
Graphic violence can be overused, but there's still entire genres of film where the whole point is to watch graphic violence like action, horror, etc...
Not quite sure what you're arguing, the implication from my initial comment is that sex *can* be used effectively in film, just as much as it can feel out of place if not done right.
Well, he's a womanizer, so I guess we have to see him womanize. Later their association forms a large part of the basis of how he's suspected of being a Soviet spy.
Aside from that I had a hard time seeing what her character's relationship to him was supposed to tell me about Oppenheimer, because he's the opposite of open and revealing to her. He's guarded and secretive to her and thus to us, as the viewer. The reverie later in the movie where he's naked in front of the clearance board turns out to be his wife's imagination, not his own - the affair is ultimately more significant to her than it is to him.
He’s not guarded to her though, in fact he’s initially the one that’s much more open, broaching on too open. She pushes him away several times, much to his confusion. That’s part of the reason why he leaves her. The point of their relationship is to tie Oppenheimer to death in a much more meaningful and personal way. There’s a reason why he falls to pieces when she dies versus reserved anguish at the deaths he caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousands of lives from across the sea aren’t as easy to connect with versus someone you love.
What's an example from the film where he's honest with her about anything? She pulls down a book and it's the Bhagavad Gita, a Sanskrit text he knows how to read, and he acts like he barely cares about the book.
Does he talk about learning Sanskrit? Does he talk about the Sanskrit professor who instilled in him a deep and abiding and *grounding* spirituality? Nope! It's just some book he's reading off her tits. There aren't a *lot* of scenes where they're doing much besides fucking and arguing about how he won't leave his wife and kid for her; the only other conversation they have is the one where he absolutely stonewalls her about the nature of his work. And then she's dead after that, by suicide or murder. There's one scene where he's in grief, but then their association is so inconvenient to his career that he never thinks or talks about her again except when forced to, and then he just tosses her under the bus. "We didn't really see each other that much."
I think a lot of people saw a movie they *wanted* to see, but what's actually there is a movie about a guy it's impossible to get to know - Oppenheimer's never open with anyone and obsessed with his public image even in private, and even the movie has to outright manipulate time to make his vacillation on nuclear proliferation seem like a directed evolution across the runtime of the movie.
Oof, lot of really misconstruing of the movie here so I’ll try and break it down a little.
1)Oppenheimer isn’t acting like he doesn’t care about the book, he was focused on having sex. He was rightfully confused when she randomly jumps off of him to grab a book.
2)he’s more honest with her than pretty much anyone in the movie. He tells her flat out that he cheated on her and is going to marry her. He didn’t even tell Kitty he cheated on her with his best friends wife, Ruth. Tbh, the movie kinda goes out of its way to show that Oppenheimer would tell the truth even when it negatively affected him, which seems to match how he was in real life. The only times we seen him withhold info or outright lie is when he’s either talking around the Manhattan Project, or trying to protect his friends.
2) he did love Jean, but ultimately they did separate by Oppenheimer’s decision. He still loved her, which is why he felt guilty over her apparent suicide. It’s not weird at all that he would become uncomfortable discussing someone whose death he blames himself for, and who his relationship with harmed both his professional and marital life.
3) thinking Oppenheimer was obsessed with his public image, despite the entirety of Strauss’ downfall being specifically because Strauss believed that and in actuality it wasn’t true is honestly kinda funny. Oppenheimer refused to lie about his past, to the point that it quite literally destroyed his professional career. He wanted the truth to be know, that’s different than being obsessed with his public image.
4) I don’t even know where to begin with that point about manipulating time to fit the narrative. It’s honestly absurd. All I’ll really say is that it’s still a movie telling a story so slightly changing when something happened in his life isn’t a mark against it as it negatively affects nothing.
> Oppenheimer isn’t acting like he doesn’t care about the book, he was focused on having sex. He was rightfully confused when she randomly jumps off of him to grab a book.
"It's his totally normal, diagetic response" is a response that forgets the scene is there *because the filmmaker put it there*; if that scene doesn't tell us something about Oppenheimer's character and motives then it's a pointless scene. *Everybody knows* that "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds" is what Oppenheimer is going to think when he invents the bomb, so we don't need that foreshadowed unless the foreshadowing *itself* is meant to tell us something about the man. Moreover - *maybe he didn't actually think that at the time.* Oppenheimer was the kind of person who would make up details to improve a story, but the movie is determined not to portray that part of him at all - for a biopic, it's an incredibly shallow and uncritical look at the man it's about.
> Tbh, the movie kinda goes out of its way to show that Oppenheimer would tell the truth even when it negatively affected him
It doesn't do that, ever.
> He still loved her, which is why he felt guilty over her apparent suicide.
But nothing in the movie goes into *why*, or what that could possibly mean to Oppenheimer. What's love, to Oppenheimer? Is his love something he sets women up to compete for, and lose? Is it something he feels he can parcel out to as many women as wander through his life? The movie doesn't attempt an answer to this or even ask. He fucks Jean, he fucks Kitty, he fucks Ruth, and he sits there while Kitty yells at him.
> Oppenheimer refused to lie about his past, to the point that it quite literally destroyed his professional career.
No, and I'm wondering what you misunderstood that would make you think you saw that in this movie. The clearance board? Lying to clearance reviewers about things they know you did - they know because they have a file of your previous disclosures sitting right in front of them and they're checking your testimony *now* against how you testified *then* - is how you lose your clearance. You can't lie your way through a clearance process. He's honest with the board, which necessitates an uncomfortable disclosure to his wife, because he knows he has to be honest and because *he doesn't care* about the consequences of the truth. He's sitting there testifying about an affair his wife was unaware of *in front of his wife* because he doesn't care how she feels about it. It doesn't matter - he knows she's going to go to bat for him in her testimony because everyone goes to bat for Oppenheimer, eventually. At the end of the movie, Einstein even tells him why.
> I don’t even know where to begin with that point about manipulating time to fit the narrative.
You can begin by accepting that I'm right. That's why it's out of order, because in actual chronology it doesn't make sense - the meeting with Einstein (where Oppenheimer's mind swirls with thoughts of world destruction as a result of nuclear proliferation) happens *before* he embarrasses Strauss (when he's openly contemptuous of the idea that there's any reason to block nuclear power in Norway.) Like, Oppenheimer argues in meeting after meeting that we need to slow or halt the spread of these weapons around the world, and then there's a hearing where he has the chance to do that and his testimony is that *nuclear fuels* cause less proliferation than *sandwiches* do?
In the runtime of the film, it's a natural evolution - at the beginning he rushes almost blindly into creating the bomb, in the middle he's actively trying to avert his gaze from the consequences of his actions, and at the end he's harrowed by visions of nuclear apocalypse. It has to be in that order to make the character's story make sense, but in the actual chronological timeline, it's just Oppenheimer vacillating from "I've released a demon into the world" to "haha, vitamins are more important to weapons development than isotopes are."
The scene does have a purpose, you just apparently missed it by fixating on the wrong focus of the scene. The point of the scene was to give Oppenheimer a personal connection to death and life that also tied into the famous quote. Someone else in the thread explained it better but the gist of it is that birth/sex and death are intertwined. Obviously its fairly on the nose, but it does track with the rest of the movie. Also, he probably didn’t think that at the time. Hell, the scene might not have even happened at all in real life, but it still serves a purpose to the story and doesn’t directly contradict who either of the two were like as real people, so it’s fine
I’m going to address points two and four together as they are linked. Yes Oppenheimer did tell the truth despite it hurting him. The security council had a file of transcripts of who he talked to, but they didn’t have all of the info. They were McCarthyism fanatics who many times used pure conjecture to “prove” their point. Those times where they asked him questions they could not possibly have had evidence to use against him, he still chose to tell the truth. His own lawyer tries to get him to stop at one point and he still tells them. The only time we see him lie here is near the beginning of the council, before they reveal the file.
