Jump to content

Menu
Giving You and Your Child a Road Map to the Best Possible Education
The Well-Trained Mind Community

Have you seen Oppenheimer yet (? On bringing kid)

madteaparty

By madteaparty,
in The Chat Board

 Share

Recommended Posts

kirstenhill

kirstenhill

Posted
Posted

Just from the perspective of someone who's seen it, I personally would not let either of my under 16's see it.  Even for my 16 year old, honestly the s*x scenes are way more graphic than I would normally be ok with him seeing, but we are considering due to his strong interest in seeing it.   The swearing was honestly less than I thought it might be,   There is a suicide that is partially depicted. I feel like there are a lot of adult themes and behavior, particularly in Oppenheimer's personal life (adultery, etc).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScoutTN

ScoutTN

Posted
Posted (edited)

Nope. None of us will see it bc it is too graphic for us. Ymmv. Sad bc the subject matter is compelling for me and Ds who like history. Rated R now is way more than what rated R used to be! 

Edited by ScoutTN
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)

DS(15) is a history, humanities and lit lover and he has asked to see it. We're going tomorrow and will enjoy an awkward (for him) mother/son lunch after. His fellow bandmates have been talking about both films and he wants to be in on the discussion. Sex is sex. It doesn't bother me for my older teens to see it so long as they appreciate the stylized nature of film presentations. I sure hope he ends up with an active and healthy relationship/partner! Next weekend, we're going to see Barbie. 🥰 DH and DD are both out of town and while the cats are away...!

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HomeAgain

HomeAgain

Posted
Posted

I'm the parent that often forgets that PG in the 80s had a whole different meaning, and completely forgot part of why Schindler's List was rated R when I watched it with my then-16yo.

I will not let the 13yo watch Oppenheimer.  It's a no-go here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, ScoutTN said:

Nope. None of us will see it bc it is too graphic. Sad bc the subject matter is compelling. Rated R now is way more than what rated R used to be! 

Have you rewatched something as 'innocuous' as Goonies recently? What passed for PG content in my era is now rated R. FTR - DS could easily go with a friend without my permission. I'd rather go along and talk about what we see.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terabith

Terabith

Posted
Posted

I'm actually far more bothered that the Oppenheimer movie contains nothing about the people whom the atomic bomb was used on than about sex.  

That said, Oppenheimer was literally an evil genius, with an emphasis on evil.  The man was absolutely insane, as well as a complete narcissist.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
katilac

katilac

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Terabith said:

I'm actually far more bothered that the Oppenheimer movie contains nothing about the people whom the atomic bomb was used on than about sex.  

That would be a completely different movie. That would probably not be named Oppenheimer. 

Edited by katilac
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)

DS and I both loved it. Dropped DS off at B&N so he can do more reading and research. It is not a movie about sex (which lasted approximately 5 minutes in a 3 hr movie). DS agreed that the sex was there as a graphic reminder of how invasive and deliberately humiliating the security clearance hearing was for his wife and to demonstrate the utilitarian and transactional nature of his relationships with women, even if he once wanted something more/different. The pettiness and tensions (groups that were dismissed or underestimated/undervalued and why) by and within academia (and science specifically) got a lot more attention than I was expecting.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Terabith said:

I'm actually far more bothered that the Oppenheimer movie contains nothing about the people whom the atomic bomb was used on than about sex.  

That said, Oppenheimer was literally an evil genius, with an emphasis on evil.  The man was absolutely insane, as well as a complete narcissist.  

To be fair - 

It *is* a movie about Oppenheimer but it got at the atrocities and deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki too. It wasn't glossed over but explicitly contrasted with cheering home crowds. The film was devoted to the lead up, not the aftermath. A wide variety of reactions/responses were aired. No one 'wins' at the end. No one. It's just the end of the beginning.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Green Bean said:

The man was a product of his time. Yes he helped create a horrible weapon, but better us than the Nazis. Does that make the man evil? I'm not sure. As for the other claims- yeah jerk!

To me, that's what made the movie so intriguing. It wasn't just black/white, them or us, Nazis or U.S. but inclusion vs. exclusion (including the Russians). What the movie seemed to really focus on was the benefits of harnessing talent, shared info and knowledge as a source of strength, breaking and bending the rules to seek like-minded talent b/c nuance as well as the risks of trusting the wrong people (which wasn't necessarily outsiders). It didn’t wrestle with the ultimate/intended outcomes of their work until the last 45 min. The man was certainly complicated tho.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BakersDozen

BakersDozen

Posted
Posted

I grew up in Los Alamos, NM, but I won't see the movie because of the content I have been told is too much. My dc definitely will not be seeing it (although I do have an entire box dedicated solely to novels and such regarding the Manhattan Project, P.O. Box 1663, etc. My English teacher's uncle was one of the original physicists who lived on The Hill.

