Jeff Bernstein

A Clockwork Ovid “As an unmuddied lake.” (25:22) / (2:12:01) Fons erat inlimis, (3.405) [ the water / the well ] [ was ] [ “without mud (i. e. pure, clear)” (L&S)] In the tale of Narcissus.

And so she saw Narcissus rambling the isolated woods. She was aroused at the sight, and secretly followed his tracks, and her flame of love grew hotter as she followed, as torches lively blaze when one nearby catches another. How many times she yearned to show herself, to plead her love achingly, to ask for his heart. But nature forbade this, nor allowed her to begin. She had to wait for him to speak so she might provide her words. It happened that the young man got separated from his friends. And he spoke. “Is anyone,” he said, “here?” And Echo said, “Here!” He stood amazed, and looked all round him, saying, “Come!” And Echo called to him who called, “Come!” He turned to see no one behind him, and said, “Let us meet!”, and in just so many words, and no more, she answered. Then he called out, “Come to me now!” So she said it, and with these friendly words she came out of the trees and hugged him. He slipped out of her arms round his neck. “Take your hands off!” he said. “Better death than have you touch me!” All she could say was, “Touch me.” But it was not to be. So she vanished into the deep woods, and hid her disappointed face in the leaves; and ever since lived alone in lonely caves. But her love grew stronger in grief. Tormented with sorrow, her body miserably withered, her skin wrinkled, and all her spirit seemed to melt into the air. Only her voice and bones remained; then, they say, only her voice, after her bones dried to stone. Now she lies unseen in the woods, and no longer walks the mountain ranges. And although we hear her all over, it is only as a voice that she still lives. Thus had Narcissus slighted the nymph, and many another come from mountain or wave; and thus had he slighted many youths. It was any one of those who had lifted their hands to the sky and prayed, “Then let him love himself, and not have the one he loves!” And goddess Nemesis heard the just prayer. to be continued Ovid, Metamorphoses, 3.370–406.

In earlier times Echo had a body as well as voice, yet she spoke no different from today—her mouth had power to return only the last words she heard. It was Queen Hera who contrived this, for many times she would have caught her husband dawdling with nymphs in the mountain ranges, if only Echo hadn’t cunningly detained her with long conversation while the nymphs all fled. As soon as Hera discovered this trickery, she spoke. “So,” she said, “Your long tongue is sly, is it? No longer! Short and slight your speech shall be!” And so it happened. Now Echo had power to return only the last words she heard. And so she saw Narcissus rambling the isolated woods. She was aroused at the sight, and secretly followed his tracks . . .

Echo and Narcissus Tiresias was famous through the district of Helicon, for no one who sought out his responses could find them untrue. The first who trialled and confirmed his voice and truth was sea-blue Liriope. Once, she was wound up in the entangling bends of the river Cephisus and confined in its rushing waters. Then from out of her swelling womb came a beautiful baby, and the Naiad-nymph loved him, and called him Narcissus. When she asked if he would live a long time and see an old age, the prophesying seer responded : “If he never knows himself.” Other than this apparent gibberish Tiresias voiced nothing. But, as things happened, the case would be proven true—by his acts, his unusual desire, and his peculiar death. In his sixteenth year Narcissus still projected boyish charm. Many young men desired him, and many young women, too. But so unresistingly discerning and fine was his sense that no young man touched his heart, nor, either, any young woman. Once, he was herding timid deer into his nets when a nymph of marvellous voice saw him—resounding Echo, unable to break the silence until she first acquired someone’s speech. to be continued Ovid, Metamorphoses, 3.339–58.

John Marston and The Departed (2006) Jack. ArnoId, you’re one in a miIIion. Ray. Ten. Ten miIIion. (37:35) * The protagonist, Malevole, speaking to Celso, his close friend and right-hand man : Celso My honored Lord. Malevole Peace, speak low; peace! O Celso, constant Lord, Thou to whose faith I only rest discovered, Thou one of full ten millions of men That lovest virtue only for itself . . . John Marston, The Malcontent (1.4.1–5)

John Webster and The Departed (2006) Remember Jack : “If you’ll indulge me?”—and removes the wedding ring from a severed hand. (40:36) * [In semi-darkness] Ferdinand I come to seal my peace with you. Here’s a hand [Gives her a dead man’s hand.] To which you have vow’d much love; the ring upon ’t You gave. Duchess I affectionately kiss it. Ferdinand Pray, do, and bury the print of it in your heart. I will leave this ring with you for a love-token; And the hand as sure as the ring . . . Duchess You are very cold: I fear you are not well after your travel.— [Lights come up.] Ha! lights! —O, horrible! Duchess of Malfi (4.1.43–53)