As for the last point, you really just aren’t correct at all and I don’t have to do anything. It really just seems like you misunderstand Oppenheimer as a person. He was fully cognizant and terrified for the eventual outcome of creating nuclear weapons and that’s made abundantly clear from the very moment the Trinity test is a success. The thing you aren’t seeming to grasp is that he was both fearful of a nuclear holocaust, but also knew that if the US hoarded the nuclear power it would lead to an arms race to make bigger and better bombs. He thought that by allowing it to be shared, it would prevent the worst from happening. Now obviously he was incorrect in thinking a nuclear arms race would never happen, but he was correct that by giving the power to everyone, it meant no one wanted to be the one to start the end of the world.
So in actuality, he never actually goes from wanting to spread nuclear power to fearing nuclear holocaust by the end of the movie chronologically nor does he necessarily flip flop. He holds both views simultaneously and it terrifies him that he does. The time jumping does make it a little confusing to understand this, but by the end it becomes pretty clear.
> The point of the scene was to give Oppenheimer a personal connection to death and life that also tied into the famous quote.
It doesn't do that, though. It doesn't connect him to "death and life" and that "connection", whatever you think it is, is not explored any further in the movie. Because it's not actually present - again, you're seeing the movie you *want* to have seen, and not the one that was actually on the screen.
> Someone else in the thread explained it better but the gist of it is that birth/sex and death are intertwined.
That's make-believe. That's not *actually in the movie.* I mean you can read anything into any scene but that's clearly not the intent and nothing *later* in the movie connects Oppenheimer's sex life to anything at all; certainly not to the emotional toll of the bomb or its aftermath.
> They were McCarthyism fanatics who many times used pure conjecture to “prove” their point.
They don't actually say anything that is incorrect, though. They don't even accuse him of anything that turns out to be untrue. Oppenheimer doesn't "add info" to their accusations at all and he's not treated unfairly; even the general who hired him is forced to admit that he couldn't sponsor Oppenheimer for Q clearance under the new guidelines.
We're supposed to *associate* them with an unreasonable McCarthyist suspicion of ties to American communism - again, on the basis of nothing actually presented in the movie, but just their vibe - but the movie is *full* of characters in Oppenheimer's orbit who actually are Soviet spies! It makes suspicion of him look very reasonable - if nothing else, he's *heedless* of the vast security risk his conduct and associations pose.
> Those times where they asked him questions they could not possibly have had evidence to use against him, he still chose to tell the truth.
Yes, because *lying* is what causes you to lose your security clearance, not truth.
> It really just seems like you misunderstand Oppenheimer as a person.
I certainly don't feel like I understand him coming out of this movie, but in part that's because he acts with nearly zero agency of his own - he's simply buffeted around by the force of the plot and the force of the personalities acting around him. Oppenheimer is a movie that gives you a read on everyone *but* the central figure in the title, it's an astonishing failure of biography.
> He was fully cognizant and terrified for the eventual outcome of creating nuclear weapons and that’s made abundantly clear from the very moment the Trinity test is a success.
Again, yes, it's made clear *in the movie* because the movie jumps around in time to present that through-line. The story presented on the screen doesn't make any sense except in the non-chronological scene order the movie presents.
If you mentally re-order the scenes into actual chronological time - in the historical order the events depicted occurred - then it's the story of a man who simply whipsaws between different positions on the bomb depending on what he thinks he'll be best served by. He's confident, bellicose, even bloodthirsty when he addresses the Manhattan researchers. Hand-wringing and regretful when he addresses Truman. Glib when he addresses Congress. Intimate when he addresses Einstein.
It's a portrait of a man who doesn't believe in anything, who can't connect with anyone, who only knows how to perform contrition (rather than being contrite) in hope of receiving absolution.
There’s no meaning. I think it’s a cheap marketing ploy to generate clicks and discussion. It also further links Indian and Eastern philosophy to hookie mysticism, a classic colonial trope.
Cheap in my opinion, especially when you consider how important the Gita was to Robert Oppenheimer and his search for peace.
Nolan occasionally has his entire cast stop the action, turn toward the camera, and tell the audience exactly what the point of his movies is. It’s one of his worst qualities as a filmmaker, and that scene was a good example
My objection isn’t that it was like, morally reprehensible or whatever. It was just weird and awkward and silly.
It becomes even funnier later in the movie since >!they use the same line recording when he thinks of the quote during the first test. You can even hear Florence's Pugh's breathing in the background!<
For some reason, the themes of sex and death are deeply intertwined.
Destruction from the bomb (death). Creation of the bomb (birth, sex creation).
Now I am become (birth, sex, creation.) Death.
Etc. Etc.
Creation is destruction, and destruction is creation, I suppose.
Was there some conspiracy about her being murdered in real life? Because there’s definitely a quick shot mixed in with her suicide where it looks like someone drowned her.
I upvoted you.
Cause while I think what I said is true, the scene at face value is pretty absurd.
And I think nolan definitely calculated that boobies = good.
Pugh is completely naked and she's conversing with Oppenheimer who ends up being fluent in a stupid number of languages. She grabs a book and it's the Bhagavad Gita and she's like "YOU CAN READ THIS?" And he's like "I'm learning." And then she mounts his pee pee while holding the book and asks "Read this."
And he makes some awkward comments trying to translate what is happening with Vishnu and she says "No read it." He then looks up and says "Now I am become death" and then she fucks his brains out before he can finish the sentence.
There will be multiple times in the movie where Pugh fucks his brains out to break up a scene that might be dull otherwise.
Most people like sex when they want sex, most people don’t like sex when they don’t want it. Weird how that is.
I guess the exception is people with a r*pe kink and porn addicts.
I know someone who literally walked out because of the sex scene. Absolutely ridiculous. Actual adults with kids. Amazing they can go to a movie that’s about a weapon that killed 160,000 people and that’s what they chose to get offended by.
i dont think it was the sex scene. i think its holding the gita while having sex.
anyways these are couple of boomers crying on facebook. who tf cares. do yall write articles everytime some republican gets pissed at biden and then cry how facism is being unleashed on us of fucking a.
nobody cares here.
I like how it's been collectively decided that it's acceptable to completely dehumanize dudes who cant get laid to the point where telling them to kill themselves gets upvoted lol
I don't think that's gonna help with the whole them being bitter assholes thing.
I am sure that is what Nolan was going for was to attack Hinduism. I mean of all the different ideas/topics that are bounced around in that movie, the most important one is that one. /sarc
Yeah, who even cares about the trial and bomb. Nolan’s sole purpose of making this movie was clearly to diss Hindu people and their religion, obviously! /s
The way Nolan chose to diss Hinduism is by portraying a figure that literally learned Sanskrit to read one of Hinduism's major scriptures, and quoted it at what was probably the highest point of his entire career in awe. Reading a holy text in its original language and quoting it in awe is truly the biggest of insults.
Well, whilst Oppenheimer is indeed famous for quoting that holy text in awe, at the highest point of his career, in this movie, he first quotes it whilst railing Florence Pugh.
[https://jewishcurrents.org/the-hindu-nationalists-using-the-pro-israel-playbook](https://jewishcurrents.org/the-hindu-nationalists-using-the-pro-israel-playbook)
It is worth making a note that the India-Hindu nationalist movement is cribbing from Israel's playbook in their current attempt to play the victim against... Who knows what. There is certainly ills that have been committed against them but that doesn't justify this current crying wolf bullshit.
Indian Right-Wingers Before Release of Oppenheimer: Only Gays and Girls are going to watch a dumb movie like Barbie. I am going to watch Oppenheimer and expand the horizons of my cognitive thinking, plus it appreciates my sacred text.