Fun tidbit: I had my first dance with the guy I would end up dating/marrying in Fuller Lodge (for those who don't know the reference, it's a beautiful building which was used for the boy's ranch and then dining hall, etc. for the scientists and such.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, BakersDozen said:

I grew up in Los Alamos, NM, but I won't see the movie because of the content I have been told is too much. My dc definitely will not be seeing it (although I do have an entire box dedicated solely to novels and such regarding the Manhattan Project, P.O. Box 1663, etc. My English teacher's uncle was one of the original physicists who lived on The Hill.

Fun tidbit: I had my first dance with the guy I would end up dating/marrying in Fuller Lodge (for those who don't know the reference, it's a beautiful building which was used for the boy's ranch and then dining hall, etc. for the scientists and such.

 

Oh lort, investigate for yourself/do your own homework. If you’ve seen your own breasts and experienced your own sexual encounters WITHOUT SHAME you’d be fine. If either of those are untrue…probably too much, yes. I get protecting kids but this grown ass adult pearl clutching over 5 minutes of sex is tiresome.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasProud

TexasProud

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Oh lort, investigate for yourself/do your own homework. If you’ve seen your own breasts and experienced your own sexual encounters WITHOUT SHAME you’d be fine. If either of those are untrue…probably too much, yes. I get protecting kids but this grown ass adult pearl clutching is tiresome.

Umm...  I have no shame about my breasts or about having sex.  I have no desire to see anyone on screen having sex.  That is not pearl-clutching. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Umm...  I have no shame about my breasts or about having sex.  I have no desire to see anyone on screen having sex.  That is not pearl-clutching. 

Yeah, it kinda is. Sex is normal, not shameful, unless it’s extramarital which it was in this case, which is why DS and I talked about the horror his wife must have experienced. So unfair to her. Adults engaging in sex and acknowledging such used to be the norm. Srsly, the one room cabin of Ma and Pa didn’t permit misishness (a word? Who cares). It is tiresome for grown women (and men) to pretend sex isn’t a thing and naked bodies don’t exist or that people shouldn’t look (ancient and modern art anyone?) because missing reasons. Prurience isn’t defined by biology or visuals but by arousal/intent.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasProud

TexasProud

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Yeah, it kinda is. Sex is normal, not shameful, unless it’s extramarital which it was in this case, which is why DS and I talked about the horror his wife must have experienced. So unfair to her. Adults engaging in sex and acknowledging such used to be the norm. Srsly, the one room cabin of Ma and Pa didn’t permit misishness (a word? Who cares). It is tiresome for grown women (and men) to pretend sex isn’t a thing and naked bodies don’t exist or that people shouldn’t look (ancient and modern art anyone?) because missing reasons. Prurience isn’t defined by biology or visuals but by arousal/intent.

We can agree to disagree.  What I do not like is being made fun of for my beliefs. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

We can agree to disagree.  What I do not like is being made fun of for my beliefs. 

Your beliefs are your own but the promotion of them as ‘normal’ shouldn’t be beyond critique. I apologize if you felt personally attacked. My primary concern is the promotion of Puritanism as a norm, ESPECIALLY when many of those espousing it haven’t actually lived/upheld it.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasProud

TexasProud

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Your beliefs are your own but the promotion of them as ‘normal’ shouldn’t be beyond critique. I apologize if you felt personally attacked. My primary concern is the promotion of Puritanismf as a norm, ESPECIALLY when many of those espousing it haven’t actually lived/upheld it.

Good grief.  My beliefs are NOT puritanism.  Healthy sex between a married couple is one thing...  IN THEIR PRIVACY.......   Making sex on screen normal is not helpful. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BakersDozen

BakersDozen

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Oh lort, investigate for yourself/do your own homework. If you’ve seen your own breasts and experienced your own sexual encounters WITHOUT SHAME you’d be fine. If either of those are untrue…probably too much, yes. I get protecting kids but this grown ass adult pearl clutching over 5 minutes of sex is tiresome.

This has to be one of the most misguided and insulting responses I've seen on this board. This has nothing to do with shame (which I don't have) or pearl clutching. Not everyone wants to see others having sex, especially for five minutes. Whatever their reason, it smacks of extreme arrogance to box and label that preference as you have. It is tiresome (imo) for movies to include more sex scenes which are longer and more detailed than ever before.

