“Oppenheimer”, the film that refined the creation of the atomic bomb for the United States
According to the film reporter of Fars News Agency, the 43rd episode of “Cinema Review” program aired on Chahar Sima last night, December 3rd.
The first section of “Cinema Criticism” was dedicated to “Cinema Criticism Desk of Iran”, where film journalist Mohammad Saberi hosted Lili Aaj, director of “Colonel Soraya”.
Saberi: “Colonel Soraya” opens a new door to contemporary history
Lily Aaj first said: The Performing Arts Center has been looking for the production of new Iranian plays for several years. This did not mean that he introduced the subject but provided them with a general title. The general title of the course I was invited to was contemporary history. Since the previous period was the center of performing arts related to Holy Defense, we were asked not to write about this topic. I am proudly a child of Gilangarb. When Aqabam returns to the border city, I always have a small story and story about the events before and after the war. One of these issues was the operations of Morsad and the organization of the Forough Javidan hypocrites. On the other hand, I like political cinema and the lives of characters. Finally, I came across a photo that showed families behind the barbed wire in Ashraf. This event was so interesting to me that I finally wrote a play for it, it was published and the play was staged. After that, “Colonel Soraya” was made.
Mohammad Saberi further stated: The world of this film for me is beyond technique. This film is one of those works that gives the Iranian audience a new window to a part of contemporary history that was neglected before and has many untold stories. More than these 16 films have been made about the hypocrite groups in the last four decades. In the 60s and 70s, no name was mentioned and the identity of these people was not mentioned, in the 80s, Iranian cinema was silent about this issue, and in the 90s, with the film “Cyanour”, a trend was formed that continued in Mahdaviyan’s works. will find.
He pointed out: Those who are concerned about history should see this work. This film, as the filmmaker’s first experience, has an acceptable quality and in my opinion, the theatrical taste dominates the narrative of the film.
Aaj said: I wanted to narrate the film in the language of cinema so that the change of medium from theater to cinema can be seen. In fact, my preference was that the cinema audience would encounter different literature in the film, because the literary aspect of the work is important to me and I like words to work together with images. Maybe this will become my personal signature in my works.
He added: It is worth mentioning that in the theater we had a limited opportunity to represent Ashraf and Diyala province in Iraq, but we solved this problem in the graphics of the film with the help of Alireza Barazandeh, the cinematographer of the film. In fact, in the film, we approached the documentary atmosphere of the story.
Saberi recalled: My encounter with “Colonel Soraya” has one wish, that the film did not enter the political space; While it had the capacity to delve into a political issue, it stops at the emotional level.
Aaj said about this issue: the film has a first-person narrative; Therefore, wherever the character of “Sorya” is present, the camera is there. I think maybe one or two short shots of the camera without “Soriya”. If my point of view was omniscient, the film would be political.
In another part of his speech, he stated: When I finished the script, I came across other narratives and I said to myself, I wish I had used them because the research is endless. One story I got involved in was that the hypocrites take the hills and border checkpoints and in one of the border villages in Ilam, they take a young shepherd captive whose family will never find him. This alone is the subject of the play.
This director added: turning a play into a screenplay is an interesting process. Because I know the characters more easily in the play. Our best shows depend on good dialogue and acting. We don’t have western physical theater; In fact, we are dealing with a work that has a brilliant game.
Next, Amirreza Mafi stated: Among the things that appear in “Colonel Soraya”; The horizon is unlimited, distant and visible.
In response, Aaj stated: Our implementation possibilities were limited and it was difficult to build the Ashraf base. I must say that the entire location of the film was made.
Saberi noted: I would like to say that Jaleh Samati has shone in this character, but on the other hand, I am sorry that this film was also released as a victim of the cycle, while its capacity is much higher than the sales it has had so far at the box office.
Aaj also said about this issue: We are in a strange process; Although the cinematographer has the right to sell comedy movies, unfortunately, bad reviews have been assigned to this film.
Magdasian: “Oppenheimer” refines the making of the atomic bomb
The next section of “Cinema Criticism” was dedicated to the “World Cinema Criticism Desk” which Arash Khoshkho and Mohammad Reza Magdasian, movie critics, said about the movie “Oppenheimer”.
Arash Khoshkho first stated: I am not a fan of Nolan. “Oppenheimer” is a biography of a physicist and has reached a strange number of one billion dollars in sales; So it should be considered a successful work. Although the film is long, after it ends, we don’t know the character of “Oppenheimer” and everything is ambiguous. This is the big flaw of Nolan’s films, whose characters are never deeply introduced to the audience. The choice of Klein Murphy increased the doubt and uncertainty about the characterization of this character. I read about Oppenheimer’s character and realized that he was a difficult character, but this movie didn’t even allow me to get to know him.