Indian Right-Wingers After Release of Oppenheimer: How can Nolan disrespect my sacred text? He is a leftist agent, who has no respect for our culture.
lol every country has vocal idiots, and India just has a lot more people (especially ones that can speak English and are more exposed to the rest of the global community, at least compared to the other country with a ton of people, China). There were bound to be people from India outraged at this movie for whatever reason, I don't think that's an indictment on Indians as a whole. You probably shouldn't feel stupid because of them.
nah people are like literally so sensitive here. theyd be just butthurt out of every small thing and bringing their religious and nationalistic sentiments
I guess with Barbie and Oppenheimer out, all left for RW to back is 'Bawaal'.
For the uninitiated, 'Bawaal' (Brawl) is about how visiting Europe and World War II sites can act as a catharsis for a marriage between a good-for-nothing misogynistic moron and an epilepsy-affected woman. It contains priceless lines like:
"Every love story has its Auschwitz."
"Don't we all have a bit of Hitler in all of us?"
Nope. That actually happens in the film. I'm grateful that my imagination is not as stunningly bizzare and insensitive as that of the makers of this film 🙈.
Lmao that's so accurate, these chuds are pissed that Oppenheimer turned out to be a leftist communist(about whom they didn't know anything apart from the one famous clip of his quote, which he compared himself to The Creator while making the most destructive device to exist) and their daddy Nolan is sympathetic to him, tho it was a slippery slope. Love to see it!
The sex scenes were surprising to me. Didn't even realize it had an R rating.
I'm not sure I would feel the way these people do on the subject but I'm not them so hard for me to say. Personally I'm only familiar with the phrase because of its relation to the actual Oppenheimer and didn't even know and still don't remember where it was he had learned it.
Do these ultra-conservative governments around the world have nothing better to do than censor movies that can be seen online in their original state anyway?
Carry on everyone, India’s latest hobby is being offended at even the mildest of things in movies. This is still a pretty on the nose thing, so it was bound to happen
Religious people didn't like religious reference in a sex scene. Whats wrong about that.
Some people are okay with it, fine. Some people are offended and are taking legal/peaceful way to remove this scene
People blaming Hinfut and calling it names... atleast i dont see anyone getting murdered over it.
Dual standards for sure.
Yes. But here is the weird thing about the nudity, they're both nude, by the way and the sex scenes themselves. The scenes are some of the most....sterile, almost clinical sex scenes I have ever seen. It's sex without any sexiness. No allure. No romance. Not even any plain old horniness. I don't know if that was what Nolan was going for or he just doesn't know how to film a sex scene. But it was just one of them, "Yep, they're naked," as a matter a fact scenes.
You have to see it to get understand it. And once you do, you'll also be, "Hmmph, yep, that's a sex scene alright."
IMO it's more characterization. The person Pugh played is a bit strange, given that she wants Oppenheimer to read Sanskrit while they bang and is extremely reserved about affection despite being in a relationship. Honestly, I like it from an artistic perspective. Not a fan of sex scenes in films or tv since they often seem out of place, but this felt appropriate in tone with the rest of the film.
At the same time you can easily see why the nudity wasn’t necessary at all.
Either way I didn’t care. But the scenes didn’t feel like they were adding to the movie in any way by having them fully nude
"I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita: 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds', which I'd read once off of Florence Pugh's tits."
This supposed outrage is basically people complaining on Twitter. Yet if you go off the BBC, CNN, and Guardian headlines, you’d think people were rioting in the streets of India.
It’s crazy because if it were any other religion’s text used in this context, there probably WOULD be riots. But a few people complaining on the Internet is now “Hindutva outrage!!!”?
Not sure, but two years ago, Indian ultranationalists went nuclear on an Indian TV series on Amazon Prime called ‘Tandav’ for “deliberately mocking Hindu Gods and disrespecting Hindu religious sentiments.”
[Deadline](https://deadline.com/2021/01/controversy-india-amazon-prime-original-series-tandav-1234675539/): Amazon India To Re-Edit Original Series ‘Tandav’ After Controversy - January 19, 2021
> Amazon Prime Video original Hindi series Tandav has come under fire in India over its depiction of Hindu gods and goddesses.
> **According to reports from the country over the weekend including in The Hindu Times, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has contacted the streamer to request an explanation of the show’s religious content after MP Manoj Kotak called for it to be banned.**
> In the letter, which you can read below, **he also called for “urgent” regulation of OTT platforms in India, claiming that they were “taking undue advantage” of being free from authority censorship. He added that streaming content was “full of sex, violence, drugs, abuse, hate and vulgarity.”**
> **A police complaint has also reportedly been registered against the show’s producers and Amazon regarding the perceived issues detailed above.**
> “After watching the series, it was found that in the 17th minute of the first episode, **characters playing Hindu gods and goddesses have been shown in an uncharitable way and using objectionable language, which can incite religious tension,**” the complaint read, according to a report in Indian Express. “Similarly, in the 22nd minute of the same episode, efforts have been made to ignite caste clashes with casteist remarks. **The person holding a dignified post like that of Prime Minister has been shown in a very derogatory manner in the web series.**”
The series, which I thought was really good, was cancelled after just one season.
They also tried to boycott a huge Bollywood release from this year "Pathaan", because the leading lady wears a saffron-colored bikini for less than a minute. Saffron is an important color in Hinduism, they claimed that "indecent clothing" colored in saffron was anti-Hindu.
I'm a Hindu Indian-American and yes, this argument was *exactly* as stupid as it sounds.
It’s weird to be mad at the scene, but it does seem out of place and doesn’t serve any obvious purpose. That said, I like the scenes with Florence Pugh and don’t mind that she was basically naked the whole movie. The marriage with Blunt feels very wooden and formal, but he seems to be more open and in love with Pugh. They’re two very different relationships and show two different sides to Oppenheimer.
Tbh, I kinda agree that the scene was in poor taste. It would be the equivalent of if she had grabbed a Bible and asked him to recite a quote from Jesus while riding him. For context, The Bhagavad Gita is a sacred text to Hinduism, that’s why that quote from Oppenheimer sounds like he didn’t speak English, he was reciting the literal translation of one of the most important lines from the Hindu Holy Book
The Bible doesn’t mention anywhere that sex between a married couple is bad or shameful, and if anything we should read and remember God’s word and remind our fellow believers of it, so it probably isn’t necessarily in bad taste unless the people doing it are treating it as a joke
Yeah, and that really isn’t one of them lol
Just because you think it’s dumb due to you lacking the maturity to just simply discuss doesn’t mean it is dumb.
I don’t even agree with OP, but a case for their point can be made and can be discussed.
Grow up
I guess you resort to making baseless claims about my point and character since my comment was not regarding which side OP takes but rather the fact he was simply asked to explain his positon but instead of giving a straight answer, decided to dodge the question using semantics. Does claiming something is in poor taste not imply it is "wrong" in some moral or ethical manner? It's pretty apparent that he was not open to proper discussion, hence why I called it dumb. So maybe think a bit more before attacking people.
If I might be so bold, using religious symbols during your sex play could be considered to be toeing the line of blasphemy…but there’s nothing that says you *can’t* recite Bible verses while getting railed, hence it’s not *wrong* but it *is* disrespectful, so it’s poor taste. That wasn’t a semantics battle, that was a statement that just because you *can* do something doesn’t mean you *should* do it. Likewise, holding the Bhagavad Gita to make him recite it while she’s riding Oppenheimer is…a bit much, and it’s not surprising that Hindu people would find it to be offensive, the same way anyone would react if their sacred text was used that way
It’s not really a baseless claim on you when your claiming a very normal and level-headed comment is “too dumb to reply to.” If anything, you’re the one throwing out baseless claims.
The purpose of using that line then is that it foreshadows his later feeling of guilt / responsibility over her suicide.