I presented my view in a respectful, non-aggressive way. I didn't even touch on what was "too much" yet you took off with this and projected your own views in a very offensive way.

  • Like 14
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Good grief.  My beliefs are NOT puritanism.  Healthy sex between a married couple is one thing...  IN THEIR PRIVACY.......   Making sex on screen normal is not helpful. 

Movies are intended to depict REAL LIFE. The exclusion of sex is Puritan IMO.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasProud

TexasProud

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Movies are intended to depict REAL LIFE. The exclusion of sex is Puratin IMO.

Which is why I am afraid we will have two different countries at some point.  Problem is they will both be so extreme in their views I will not belong to either one.  Sigh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, BakersDozen said:

This has to be one of the most misguided and insulting responses I've seen on this board. This has nothing to do with shame (which I don't have) or pearl clutching. Not everyone wants to see others having sex, especially for five minutes. Whatever their reason, it smacks of extreme arrogance to box and label that preference as you have. It is tiresome (imo) for movies to include more sex scenes which are longer and more detailed than ever before.

I presented my view in a respectful, non-aggressive way. I didn't even touch on what was "too much" yet you took off with this and projected your own views in a very offensive way.

First off, you haven’t seen the movie same as most of those commenting. It’s 5 minutes of EITHER sex or nudity, not both, not some extended make out session which is why it’s important to see/investigate for yourself. Instead of responding to the critique you took it as a personal affront, doubling down on know-nothing-ism. The scenes are limited/short, useful in the story arch, and NOT detailed. Which you'd know if you actually saw the film.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Which is why I am afraid we will have two different countries at some point.  Problem is they will both be so extreme in their views I will not belong to either one.  Sigh. 

 I don’t share this view but even if it were so we’d have one impoverished country that shuns information next to another that values actual experience and research. I don’t think that would end well for the know nothings. It would be a bloodbath and the know nothings would be crushed. That is, kinda, the point of the movie.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasProud

TexasProud

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 I don’t share this view but even if it were so we’d have one impoverished country that shuns information next to another that values actual experience and research. I don’t think that would end well for the know nothings. It would be a bloodbath and the know nothings would be crushed.

Sigh... I am sorry you feel like those that believe sex is only for marriage are know nothings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Sigh... I am sorry you feel like those that believe sex is only for marriage are know nothings. 

WTH!! I never said any such thing. My number of partners is WAY below most of the puritans on this board and my experience with the movie and my son was one where we discussed the impact of extramarital sex on the parties involved. Viewing/acknowledging and condoning are very different things. If my 15 yo can handle that discussion/nuance but ‘adults’ can’t? God help us all. And, for the love!! THIS IS NOT A MOVIE ABOUT SEX! If you have neither the desire or intention of seeing it...why are you commenting?

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)

This conversation is bizarre. Never in my life have I seen people so convinced of the rightness of their takes without actually seeing a film. Cray. I am STUPENDOUSLY proud of raising kids who appreciate and conduct independent research.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terabith

Terabith

Posted
Posted

I am kinda confused by people finding the idea of any kid old enough to watch Oppenheimer being scarred by a few minutes of sexual content.....that was DESIGNED to be disturbing.  This wasn't just sex on the screen to titillate; it was designed to illustrate the kind of man Oppenheimer was.  Any biography of him that left out that aspect of him would be genuinely limited.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasProud

TexasProud

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I am kinda confused by people finding the idea of any kid old enough to watch Oppenheimer being scarred by a few minutes of sexual content.....that was DESIGNED to be disturbing.  This wasn't just sex on the screen to titillate; it was designed to illustrate the kind of man Oppenheimer was.  Any biography of him that left out that aspect of him would be genuinely limited.

That is not how I feel.  My boys saw it and enjoyed it. It would be a great discussion for teens and older I am sure.  I am pushing back at the idea that because I don't want to see it, I am Puritan and clutching my pearls. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I am kinda confused by people finding the idea of any kid old enough to watch Oppenheimer being scarred by a few minutes of sexual content.....that was DESIGNED to be disturbing.  This wasn't just sex on the screen to titillate; it was designed to illustrate the kind of man Oppenheimer was.  Any biography of him that left out that aspect of him would be genuinely limited.