Mohammad Reza Magdasian further stated: “Oppenheimer” is Nolan’s worst film in total; I like this filmmaker though. Previously, Nolan tried to consider his world in his other works, but in “Oppenheimer” he said what should I do to be loved. Because Nolan’s works were not popular before and he was more in touch with the audience. All of Nolan’s films were attractive to the audience with formal and narrative games; In Nolan’s other films, the audience was busy solving the equation and the weakness of the characterization was not visible. But in “Oppenheimer” he narrates a story that the audience is more or less aware of and does not have the complexity of time and place. In fact, Nolan has lost his advantage in this film; So, it should show the scenes magnificently and honestly, it has been successful in imaging and music.
He stated: Nolan’s new work does not have an equation for the audience, so the audience is looking for a character but cannot find it. There is a certain streak in the film; Where Oppenheimer’s character poisons an apple with cyanide because of the humiliation he receives. That is, he has the ability to kill someone, so if Nolan wanted to create a bipolar image, we should have put together this apple and the story of making the atom.
This critic reminded: “Oppenheimer” is an anti-social, diversity-seeking and genius character, but he becomes someone who cares about national and human interests. At the end of the film, Oppenheimer is established as a good and lovable scientist, and the conclusion of the film is that if the atomic bomb had not been made, the war would have continued. In fact, Oppenheimer and Atom Bomb are purified in the movie. So the crimes committed against humanity are due to the power of a few senators, and John Kennedy, who later becomes the president, wants to stop this crime. In my opinion, the result is disappointing and the noise of competition between the movie “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” was just for marketing.
Maffei went on to say: Nolan would appear different as long as his brother was helping him write the script. Nolan is strongly attracted to the ideology of America and we don’t know the innovative Nolan right now. According to the films released this year, we experienced a difference in taste; Because the movies are all ideological and this ideology has lost its color for us. Also, Hollywood and Western European cinema have become statements that no longer have a universal function. It goes without saying that “Oppenheimer” and other films are victims of expressions.
At the end of his speech, Magdasian noted: the documentary about the character of “Oppenheimer” made before Nolan’s film is more interesting than the film. The documentary examines Oppenheimer’s lifestyle, and for this reason, we see his genius, anti-sociality, and all the contradictions of his personality in this documentary. But in the film, it reduces the tragic situation of history. The creator of this work believes that when a fact has been revealed that everyone disagrees with, then the best way to hide it is to read a reduced version of that event. Regarding the story of the atomic bomb, we finally come to the conclusion that Oppenheimer was a scientist and did his work; What kind of character he was who could agree to such a work remains neglected.
At the end of this table, Amirreza Mafi said: Americans don’t tolerate bad words about Kennedy and have actually turned him into a saint. The clear reason is the famous story of impeachment of the president and Watergate. They want to say that we impeached the president to say that he is not above the law and that Kennedy was killed on the way to the homeland. These two wings are keeping America in shambles.
Varzi: Today’s view is fascinating in the face of history
The next section of “Cinema Criticism” was dedicated to the “special discussion table” where filmmaker Mohammad Reza Varzi said about “representation of real characters in cinema”.
He first discussed the process of extracting a real character from the heart of history and turning it into a theatrical work: this work, while attractive, also has complications because sometimes there may be a distorted view from the filmmaker and writer. In fact, portraying contemporary characters is a dangerous and yet fascinating field.
About choosing the right narrative, this filmmaker said: I mainly worked on contemporary history, I dealt with real characters, I did research work in this field and I also got help from consultants. Of course, I must say that I am a filmmaker, not a historian. Also, I know history but I am not a historian. The story of the cinema in the face of history is another story and different from the written book.
Varzi continued: The filmmaker must be surrounded by the historical period and the scope of his studies must be such that he maintains loyalty. We cannot depict the leaf of the history but the essence of the work must be right. Different views have been given to a character like Amirkabir, but to make Amirkabir Robin Hood is a distortion. One should seek to show the purpose and vision of Amir Kabir. It also goes without saying that if we look at history today; It is attractive.
He said about calling a historical figure in favor of today’s perspective and turning it into an ideological statement: This revelation is not a house or law, and we must create space in this field. Nolan’s “Churchill” had a cinematic and attractive look and dealt with a subject that raised doubts for today’s time and the current political climate of England.
This filmmaker added: The historical framework of the film must be correct. In the sense of staying true to the most important things and not derailing the audience with the analysis. On the other hand, biography is different in movies and series. In cinema, it is not possible to portray the whole character and only some aspects can be addressed.
In the end, Varzi pointed out that in Iran, historical biographies in cinema are not well received by the audience and usually fail at the box office.
end of message/