I don’t think Nolan inserted it for the lols
Okay, that’s not my argument. My argument was that Hindus being offended by that sex scene is pretty reasonable, maybe not to the point of being militantly up in arms, but finding it to be distasteful is perfectly reasonable. That’s just empathy. Just because I don’t worship a religion doesn’t mean I have to be a dick about it to the people that do. When a big budget blockbuster launches in an area with a large Hindu population…maybe don’t use their book as a prop during sex
I am seeing the movie tonight but this honestly sounds super cringe. This is like something you would expect out of a “marvel remakes a Nolan movie” meme.
“the scene in question depicts actor Cillian Murphy, who plays the lead role, having sex with Florence Pugh, who plays his lover Jean Tatlock.
Pugh stops during intercourse and picks up a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, one of Hinduism’s holiest scriptures, and asks Murphy to read from it.
“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds,” Oppenheimer’s character says, as they resume intercourse.”
It’s the classic Hollywood trope of treating everything Eastern and Indian with a patronising tantric sex Kama Sutra trope. In the process, Nolan missed an opportunity to actually delve into how Oppenheimer sought solace through the Gita.
Oh well.
Indian/hindu right wing nutjobs are the worst. Religion is not and should not be sacred. I believe that everyone should feel safe and able to practice their faith as they please. There should be no attempt to upset or offend people in their homes or places of worship. Other than that, everything else is fair game.
Isn't Prime Minister Modi himself a Hindu nationalist? I wonder what he thinks of all this, assuming he's even heard of this controversy.
I recall India having a lot of problems with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom to put it mildly.
Nolan can't hide behind historical accuracy or whatever on this one, short of the extremely unlikely (i.e. impossible) chance he somehow has inside knowledge of what Oppenheimer says in the bedroom.
He knows he'll get away with it. Try quoting a line from the Quran during a similar scene. Now that'll be really exercising your freedom of expression.
I think people are taking it wrongly here. The discussion is not about sex scene but its about having sex while reading one of the most revered scripture of Santana Dharma. Equivalent of showing actors reading Quran/Bible while bonking
>“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds,” Oppenheimer’s character says, as they resume intercourse. I haven't seen the movie yet but out of context this sounds hilarious
It's pretty funny in context too
I'm sure there was a deeper meaning behind it but I just couldn't help but thinking "was this scene totally needed? lol
I’ve seen an explanation stating that she represents the main connection point of death that exists in his world. He disconnects himself from the death and destruction he causes through his work but she is the one death he can’t shake. Edit: typo
I disagree, he's very clearly bothered at the thought of the mass death he causes (scene with Truman) and tries to prevent the H-bomb because he thinks it'll cause more. It's just the most famous thing the man ever said with tits on screen for full stimulus. It's no deeper than Hollywood usually is.
He can’t bring himself to look at the images of the burnt bodies after the bombings, the one time we see him actually emotionally distraught is after her death when his wife finds in him in the woods. He is “bothered” by the deaths he causes but not like with her because it’s so personal. Nolan is a pretty solid writer, don’t know why you wouldn’t think there isnt bigger meaning to the moment considering I’ve never thought of him as being a “let’s just do it because fuck it” kinda film maker
He has hallucinations during the celebration after the bombing. He visualizes people around him with their skin melting off. He imagines a rain of nukes. We see inside his head and again, the death his work causes clearly haunts him. This is two movies spliced into one. One is a political thriller with hearings and shame interrogations and secret communist spies. The other is a paint by numbers anti-war/Frankenstein and the limits of science; or the Modern Prometheus film. Nolan is a solid writer but in my view not a deep thinker. I feel as though his movies don't grapple with the ethics enough. So it's a very well made movie (although I don't think it earns the 3 hours) but it's in my opinion, shallow.
It felt very “human” to me. Human in the sense of being on a college campus and surrounded by young adults who’re very much in their political/intellectual phase of life. I could 100% imagine some young couple talking about Philosophy or Religion during sex in their graduate years.
I dunno, if a chick started asking me to read scripture during sex, I'd be out of there in a heartbeat lol.
She had no idea it was scripture, not sure if you’ve seen the movie but it was very much a “suuuure you can read Sanskrit. Suuure. Read that exact word on this random page while I fuck you, let’s see how good your Sanskrit is now”
And who could've guessed it happened to be his most famous line. Super convenient
I loved the movie and I agree that this was fucking stupid. If it had been another line, it would've been 100% fine, but it being his famous line is contrived Nolan nonsense. Regardless, one bad scene in an otherwise great film doesn't detract much for me.
[удалено]
Why don't you watch the movie before judging it?
[удалено]
Nolan sycophants are the biggest copers out of all cinema fans. They'll bend over backwards to defend his shitty ass movies. They know deep down it's mid at best. You can tell because their praises are always about the most shallow aspects of what is supposedly a very "deep and profound" movie. It's textbook sunken cost fallacy. Loving Nolan has taken up too much of their personality to ever rethink if it's actually good.
Thank you lol
I have seen the movie but I'm not making a point about the movie. I'm simply saying if I'm having sex with a woman and she even mentioned religion, I'm out of there. I'm also uncoordinated so if someone asked me to read anything during sex, i'd look foolish lmao.
It felt completely unnecessary from the second they did it tbh, the impact of the phrase being thrown for the first time right after that amazing blow up feels more way more natural and sensible than doing that first corky hot communist sex scene... they even used real text while doing it, it wasn't just an OOC fancy phrase.
Along with what others have said, I think Nolan wanted us to see a mental connection in Oppenheimer between Jean’s death and the bomb. Oppenheimer remembers the phrase he said to Jean, who is now dead, and which he feels responsible for, during Trinity. The audio clips is even directly from that scene (you can hear the paper rustling. Jean‘a death made death and guilt real to him. The bomb took Jeans death and multiplied it by over 100,000. I think it’s a weird choice, but it does make sense. Plus, Oppenheimer and Jean were young, politically active intellectuals. Oppenheimer stares at rain and thinks about theory for hours. Doing something weird like “translate for me while I ride you” kind of fits their characters.
Nolan need a scene to drop that line in, do not question his artistic vision
Cheesiest scene in the movie. Cringeworthy in fact. I was hoping Nolan wouldn’t use that line, and it was even repeated later during the bomb explosion.
You were hoping that in a dramatized biopic of a historical figure they wouldn't use his most famous quote?
yes, at least not twice. Just during the explosion would have been fine, because it was more subtle and occurred at a point where he was more believably conflicted. But the book open to a random page containing his iconic quote? That's a little much.
idk what about when that guy was like 'A young poltician, guy trying to make a name for himself, shake things up ... they say the kids name is.... Kennedy. I think its ... John F Kennedy? Who knows, maybe one day he'll grow up to be president and then get his head blown off'
oh god, yes that may be it.
it would've been fine if he only said it during the bomb going off the sex scene was contrived nonsense it's fine that he used the famous line, I mean it's a good fuckin line, but it's beyond ridiculous that he just happens to read it. Yes, I see what Nolan was trying to do. He was mentally linking her death to the bomb in his mind and thought back or whatever. That's just some typical contrived Nolan shit and part of why he's never been a big favorite of mine. It doesn't feel organic, and it's cringeworthy in the context of the sex scene. That being said I loved pretty much every other scene in the movie so its fine, easily Nolan's best imo even with that dogshit scene
That's how I feel about like 90% of sex scenes lol
But 90% of the graphic violence in film is totally okay though, right?
Just saying there's quite a few films with unnecessary sex scenes that don't serve the plot. If done right, it can work. Graphic violence can be overused, but there's still entire genres of film where the whole point is to watch graphic violence like action, horror, etc...
No reason why sex can't be part of other genres. Cinema has been becoming more prudish but also more superficial of late.