Embryonic Echo of the Triple Tone John Corbin, The Elizabethan Hamlet : A Study of the Sources, and of Shakspere’s Environment, to show that the Mad Scenes had a Comic Aspect now Ignored (London : Elkin Mathews, 1895). “We must conclude that even in Shakspere’s first version, the comic element, now quite archaic, must have been distinctly evident to the Elizabethans.” (83) * Corbin experiences a “trace of comedy” in the murder scene of Polonius; at Ophelia’s grave; in Ophelia’s “amusingly coarse songs”; in the interplay between Ophelia and Hamlet in 3.1. * “To recapitulate, I have shown that the plot of Shakspere’s Hamlet is that of a crude tragedy of blood; and that in the lost play upon which Shakspere worked, Hamlet’s madness was made comic even in the most serious scenes.” (71) * “Instances of the comic aspect of insanity on the Elizabethan stage are not far to seek. In Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy . . .” (55) “Although the tragic scenes of The Changeling make one of the most effective dramas outside the covers of Shakspere, its mad [and comic] underplot was so popular that it usurped the title of the play.” (57–8) “That no subject was too high for this [type of gruesome] archaic comedy is apparent in the Chester Miracle play of Noah’s Flood, which was written in the latter half of the fourteenth century.” (51) * James G. Nelson, Elkin Mathews : Publisher to Yeats, Joyce, Pound (Madison : University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 3; 135. “A list of some of his most significant publications reads like a roll call of books crucial to the rise of modern literature. . . . T.S. Eliot referred to Mathews’ ‘acumen’ in estimating the worth of a manuscript . . .” * I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of silent seas. T. S. Eliot, “Prufock” Ferdinand Think ’t the best voyage That e’er you made; like the irregular crab, Which, though ’t goes backward, thinks that it goes right, Because it goes its own way. Webster, The Duchess of Malfi (1.1.309–312) * Noye’s Fludde—PERFORMANCE CANCELLED Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Scroobview : A beautifully edited trailer with acute appreciation of vector-agreement from shot to shot that maintains a controlled liveliness in variety. Example : shot (1) left to right; (2) right to left; (3) left to right—then right to left; (4) left to right; (5) intensified left to right; (6) right to left; (7) left to right; (8) rectilinear (peace, stability, love). Theory : Shots 3 and 5 and 8 are perfectly placed in the perfectly edited continuum. The editing draws the eye along expertly—the ongoing geometry is consummate—the shots flow into the gaze as effortlessly as sunlight. Wonderfully accomplished work. And a cute, highly relatable title. Congratulations and good luck.

Unforgettable Tone Shift The tone shift in the first scene of Full Metal Jacket (smile to choke) has a predecessor in 2.4 of The Spanish Tragedy (c.1587). This central scene from Thomas Kyd is one of the most remarkable mind-blowers in Elizabethan theatre. Horatio Now that the night begins with sable wings To overcloud the brightness of the sun, and in that darkness pleasures may be done, Come, Bel-imperia, let us to the bower, and there in safety pass a pleasant hour. (1–5) Kyd’s tone shift? Romeo and Juliet to Clockwork Orange. (Kind reader! Marvel at the interwoven foreshadowing in ll. 1–5!) Bel-imperia Why sit we not? For pleasure asketh ease. . . . And while the Romeo and Juliet vibe is lovingly woven out over a full fifty lines, the Clockwork vibe is sudden and brutal and quick. It jolts the audience with a shock from which they (theoretically) never recover for the duration of the play. In that last respect, 2.4 is Spanish Tragedy’s shower-scene-from-Psycho. Lorenzo Come, stop her mouth. Away with her. Exeunt.

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon The schoolroom locations of Oppenheimer—for example, “Halifax, 1917”—are equivalent to the desert vistas of Lawrence of Arabia. * When Teller enters the picture, he brings with him sheets of paper—calculations of chain reactions that agitate the scientists gathered at Berkeley. The scene ends at (53:48). Around three minutes of screen-time later (56:07), Teller reappears, but only metonymically—his calculations on some papers are assessed by Oppenheimer and Bethe (“Near zero?”). The next time we see Teller in person (1:02:20)—in the “Halifax, 1917” scene—he is holding paper in his hands, and, in an irreverent vibe recalling, say, Spielberg’s 1941, he is making a paper airplane. Why the paper airplane? Some theories : To remind the audience unconsciously of his Near Zero calculations, both to sustain his character vibe of standoffishness, and to keep the Near Zero concept fresh in the mind of the audience. And airplanes are the vehicles that deliver atom bombs. * And the last time Oppenheimer and Teller meet face-to-face in the film? It is Oppenheimer who is holding the paperwork—the official certificate received with his Enrico Fermi Award (2:52:40). This moment is, for one thing, a visual memory of Near Zero—a gamble for the highest stakes that paid off. * Bird & Sherwin, American Prometheus, 576–7. Teller was in the audience that day, and everyone watched with mounting tension as the two men came face to face. With Kitty standing stone-faced beside him, Oppenheimer grinned and shook Teller’s hand. A Time magazine photographer caught the moment with his camera. Even after Robert won the Fermi award, Kitty’s resentments against Teller remained unshakable. . . . * I now must change These notes to tragick Paradise Lost, 9.5–6 * John W. Cunliffe, The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy (London : Macmillan and Co. [privately owned German company], 1893), 124. “Conclusion. . . . We might go further, and inquire into the influence Seneca had, at first or second hand, upon Milton’s conception of tragedy . . .” —but that’s all that’s said on that. * Do the math. The character Oppenheimer in Hour 3—Peace is Heroic.

