We talked about this, and listened to the Scriptnotes episode. Anyone who is "just" and is grumbling sort of needs to take a seat 'cause Nolan is the one auteur whose films have grossed multiple billions of dollars. That fact alone affords him so leeway.
But, just like Dan Gilroy's NIGHTCRAWLER (written without sluglines), sometimes you can succeed by breaking all the guidelines.
I'm curious to read DUNKIRK after hearing him speak about how many actors turned it down because of the atypical nature of the characters.
I love reading your breakdown of scripts and the different ways to write them. Having no experience outside of consuming the media, they've given me a lot to consider in my own writing.
Having not seen the movie or read the script yet (definitely adding both to my backlog now), would you say the first person perspective adds any new or different challenges in regards to translating it from script to screen outside of the social stigma you mentioned? Does it require the actors/crew to reframe their performances at all?
While Christopher Nolan was focusing on point of view when writing Oppenheimer, he left out all the science! That movie missed a huge opportunity to explain the basics of the science behind nuclear weapons and the horrors that they unleash on the world.
It reduced the story to a character drama. I’m tired of stories about scientists that leave out all the science and dumb everything down. We’ve seen naked women before. Understanding how a bomb works is more entertaining.
Most people don’t know what nuclear weapons did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They don’t know about all the cancer clusters near the testing sites. And they don’t know about the nuclear power plant accidents at 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima or how terrorists could bomb nuclear power plants with simple bombs to cause meltdowns.
OPPENHEIMER isn't a quantum physics class, just like political dramas aren't political science classes. That's not how drama works. But hey, art is subjective and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. That said, you missed the fact that "CHERNOBYL" was viewed by tens of millions of people across the globe and won oodles of awards detailing the meltdown. Films and TV series have been made about the other tragedies, as well. I think cinema and TV have made an incredibly valiant effort over the years informing people about the horrors of nuclear war and meltdowns - including OPPENHEIMER.
I agree totally: I think it would have belabored the point of the story had a more complete explanation of the scientific process been introduced . As the Poet said, mankind cannot bear too much reality , and audiences would have rejected excess polemical explanations. Oppenheimer works so well because of its taut, driven screenplay and the interplay between the science and the drama . It’s a brilliant balancing act by Chris Nolan, a masterclass on how to present a compelling story .
It is an offense to scientists to write about their lives without some exploration of their work and discoveries. The basics of the science can be shown in entertaining ways. As a screenwriter, I’ve written such a script. Nolan was more interested in being clever with his point of view. I guess those judging for the Oscars were more literary minded.
Good for you, and good luck on your creative journey to see it made. The Oscars are more literary minded because it's an arts award rather than a science award. They recognized the film for its achievement in filmmaking, dramatic achievement, and, of course, exploration of the contradictions and peril to civilization found within and inherent to scientific pursuit in the context of so-called national defense - but also "unchecked scientific progress" in general in an era where technology rapidly outraces human maturity.
Even the Scriot for A Quiet Place broke some script format rules but it was justified because of the premise of the film n it added to the suspense too but great read again as usual - thanks Cole
We talked about this, and listened to the Scriptnotes episode. Anyone who is "just" and is grumbling sort of needs to take a seat 'cause Nolan is the one auteur whose films have grossed multiple billions of dollars. That fact alone affords him so leeway.
But, just like Dan Gilroy's NIGHTCRAWLER (written without sluglines), sometimes you can succeed by breaking all the guidelines.
I'm curious to read DUNKIRK after hearing him speak about how many actors turned it down because of the atypical nature of the characters.
I haven't read NIGHTCRAWLER as a script, but now I'm going to!
"You finally found a way to get people to read the stage directions." 🥲
I love reading your breakdown of scripts and the different ways to write them. Having no experience outside of consuming the media, they've given me a lot to consider in my own writing.
Having not seen the movie or read the script yet (definitely adding both to my backlog now), would you say the first person perspective adds any new or different challenges in regards to translating it from script to screen outside of the social stigma you mentioned? Does it require the actors/crew to reframe their performances at all?
While Christopher Nolan was focusing on point of view when writing Oppenheimer, he left out all the science! That movie missed a huge opportunity to explain the basics of the science behind nuclear weapons and the horrors that they unleash on the world.
It reduced the story to a character drama. I’m tired of stories about scientists that leave out all the science and dumb everything down. We’ve seen naked women before. Understanding how a bomb works is more entertaining.
Most people don’t know what nuclear weapons did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They don’t know about all the cancer clusters near the testing sites. And they don’t know about the nuclear power plant accidents at 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima or how terrorists could bomb nuclear power plants with simple bombs to cause meltdowns.
OPPENHEIMER isn't a quantum physics class, just like political dramas aren't political science classes. That's not how drama works. But hey, art is subjective and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. That said, you missed the fact that "CHERNOBYL" was viewed by tens of millions of people across the globe and won oodles of awards detailing the meltdown. Films and TV series have been made about the other tragedies, as well. I think cinema and TV have made an incredibly valiant effort over the years informing people about the horrors of nuclear war and meltdowns - including OPPENHEIMER.
I agree totally: I think it would have belabored the point of the story had a more complete explanation of the scientific process been introduced . As the Poet said, mankind cannot bear too much reality , and audiences would have rejected excess polemical explanations. Oppenheimer works so well because of its taut, driven screenplay and the interplay between the science and the drama . It’s a brilliant balancing act by Chris Nolan, a masterclass on how to present a compelling story .
It is an offense to scientists to write about their lives without some exploration of their work and discoveries. The basics of the science can be shown in entertaining ways. As a screenwriter, I’ve written such a script. Nolan was more interested in being clever with his point of view. I guess those judging for the Oscars were more literary minded.
Good for you, and good luck on your creative journey to see it made. The Oscars are more literary minded because it's an arts award rather than a science award. They recognized the film for its achievement in filmmaking, dramatic achievement, and, of course, exploration of the contradictions and peril to civilization found within and inherent to scientific pursuit in the context of so-called national defense - but also "unchecked scientific progress" in general in an era where technology rapidly outraces human maturity.
Even the Scriot for A Quiet Place broke some script format rules but it was justified because of the premise of the film n it added to the suspense too but great read again as usual - thanks Cole