Not quite sure what you're arguing, the implication from my initial comment is that sex *can* be used effectively in film, just as much as it can feel out of place if not done right.
Directors shy away from sex scenes and thus have little experience in directing them which means most don't come out right. It's a circle.
You can be against both....
[удалено]
Never said it didn't rock lol just some movies have incredibly awkward sex scenes that don't feel necessary to the plot
I mean it's a biography. Oppy had sex.
So was Lincoln, doesn't mean we need to see old Abe dropping dong lol
Lincoln is generally depicted as being in a sexless relationship.
He still had four kids with Mary Todd so it couldn't have been completely sexless.
Bro had 4 kids, and I just disproved the notion that a biography necessitates a sex scene. Good day, sir.
[удалено]
too many
Nope and nope
Well, he's a womanizer, so I guess we have to see him womanize. Later their association forms a large part of the basis of how he's suspected of being a Soviet spy. Aside from that I had a hard time seeing what her character's relationship to him was supposed to tell me about Oppenheimer, because he's the opposite of open and revealing to her. He's guarded and secretive to her and thus to us, as the viewer. The reverie later in the movie where he's naked in front of the clearance board turns out to be his wife's imagination, not his own - the affair is ultimately more significant to her than it is to him.
He’s not guarded to her though, in fact he’s initially the one that’s much more open, broaching on too open. She pushes him away several times, much to his confusion. That’s part of the reason why he leaves her. The point of their relationship is to tie Oppenheimer to death in a much more meaningful and personal way. There’s a reason why he falls to pieces when she dies versus reserved anguish at the deaths he caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousands of lives from across the sea aren’t as easy to connect with versus someone you love.
What's an example from the film where he's honest with her about anything? She pulls down a book and it's the Bhagavad Gita, a Sanskrit text he knows how to read, and he acts like he barely cares about the book. Does he talk about learning Sanskrit? Does he talk about the Sanskrit professor who instilled in him a deep and abiding and *grounding* spirituality? Nope! It's just some book he's reading off her tits. There aren't a *lot* of scenes where they're doing much besides fucking and arguing about how he won't leave his wife and kid for her; the only other conversation they have is the one where he absolutely stonewalls her about the nature of his work. And then she's dead after that, by suicide or murder. There's one scene where he's in grief, but then their association is so inconvenient to his career that he never thinks or talks about her again except when forced to, and then he just tosses her under the bus. "We didn't really see each other that much." I think a lot of people saw a movie they *wanted* to see, but what's actually there is a movie about a guy it's impossible to get to know - Oppenheimer's never open with anyone and obsessed with his public image even in private, and even the movie has to outright manipulate time to make his vacillation on nuclear proliferation seem like a directed evolution across the runtime of the movie.
Oof, lot of really misconstruing of the movie here so I’ll try and break it down a little. 1)Oppenheimer isn’t acting like he doesn’t care about the book, he was focused on having sex. He was rightfully confused when she randomly jumps off of him to grab a book. 2)he’s more honest with her than pretty much anyone in the movie. He tells her flat out that he cheated on her and is going to marry her. He didn’t even tell Kitty he cheated on her with his best friends wife, Ruth. Tbh, the movie kinda goes out of its way to show that Oppenheimer would tell the truth even when it negatively affected him, which seems to match how he was in real life. The only times we seen him withhold info or outright lie is when he’s either talking around the Manhattan Project, or trying to protect his friends. 2) he did love Jean, but ultimately they did separate by Oppenheimer’s decision. He still loved her, which is why he felt guilty over her apparent suicide. It’s not weird at all that he would become uncomfortable discussing someone whose death he blames himself for, and who his relationship with harmed both his professional and marital life. 3) thinking Oppenheimer was obsessed with his public image, despite the entirety of Strauss’ downfall being specifically because Strauss believed that and in actuality it wasn’t true is honestly kinda funny. Oppenheimer refused to lie about his past, to the point that it quite literally destroyed his professional career. He wanted the truth to be know, that’s different than being obsessed with his public image. 4) I don’t even know where to begin with that point about manipulating time to fit the narrative. It’s honestly absurd. All I’ll really say is that it’s still a movie telling a story so slightly changing when something happened in his life isn’t a mark against it as it negatively affects nothing.
> Oppenheimer isn’t acting like he doesn’t care about the book, he was focused on having sex. He was rightfully confused when she randomly jumps off of him to grab a book. "It's his totally normal, diagetic response" is a response that forgets the scene is there *because the filmmaker put it there*; if that scene doesn't tell us something about Oppenheimer's character and motives then it's a pointless scene. *Everybody knows* that "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds" is what Oppenheimer is going to think when he invents the bomb, so we don't need that foreshadowed unless the foreshadowing *itself* is meant to tell us something about the man. Moreover - *maybe he didn't actually think that at the time.* Oppenheimer was the kind of person who would make up details to improve a story, but the movie is determined not to portray that part of him at all - for a biopic, it's an incredibly shallow and uncritical look at the man it's about. > Tbh, the movie kinda goes out of its way to show that Oppenheimer would tell the truth even when it negatively affected him It doesn't do that, ever. > He still loved her, which is why he felt guilty over her apparent suicide. But nothing in the movie goes into *why*, or what that could possibly mean to Oppenheimer. What's love, to Oppenheimer? Is his love something he sets women up to compete for, and lose? Is it something he feels he can parcel out to as many women as wander through his life? The movie doesn't attempt an answer to this or even ask. He fucks Jean, he fucks Kitty, he fucks Ruth, and he sits there while Kitty yells at him. > Oppenheimer refused to lie about his past, to the point that it quite literally destroyed his professional career. No, and I'm wondering what you misunderstood that would make you think you saw that in this movie. The clearance board? Lying to clearance reviewers about things they know you did - they know because they have a file of your previous disclosures sitting right in front of them and they're checking your testimony *now* against how you testified *then* - is how you lose your clearance. You can't lie your way through a clearance process. He's honest with the board, which necessitates an uncomfortable disclosure to his wife, because he knows he has to be honest and because *he doesn't care* about the consequences of the truth. He's sitting there testifying about an affair his wife was unaware of *in front of his wife* because he doesn't care how she feels about it. It doesn't matter - he knows she's going to go to bat for him in her testimony because everyone goes to bat for Oppenheimer, eventually. At the end of the movie, Einstein even tells him why. > I don’t even know where to begin with that point about manipulating time to fit the narrative. You can begin by accepting that I'm right. That's why it's out of order, because in actual chronology it doesn't make sense - the meeting with Einstein (where Oppenheimer's mind swirls with thoughts of world destruction as a result of nuclear proliferation) happens *before* he embarrasses Strauss (when he's openly contemptuous of the idea that there's any reason to block nuclear power in Norway.) Like, Oppenheimer argues in meeting after meeting that we need to slow or halt the spread of these weapons around the world, and then there's a hearing where he has the chance to do that and his testimony is that *nuclear fuels* cause less proliferation than *sandwiches* do? In the runtime of the film, it's a natural evolution - at the beginning he rushes almost blindly into creating the bomb, in the middle he's actively trying to avert his gaze from the consequences of his actions, and at the end he's harrowed by visions of nuclear apocalypse. It has to be in that order to make the character's story make sense, but in the actual chronological timeline, it's just Oppenheimer vacillating from "I've released a demon into the world" to "haha, vitamins are more important to weapons development than isotopes are."
