[ SECRET POST #6065 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6065 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #867.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

If it were about the people of Los Alamos, you'd probably have some of them saying it's a travesty for focusing on Americans rather than on the impact the bomb had on the Japanese.

Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. No disrespect to the people of Los Alamaos, but if you're going to argue that Oppeneheimer should tell another side of the story, they seem like a strange choice.

Re: Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

Why?

I'm trying to be as delicate as possible I promise.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen the "Oppenheimer doesn't have a single Japanese character!" argument floating around. And like...

We know how that story ends. If you wanna revisit it, watch a documentary.

I think Asian representation is (trying) to move away from the stereotypical roles. I don't know how many would want to be in that story. Does that make sense?

I think white people are in a period of trying to reconcile with the atrocities they've done while POC are trying to move out of it because they've been mired in it for so long.

I haven't seen Oppenheimer, so I don't know how glorifying/white man's burden-y it is.

Re: I'm trying to be as delicate as possible I promise.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I honestly don't think the kind of white people who focus on these sorts of things are trying to "reconcile with atrocity" at all. As far as I can tell, their perspectives usually wind up being a different, slightly more benevolent form of racism. It's more a way to feel smug and jockey for status among other white people.

Also, when it comes to WWII, white people weren't the only ones to commit atrocity. The Japanese committed a fair bit of it, themselves, against Filopinos and the Chinese (which is why Chinese people get so angry when, in Western cinema, a Chinese actor plays a Japanese character, or a Japanese actor plays a Chinese character. The bad blood lingers). This does not mean that America gets a pass for dropping the bomb, but it does mean that the reality is more complicated than evildoers vs. pure innocents.

I think it is true that POC in general are trying to move out of it. There have been some complaints out of the publishing world in particular, wherein writers of color feel pressure (often overt, and often from white editors and executives) to focus on racism and race-based trauma in their stories, even when that's not what they want to write.

[(Anonymous)]

You probably would but otoh I would absolutely go watch a movie about the people of Los Alamos. But I haven’t and will not see Oppenheimer because another shitty Christopher Nolan movie about another boring af white man just isn’t my thing. I didn’t even have to read about it to know they’d cut unsavoury bits and credit him with the better efforts of others. My only surprise there was that people were surprised to learn that’s what they did.

[(Anonymous)]

You know, at some point, calling every white person who's ever done anything of significance "boring" and "mediocre" starts to come across more as sour grapes than as genuine criticism.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT Fair point. I say boring not because I think the man himself was boring, I actually think he’s very fascinating. But my experience is that those interesting people become boring cardboard cutouts in big budget films. Especially Christopher Nolan films. And most characters I’ve seen Cillian Murphy play are very boring cardboard cutouts; the trailers made it look to me like Oppenheimer would be more of the same.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

That's a fair point in turn about them becoming boring in film.

And I can honestly say the main reason I haven't seen it yet is that Christopher Nolan's the director; that's not a selling point to me at all. The only way I can think to describe how I feel when watching his films is that it's like swallowing metal filings.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT Oh that’s a perfect description!

Thank you for understanding and not attacking :) I really did express myself poorly and appreciate you calling me out on it in a way that helped me explain better.

[(Anonymous)]

I probably would watch too. Especially since I know shit all about testings (not American) and I am interested.

I occasionally enjoy Nolan's films because they are great looking. But the way he goes around characters? It's booooooriiing. Why do I want a biopic from a director who doesn't care about characters?