Agree! Like, WTH? Did you even see the film (NO!) It wasn't glorification. It was tawdry/sordid and SAD! I am so over POLITICAL conservatives (not actual conservatives) driving the narrative of what is and isn't wholesome/worthy. Over the years, we've seen repeated polls on the number of sexual partners, etc. on this forum. Those who say one(1) are infinitesimal. Those who have more than five(5) are numerous. I don't give a rip but the judgment heaped on those who REFUSE to accept puritanical influences on their approaches to sexuality (in public and private) and those who do not acknowledge where *I* actually fall on that continuum compared to themselves are NUMEROUS and hypocritical. This is a THREE HOUR MOVIE about the life of a scientist in which about 5 minutes is devoted to a paramour. He had *many*. Ignoring that part of the story wouldn't allow for a legit biopic.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terabith

Terabith

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

That is not how I feel.  My boys saw it and enjoyed it. It would be a great discussion for teens and older I am sure.  I am pushing back at the idea that because I don't want to see it, I am Puritan and clutching my pearls. 

I don't think you're a Puritan because you don't want to see the movie.  Lots of people don't want to see lots of movies for all kinds of reasons.  

That's a big different than saying the movie shouldn't have included the sex in it, though.

And.....I personally have zero interest in sex in books or movies, but that's different than saying it's not important in some media.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasProud

TexasProud

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I don't think you're a Puritan because you don't want to see the movie.  Lots of people don't want to see lots of movies for all kinds of reasons.  

That's a big different than saying the movie shouldn't have included the sex in it, though.

And.....I personally have zero interest in sex in books or movies, but that's different than saying it's not important in some media.  

Sex, fine.  I just wish it wasn't graphic.  There have been several movies that I wish I could buy a copy without graphic sex and the F word.  I don't see why we just cannot imply it.  Why do we have to SEE the sex instead of being in bed with each other the next morning.  You get the idea.  I don't need to see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terabith

Terabith

Posted
Posted
Just now, TexasProud said:

Sex, fine.  I just wish it wasn't graphic.  There have been several movies that I wish I could buy a copy without graphic sex and the F word.  I don't see why we just cannot imply it.  Why do we have to SEE the sex instead of being in bed with each other the next morning.  You get the idea.  I don't need to see it. 

Because when the point is that a person is charming, but manipulative and a narcissist who routinely uses and brutalizes people, a cozy scene with them in bed the next morning just doesn't get the point across.  

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pinball

pinball

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Over the years, we've seen repeated polls on the number of sexual partners, etc. Those who say one(1) are infinitesimal

That’s funny…the CDC has a stat that says the percentage  of women age 25-49 who have only had 1 lifetime opposite sex partner is 17.7%.

Certainly not infinitesimal. And percentage of women with 4 partners or less is almost 47%

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, pinball said:

That’s funny…the CDC has a stat that says the percentage  of women age 25-49 who have only had 1 lifetime opposite sex partner is 17.7%.

Certainly not infinitesimal. And percentage of women with 4 partners or less is almost 47%

B - is the CDC the equivalent of this forum (which is what I said)? Yes or no?  If no, GTFOH. Your input is irrelevant and unhelpful. Have you seen the movie??

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pinball

pinball

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

B - is the CDC the equivalent of this forum (which is what I said)? Yes or no?  If no, GTFOH. Your input is irrelevant and unhelpful. Have you seen the movie??

CDC is more accurate than you pulling statistics out of the air to back up your posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ananda

Ananda

Posted
Posted

I saw it last night, I thought it was quite good.  I didn't take my 13 year old, because I needed him to babysit the younger children.  Also I doubt it would have interested him, and movies are expensive.  If he wanted to watch it, I would allow it.  A group of 20 something boys sat in front of me, and talked extensively about how boring it was on the way out.  

 

As far as the sex angle.  I am a super prude and I don't get the big deal.  It is easy to avert your eyes.  I do it all the time for things that squick me out: road kills, eyeball stuff etc.  If the argument is moral: 1. they are acting, the sex isn't real and 2. the adultery is clearly condemned by the movie.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Sex, fine.  I just wish it wasn't graphic.  There have been several movies that I wish I could buy a copy without graphic sex and the F word.  I don't see why we just cannot imply it.  Why do we have to SEE the sex instead of being in bed with each other the next morning.  You get the idea.  I don't need to see it. 

Some of us actually enjoy sex. Believe it or not, men AND women enjoy sex-- graphically, visually, and textually.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sneezyone

Sneezyone

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Watching sex is pornographic.

Bullshit. SCOTUS defined pornography as OBSCENE MATERIAL WHICH, TO THE AVERAGE PERSON, APPLYING CONTEMPORARY COMMUNITY STANDARDS, APPEALED TO PRURIENT INTERESTS AND LACKED REDEEMING SOCIAL VALUE.

I am so glad I attended high school (in ARKANSAS) before these foolish minds gained control and am over the moon that DS will get to study film/storytelling beyond their reach.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...