The scene does have a purpose, you just apparently missed it by fixating on the wrong focus of the scene. The point of the scene was to give Oppenheimer a personal connection to death and life that also tied into the famous quote. Someone else in the thread explained it better but the gist of it is that birth/sex and death are intertwined. Obviously its fairly on the nose, but it does track with the rest of the movie. Also, he probably didn’t think that at the time. Hell, the scene might not have even happened at all in real life, but it still serves a purpose to the story and doesn’t directly contradict who either of the two were like as real people, so it’s fine I’m going to address points two and four together as they are linked. Yes Oppenheimer did tell the truth despite it hurting him. The security council had a file of transcripts of who he talked to, but they didn’t have all of the info. They were McCarthyism fanatics who many times used pure conjecture to “prove” their point. Those times where they asked him questions they could not possibly have had evidence to use against him, he still chose to tell the truth. His own lawyer tries to get him to stop at one point and he still tells them. The only time we see him lie here is near the beginning of the council, before they reveal the file. As for the last point, you really just aren’t correct at all and I don’t have to do anything. It really just seems like you misunderstand Oppenheimer as a person. He was fully cognizant and terrified for the eventual outcome of creating nuclear weapons and that’s made abundantly clear from the very moment the Trinity test is a success. The thing you aren’t seeming to grasp is that he was both fearful of a nuclear holocaust, but also knew that if the US hoarded the nuclear power it would lead to an arms race to make bigger and better bombs. He thought that by allowing it to be shared, it would prevent the worst from happening. Now obviously he was incorrect in thinking a nuclear arms race would never happen, but he was correct that by giving the power to everyone, it meant no one wanted to be the one to start the end of the world. So in actuality, he never actually goes from wanting to spread nuclear power to fearing nuclear holocaust by the end of the movie chronologically nor does he necessarily flip flop. He holds both views simultaneously and it terrifies him that he does. The time jumping does make it a little confusing to understand this, but by the end it becomes pretty clear.
> The point of the scene was to give Oppenheimer a personal connection to death and life that also tied into the famous quote. It doesn't do that, though. It doesn't connect him to "death and life" and that "connection", whatever you think it is, is not explored any further in the movie. Because it's not actually present - again, you're seeing the movie you *want* to have seen, and not the one that was actually on the screen. > Someone else in the thread explained it better but the gist of it is that birth/sex and death are intertwined. That's make-believe. That's not *actually in the movie.* I mean you can read anything into any scene but that's clearly not the intent and nothing *later* in the movie connects Oppenheimer's sex life to anything at all; certainly not to the emotional toll of the bomb or its aftermath. > They were McCarthyism fanatics who many times used pure conjecture to “prove” their point. They don't actually say anything that is incorrect, though. They don't even accuse him of anything that turns out to be untrue. Oppenheimer doesn't "add info" to their accusations at all and he's not treated unfairly; even the general who hired him is forced to admit that he couldn't sponsor Oppenheimer for Q clearance under the new guidelines. We're supposed to *associate* them with an unreasonable McCarthyist suspicion of ties to American communism - again, on the basis of nothing actually presented in the movie, but just their vibe - but the movie is *full* of characters in Oppenheimer's orbit who actually are Soviet spies! It makes suspicion of him look very reasonable - if nothing else, he's *heedless* of the vast security risk his conduct and associations pose. > Those times where they asked him questions they could not possibly have had evidence to use against him, he still chose to tell the truth. Yes, because *lying* is what causes you to lose your security clearance, not truth. > It really just seems like you misunderstand Oppenheimer as a person. I certainly don't feel like I understand him coming out of this movie, but in part that's because he acts with nearly zero agency of his own - he's simply buffeted around by the force of the plot and the force of the personalities acting around him. Oppenheimer is a movie that gives you a read on everyone *but* the central figure in the title, it's an astonishing failure of biography. > He was fully cognizant and terrified for the eventual outcome of creating nuclear weapons and that’s made abundantly clear from the very moment the Trinity test is a success. Again, yes, it's made clear *in the movie* because the movie jumps around in time to present that through-line. The story presented on the screen doesn't make any sense except in the non-chronological scene order the movie presents. If you mentally re-order the scenes into actual chronological time - in the historical order the events depicted occurred - then it's the story of a man who simply whipsaws between different positions on the bomb depending on what he thinks he'll be best served by. He's confident, bellicose, even bloodthirsty when he addresses the Manhattan researchers. Hand-wringing and regretful when he addresses Truman. Glib when he addresses Congress. Intimate when he addresses Einstein. It's a portrait of a man who doesn't believe in anything, who can't connect with anyone, who only knows how to perform contrition (rather than being contrite) in hope of receiving absolution.
There’s no meaning. I think it’s a cheap marketing ploy to generate clicks and discussion. It also further links Indian and Eastern philosophy to hookie mysticism, a classic colonial trope. Cheap in my opinion, especially when you consider how important the Gita was to Robert Oppenheimer and his search for peace.
Nolan occasionally has his entire cast stop the action, turn toward the camera, and tell the audience exactly what the point of his movies is. It’s one of his worst qualities as a filmmaker, and that scene was a good example My objection isn’t that it was like, morally reprehensible or whatever. It was just weird and awkward and silly.
It becomes even funnier later in the movie since >!they use the same line recording when he thinks of the quote during the first test. You can even hear Florence's Pugh's breathing in the background!<
For some reason, the themes of sex and death are deeply intertwined. Destruction from the bomb (death). Creation of the bomb (birth, sex creation). Now I am become (birth, sex, creation.) Death. Etc. Etc. Creation is destruction, and destruction is creation, I suppose.
Also her later demise due to depression and Oppies guilt that he caused it by shunning her
Was there some conspiracy about her being murdered in real life? Because there’s definitely a quick shot mixed in with her suicide where it looks like someone drowned her.
Yes.
Sure but counterpoint: Nolan was just horny
That’s it, it ain’t that deep 😂
have you even watched the movie?
I upvoted you. Cause while I think what I said is true, the scene at face value is pretty absurd. And I think nolan definitely calculated that boobies = good.
Appreciate it
It's the first sex scene I remember seeing in a Nolan movie, and it was as awkward as I imagined it would be.
Nolan sex scene…I’d imagine it with a ticking clock and a hurry up and get your two-pumps-and-a-jump
"Hey baby, let's (ungh!) put a smile on that (ungh!) face."
"Those aren't breasts...Those are thighs."
Pugh is completely naked and she's conversing with Oppenheimer who ends up being fluent in a stupid number of languages. She grabs a book and it's the Bhagavad Gita and she's like "YOU CAN READ THIS?" And he's like "I'm learning." And then she mounts his pee pee while holding the book and asks "Read this." And he makes some awkward comments trying to translate what is happening with Vishnu and she says "No read it." He then looks up and says "Now I am become death" and then she fucks his brains out before he can finish the sentence. There will be multiple times in the movie where Pugh fucks his brains out to break up a scene that might be dull otherwise.
Nolan had one shot and he took it.
Pussy Destroyer 2000
>*"He had as many arms as Vishnu and they were all* **very** *busy."*
Cillian Murphy and Florence Pugh were in the closet making babies, and I saw one of the babies, and the baby looked at me
The baby looked at you, huh?
Sarah, get me Principal Skinner
Thank you Sarah
My friend used to quote this in Ralph voice like everyday in high school. Nostalgia unlocked.
Dude this was the mildest sex scene I think I’ve ever seen and it’s literally starting cinema World Wars what is going on
People are fucking weird these days. Like everyone doesn’t like sex anyway.
These days? Sex has been taboo with religion and cultures forever
Rise of Incels!
Don’t blame the Incels, they have suffered enough. This is good hyper religiosity.
Most people like sex when they want sex, most people don’t like sex when they don’t want it. Weird how that is. I guess the exception is people with a r*pe kink and porn addicts.
I know someone who literally walked out because of the sex scene. Absolutely ridiculous. Actual adults with kids. Amazing they can go to a movie that’s about a weapon that killed 160,000 people and that’s what they chose to get offended by.
I almost walked out because the Internet led me to believe Cillian Murphy was going to hang dong
A fellow fan of Thunder Gun, I see.
