This article is about something that was in the movie, though.
The closer we get to the bomb’s completion, the more marbles go into the bowl. But there’s no mention in the film of where two-thirds of that uranium came from: a mine 24 stories deep, now in Congo’s Katanga, a mineral-rich area in the southeast.
As the marbles steadily filled the bowl onscreen, I kept seeing what was missing: Black miners hauling earth and stone to sort piles of radioactive ore by hand.
It was a stylistic choice, as the author confirmed with Nolan at the premiere. Compare with, say, the opening of Uncut Gems where the stylistic choice was to show the conditions in which it was mined.
Personally I think this article is well worth reading. In the West, a lot of the general public’s knowledge about colonial activities in DRC is sort of frozen somewhere around the 19th century.
This article doesn’t read to me like a complaint about the film, though?
The tone seems to me to be more, I went to a film about A+B, now I’m sharing my experience that C was a big part of that which wasn’t shown, even though it was symbolised by marbles.
To me, that’s always worth pointing out, especially when so many people seem to get a lot of their views about history from moving image media.
And maybe one day when someone does make something that touches a bit on the historical conditions behind “Great Man” style history, it might be more welcomed than it would be in the current climate, if articles like this one help people know a bit more.
I’m remembering when Patricia Rozema’s adaptation of Mansfield Park came out. The Jane Austen novel is about people living in a house that was literally owned by a slave owner with plantations in the West Indies, but that stuff had never been shown before. Some people were really scandalised but I thought it was quite interesting. Understanding about how Western history intersects with, say, African history is helpful in understanding the world we live in now.
I feel like one of the biggest elements of his character as shown in the film is how blinded he is by science and the chance of discovery that he never stops to think about anything else around the project, mostly “what tha bomb is actually used for” but “where the material is coming from” fits that too.
The turning point for his character is once the bombs are ready he starts to have doubts about what he’s done.
People just ignore any of this character work to push their own complaints.
My comment got eaten but I will repost (sorry if it’s showing up twice for anyone):
This article doesn’t read to me like a complaint about the film, though?
The tone seems to me to be more, I went to a film about A+B, now I’m sharing my experience that C was a big part of that which wasn’t shown, even though it was symbolised by marbles.
To me, that’s always worth pointing out, especially when so many people seem to get a lot of their views about history from moving image media.
And maybe one day when someone does make something that touches a bit on the historical conditions behind “Great Man” style history, it might be more welcomed than it would be in the current climate, if articles like this one help people know a bit more.
I’m remembering when Patricia Rozema’s adaptation of Mansfield Park came out. The Jane Austen novel is about people living in a house that was literally owned by a slave owner with plantations in the West Indies, but that stuff had never been shown before. Some people were really scandalised but I thought it was quite interesting. Understanding about how Western history intersects with, say, African history is helpful in understanding the world we live in now.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
This article is about something that was in the movie, though.
It was a stylistic choice, as the author confirmed with Nolan at the premiere. Compare with, say, the opening of Uncut Gems where the stylistic choice was to show the conditions in which it was mined.
Personally I think this article is well worth reading. In the West, a lot of the general public’s knowledge about colonial activities in DRC is sort of frozen somewhere around the 19th century.
deleted by creator
This article doesn’t read to me like a complaint about the film, though?
The tone seems to me to be more, I went to a film about A+B, now I’m sharing my experience that C was a big part of that which wasn’t shown, even though it was symbolised by marbles.
To me, that’s always worth pointing out, especially when so many people seem to get a lot of their views about history from moving image media.
And maybe one day when someone does make something that touches a bit on the historical conditions behind “Great Man” style history, it might be more welcomed than it would be in the current climate, if articles like this one help people know a bit more.
I’m remembering when Patricia Rozema’s adaptation of Mansfield Park came out. The Jane Austen novel is about people living in a house that was literally owned by a slave owner with plantations in the West Indies, but that stuff had never been shown before. Some people were really scandalised but I thought it was quite interesting. Understanding about how Western history intersects with, say, African history is helpful in understanding the world we live in now.
deleted by creator
I feel like one of the biggest elements of his character as shown in the film is how blinded he is by science and the chance of discovery that he never stops to think about anything else around the project, mostly “what tha bomb is actually used for” but “where the material is coming from” fits that too.
The turning point for his character is once the bombs are ready he starts to have doubts about what he’s done.
People just ignore any of this character work to push their own complaints.
My comment got eaten but I will repost (sorry if it’s showing up twice for anyone):
This article doesn’t read to me like a complaint about the film, though?
The tone seems to me to be more, I went to a film about A+B, now I’m sharing my experience that C was a big part of that which wasn’t shown, even though it was symbolised by marbles.
To me, that’s always worth pointing out, especially when so many people seem to get a lot of their views about history from moving image media.
And maybe one day when someone does make something that touches a bit on the historical conditions behind “Great Man” style history, it might be more welcomed than it would be in the current climate, if articles like this one help people know a bit more.
I’m remembering when Patricia Rozema’s adaptation of Mansfield Park came out. The Jane Austen novel is about people living in a house that was literally owned by a slave owner with plantations in the West Indies, but that stuff had never been shown before. Some people were really scandalised but I thought it was quite interesting. Understanding about how Western history intersects with, say, African history is helpful in understanding the world we live in now.