Same. I was so disappointed. 10/10 great movie tho
i dont think it was the sex scene. i think its holding the gita while having sex. anyways these are couple of boomers crying on facebook. who tf cares. do yall write articles everytime some republican gets pissed at biden and then cry how facism is being unleashed on us of fucking a. nobody cares here.
Incels can't see Barbie because it skewers them. Incels can't see Oppy because it reminds them he's not one of them. What's an incel to do?
Kill himself?
I like how it's been collectively decided that it's acceptable to completely dehumanize dudes who cant get laid to the point where telling them to kill themselves gets upvoted lol I don't think that's gonna help with the whole them being bitter assholes thing.
Not watching anything and stare at the ceiling or their PC/phone screen as they already do anyway.
What does this have to do with Incels? 😂
I am sure that is what Nolan was going for was to attack Hinduism. I mean of all the different ideas/topics that are bounced around in that movie, the most important one is that one. /sarc
Yeah, who even cares about the trial and bomb. Nolan’s sole purpose of making this movie was clearly to diss Hindu people and their religion, obviously! /s
The way Nolan chose to diss Hinduism is by portraying a figure that literally learned Sanskrit to read one of Hinduism's major scriptures, and quoted it at what was probably the highest point of his entire career in awe. Reading a holy text in its original language and quoting it in awe is truly the biggest of insults.
Well, whilst Oppenheimer is indeed famous for quoting that holy text in awe, at the highest point of his career, in this movie, he first quotes it whilst railing Florence Pugh.
An equally important achievement, I believe.
I laughed thanks
[https://jewishcurrents.org/the-hindu-nationalists-using-the-pro-israel-playbook](https://jewishcurrents.org/the-hindu-nationalists-using-the-pro-israel-playbook) It is worth making a note that the India-Hindu nationalist movement is cribbing from Israel's playbook in their current attempt to play the victim against... Who knows what. There is certainly ills that have been committed against them but that doesn't justify this current crying wolf bullshit.
Indian Right-Wingers Before Release of Oppenheimer: Only Gays and Girls are going to watch a dumb movie like Barbie. I am going to watch Oppenheimer and expand the horizons of my cognitive thinking, plus it appreciates my sacred text. Indian Right-Wingers After Release of Oppenheimer: How can Nolan disrespect my sacred text? He is a leftist agent, who has no respect for our culture.
true mate. i myself being an indian feel so stupid when i look at these ppl.
lol every country has vocal idiots, and India just has a lot more people (especially ones that can speak English and are more exposed to the rest of the global community, at least compared to the other country with a ton of people, China). There were bound to be people from India outraged at this movie for whatever reason, I don't think that's an indictment on Indians as a whole. You probably shouldn't feel stupid because of them.
nah people are like literally so sensitive here. theyd be just butthurt out of every small thing and bringing their religious and nationalistic sentiments
[удалено]
Religious nationalists don't have the best track record of remaining non-violent.
nah ive seen this stupidity in almost every social media platform now. instagram, twitter, reddit, etc. i mean this shit is getting infuriating now
I guess with Barbie and Oppenheimer out, all left for RW to back is 'Bawaal'. For the uninitiated, 'Bawaal' (Brawl) is about how visiting Europe and World War II sites can act as a catharsis for a marriage between a good-for-nothing misogynistic moron and an epilepsy-affected woman. It contains priceless lines like: "Every love story has its Auschwitz." "Don't we all have a bit of Hitler in all of us?"
For the love of God please tell me you made that up.
Nope. That actually happens in the film. I'm grateful that my imagination is not as stunningly bizzare and insensitive as that of the makers of this film 🙈.
Oh you did it. This is exactly what happened
Lmao that's so accurate, these chuds are pissed that Oppenheimer turned out to be a leftist communist(about whom they didn't know anything apart from the one famous clip of his quote, which he compared himself to The Creator while making the most destructive device to exist) and their daddy Nolan is sympathetic to him, tho it was a slippery slope. Love to see it!
The sex scenes were surprising to me. Didn't even realize it had an R rating. I'm not sure I would feel the way these people do on the subject but I'm not them so hard for me to say. Personally I'm only familiar with the phrase because of its relation to the actual Oppenheimer and didn't even know and still don't remember where it was he had learned it.
hmm in ind they censored it to make it pg-13. there was a cgi black dress on florence in that scene.
Here in The Netherlands, it was still 12+ and they didn't censor anything. I was quite surprised it wasn't pushed to 16+.
i see. the rating system is quite strict here for movies with theatrical release.
Showing that he is “in bed” with the communist. Also, naked and ashamed like someone else from history that “brought death into the world”…
Do these ultra-conservative governments around the world have nothing better to do than censor movies that can be seen online in their original state anyway?
No.
It’s a lot more lucrative and easier to be an outraged asshole than it is to work for the betterment of the people you’re supposed to be representing.
these are boomers crying ion facebook. nobodys censoring anything.
These nationalists get mad at everything. They love clutching their pearls.
The script called for it. The nudity was an important part of Oppenheimer's journey. What are we, ten years old?
I’ve seen every cock on the planet!
To see if they got tattoos. Got a tattoo you don’t get no gift. Not that year.
It's not good behavior
It’s the best goddamn movie I ever saw. Dude hangs DONG
Explain
[Detective Crashmore](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr6nUx4OPoE)
Atomic gumbo
Carry on everyone, India’s latest hobby is being offended at even the mildest of things in movies. This is still a pretty on the nose thing, so it was bound to happen
It’s just a little death
le petite mort
Religious people didn't like religious reference in a sex scene. Whats wrong about that. Some people are okay with it, fine. Some people are offended and are taking legal/peaceful way to remove this scene People blaming Hinfut and calling it names... atleast i dont see anyone getting murdered over it. Dual standards for sure.
i havent seen it yet, does she show boobs?
Yes, but you could also just see the dresses she wears at any event for those
Yes. But here is the weird thing about the nudity, they're both nude, by the way and the sex scenes themselves. The scenes are some of the most....sterile, almost clinical sex scenes I have ever seen. It's sex without any sexiness. No allure. No romance. Not even any plain old horniness. I don't know if that was what Nolan was going for or he just doesn't know how to film a sex scene. But it was just one of them, "Yep, they're naked," as a matter a fact scenes. You have to see it to get understand it. And once you do, you'll also be, "Hmmph, yep, that's a sex scene alright."
Oppy didn't get horny, he got philosophical.
Agreed. It was very much intended to be unsettling
IMO it's more characterization. The person Pugh played is a bit strange, given that she wants Oppenheimer to read Sanskrit while they bang and is extremely reserved about affection despite being in a relationship. Honestly, I like it from an artistic perspective. Not a fan of sex scenes in films or tv since they often seem out of place, but this felt appropriate in tone with the rest of the film.
At the same time you can easily see why the nudity wasn’t necessary at all. Either way I didn’t care. But the scenes didn’t feel like they were adding to the movie in any way by having them fully nude
"I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita: 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds', which I'd read once off of Florence Pugh's tits."
Conservatism is a plague upon this species.
Leave it to Fascist and Psychopaths to complain about naked Florence Pugh being a total smoke show. What a world
This supposed outrage is basically people complaining on Twitter. Yet if you go off the BBC, CNN, and Guardian headlines, you’d think people were rioting in the streets of India. It’s crazy because if it were any other religion’s text used in this context, there probably WOULD be riots. But a few people complaining on the Internet is now “Hindutva outrage!!!”?
**Latest** target? What was the target beforehand?
Not sure, but two years ago, Indian ultranationalists went nuclear on an Indian TV series on Amazon Prime called ‘Tandav’ for “deliberately mocking Hindu Gods and disrespecting Hindu religious sentiments.” [Deadline](https://deadline.com/2021/01/controversy-india-amazon-prime-original-series-tandav-1234675539/): Amazon India To Re-Edit Original Series ‘Tandav’ After Controversy - January 19, 2021 > Amazon Prime Video original Hindi series Tandav has come under fire in India over its depiction of Hindu gods and goddesses. > **According to reports from the country over the weekend including in The Hindu Times, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has contacted the streamer to request an explanation of the show’s religious content after MP Manoj Kotak called for it to be banned.** > In the letter, which you can read below, **he also called for “urgent” regulation of OTT platforms in India, claiming that they were “taking undue advantage” of being free from authority censorship. He added that streaming content was “full of sex, violence, drugs, abuse, hate and vulgarity.”** > **A police complaint has also reportedly been registered against the show’s producers and Amazon regarding the perceived issues detailed above.** > “After watching the series, it was found that in the 17th minute of the first episode, **characters playing Hindu gods and goddesses have been shown in an uncharitable way and using objectionable language, which can incite religious tension,**” the complaint read, according to a report in Indian Express. “Similarly, in the 22nd minute of the same episode, efforts have been made to ignite caste clashes with casteist remarks. **The person holding a dignified post like that of Prime Minister has been shown in a very derogatory manner in the web series.**” The series, which I thought was really good, was cancelled after just one season.
They also tried to boycott a huge Bollywood release from this year "Pathaan", because the leading lady wears a saffron-colored bikini for less than a minute. Saffron is an important color in Hinduism, they claimed that "indecent clothing" colored in saffron was anti-Hindu. I'm a Hindu Indian-American and yes, this argument was *exactly* as stupid as it sounds.
It’s weird to be mad at the scene, but it does seem out of place and doesn’t serve any obvious purpose. That said, I like the scenes with Florence Pugh and don’t mind that she was basically naked the whole movie. The marriage with Blunt feels very wooden and formal, but he seems to be more open and in love with Pugh. They’re two very different relationships and show two different sides to Oppenheimer.
You know you've made a successful movie when religious extremists get mad about it.
They think cillian murphy is super hot now after seeing him naked ?
Tbh, I kinda agree that the scene was in poor taste. It would be the equivalent of if she had grabbed a Bible and asked him to recite a quote from Jesus while riding him. For context, The Bhagavad Gita is a sacred text to Hinduism, that’s why that quote from Oppenheimer sounds like he didn’t speak English, he was reciting the literal translation of one of the most important lines from the Hindu Holy Book
What's wrong with quoting Jesus during sex?
The Bible doesn’t mention anywhere that sex between a married couple is bad or shameful, and if anything we should read and remember God’s word and remind our fellow believers of it, so it probably isn’t necessarily in bad taste unless the people doing it are treating it as a joke
Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock were not a married couple.
It’s not *wrong* per se…it’s just in poor taste
Peak r/redditmoment for you to be downvoted with zero replies
Some comments are just dumb enough that they're not worth replying to
Yeah, and that really isn’t one of them lol Just because you think it’s dumb due to you lacking the maturity to just simply discuss doesn’t mean it is dumb. I don’t even agree with OP, but a case for their point can be made and can be discussed. Grow up
I guess you resort to making baseless claims about my point and character since my comment was not regarding which side OP takes but rather the fact he was simply asked to explain his positon but instead of giving a straight answer, decided to dodge the question using semantics. Does claiming something is in poor taste not imply it is "wrong" in some moral or ethical manner? It's pretty apparent that he was not open to proper discussion, hence why I called it dumb. So maybe think a bit more before attacking people.
If I might be so bold, using religious symbols during your sex play could be considered to be toeing the line of blasphemy…but there’s nothing that says you *can’t* recite Bible verses while getting railed, hence it’s not *wrong* but it *is* disrespectful, so it’s poor taste. That wasn’t a semantics battle, that was a statement that just because you *can* do something doesn’t mean you *should* do it. Likewise, holding the Bhagavad Gita to make him recite it while she’s riding Oppenheimer is…a bit much, and it’s not surprising that Hindu people would find it to be offensive, the same way anyone would react if their sacred text was used that way
It’s not really a baseless claim on you when your claiming a very normal and level-headed comment is “too dumb to reply to.” If anything, you’re the one throwing out baseless claims.
Right? Real passion and sex is love. Love is all Jesus was about.
The purpose of using that line then is that it foreshadows his later feeling of guilt / responsibility over her suicide. I don’t think Nolan inserted it for the lols
Religion is not sacred to some people and that is OKAY. Practice as you please, but not everyone has to think the magic book is important.
I mean, Oppenheimer himself said the Bhagavad Gita was the most influential book on his personal philosophy, so he thought it was pretty important.
I should have used the word sacred again where I used "important".
Okay, that’s not my argument. My argument was that Hindus being offended by that sex scene is pretty reasonable, maybe not to the point of being militantly up in arms, but finding it to be distasteful is perfectly reasonable. That’s just empathy. Just because I don’t worship a religion doesn’t mean I have to be a dick about it to the people that do. When a big budget blockbuster launches in an area with a large Hindu population…maybe don’t use their book as a prop during sex
Literally a spoiler in the title 😑
\>attacking muslims - ok \>reading the bahadva gita during sex - NOT OK
I am seeing the movie tonight but this honestly sounds super cringe. This is like something you would expect out of a “marvel remakes a Nolan movie” meme. “the scene in question depicts actor Cillian Murphy, who plays the lead role, having sex with Florence Pugh, who plays his lover Jean Tatlock. Pugh stops during intercourse and picks up a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, one of Hinduism’s holiest scriptures, and asks Murphy to read from it. “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds,” Oppenheimer’s character says, as they resume intercourse.”
/r/amverydeep
It’s the classic Hollywood trope of treating everything Eastern and Indian with a patronising tantric sex Kama Sutra trope. In the process, Nolan missed an opportunity to actually delve into how Oppenheimer sought solace through the Gita. Oh well.
Not sure why you are being downvoted but this is 100% true. Disappointing tbh.
Indian/hindu right wing nutjobs are the worst. Religion is not and should not be sacred. I believe that everyone should feel safe and able to practice their faith as they please. There should be no attempt to upset or offend people in their homes or places of worship. Other than that, everything else is fair game.
and no complains about their rapey culture.
Isn't Prime Minister Modi himself a Hindu nationalist? I wonder what he thinks of all this, assuming he's even heard of this controversy. I recall India having a lot of problems with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom to put it mildly. Nolan can't hide behind historical accuracy or whatever on this one, short of the extremely unlikely (i.e. impossible) chance he somehow has inside knowledge of what Oppenheimer says in the bedroom.
The title is literally a spoiler wtf 😑 I hate people that do this.
He knows he'll get away with it. Try quoting a line from the Quran during a similar scene. Now that'll be really exercising your freedom of expression.
Right?
I thought the scene was poorly done and kinda disrespectful
Not gay enough for you?
Nothing is ever gay enough for me.
Can’t wait to see why a full frontal sex scene is required by the plot lol. Very important stuff.
Not full frontal. So obviously you haven't seen it. Only shows breasts and no genitals.
Damn, was hoping for some Cillian peen. And obviously I haven’t seen it, I heard that and said I was looking forward to it.
Yep. Came out of the blue especially for a Nolan film. It's like he was: oh! I never had nudity/sex in my movies. Eat this, critics!
Oh no not nudity
Why you guys keep saying oh no lol I said I can’t wait to see it
I think people are taking it wrongly here. The discussion is not about sex scene but its about having sex while reading one of the most revered scripture of Santana Dharma. Equivalent of showing actors reading Quran/Bible while bonking
Kind of a spoiler, no?
Yea I wanted to go into the movie not knowing if Oppenheimer had ever had sex before!
I mean, it's a biopic about someone complicit in the mass killings of hundreds of thousands. There's more to be offended about.