It’s a long way to the top if you want to rock ‘n’ roll “The movie is over” . . . “Movie’s really over” . . . “But we’re still on screen” . . . “But we’re still on screen” . . . “It’s time to go now” . . . “Time to go” . . . School of Rock (2003) * Hamlet You that look pale and tremble at this chance, That are but mutes or audience to this act . . . (5.2.366–7) * Hamlet Remember thee! Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat In this distracted globe. Remember thee! (1.5.102–4) * Vindice When thunder claps, heaven likes the tragedy. The Revenger’s Tragedy (5.3.47)

Lorenzo In hope thine oath is true, here’s thy reward; But if I prove thee perjured and unjust, This very sword whereon thou took’st thine oath, Shall be the worker of thy tragedy. Kyd, The Spanish Tragedy (2.2.90–93) Plainview If I travel all the way out there and I find that you’ve been lying to me, I’m going to find you and I’m going to take more than my money back. * Oppenheimer. Al(b)ert? When I (c)ame to you with those (c)al(c)ulations? We were worried that we’d start a (ch)ain reaction that would (d)estroy the entire worl(d) . . . Einstein. I re(m)e(m)ber it (w)ell. (W)hat of it? Oppenheimer. I (b)elieve we (d)i(d). Shakespearean™ : (d) / (b) Shakespearean™ : (m) / (w) Shakespearean™ : (c) / (d) (e.g., Sonnet 1 : From fairest creatures we desire increase / Macbeth : Doubtful it stood; As two spent swimmers, that do cling together And choke their art.) Higher Poetic Mathematics—Note how Oppenheimer’s prominent consonants [ (b) / (c) / (d) ] are from the first half of the alphabet, and Einstein’s [ (m) / (w) ] are from the second half of the alphabet. In the Oppenheimer lines, note the use of the (d) rhyme that engineers a strongly conclusive ending. e.g. Gertrude’s last words No, no, the drink, the drink,—O my dear Hamlet,— The drink, the drink! I am poison’d. Eighteen Shakespeare sonnets end with a (d) couplet : 2, 25, 27, 30, 45, 50, 60, 67, 76, 82, 104, 108, 112, 116, 137, 142, 148, 149. Example : 116 If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved. * Keats, “To Autumn” Shakespearean™ : (b) / (c) / (d) Shakespearean™ : (m) / (w) Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, Close bosom-friend of the maturing sun; Conspiring with him how to load and bless With fruit the vines that round the thatch-eves run; To bend with apples the moss’d cottage-trees, And fill all fruit with ripeness to the core; To swell the gourd, and plump the hazel shells With a sweet kernel; to set budding more, And still more, later flowers for the bees, Until they think warm days will never cease, For summer has o’er-brimm’d their clammy cells.

Browning, The Ring and the Book, 10.282–4 : O pale (d)eparture, (d)im (d)isgrace of (d)ay! Winter’s in wane, his vengeful worst art thou To (d)ash the (b)oldness of a(d)vancing March! Shakespearean™ : (d) / (b) : When one appears, the other is never far behind to create a marked sonic effect. Three examples from the sonnets : 4 Thy unused beauty must be tombed with thee, Which used lives th’ executor to be. 54 When summer’s breath their masked buds discloses: 140 Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be. * O pale departure, di(m) disgrace of day! (W)inter’s in (w)ane, his vengeful (w)orst art thou, To dash the boldness of advancing (M)arch! Shakespearean™ : (m) / (w) : Same principle as above. Example from the sonnets : Whenever there is a word incorporating an (mm), there is at least one (w) in the one line before, within the same line, or in the one line after. 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 30, 35, 41, 54, 56, 66, 68, 77, 81, 85, 98, 104, 119, 120, 137, 149. (Two exceptions : 17, 95.) Seven sonnets featuring an (mm) employ a marked interplay between (m) and (w) throughout the entirety of the poem : 65, 68, 84, 89, 94, 97, 102. * O pale departure, dim disgrace of day! (W)inter’s in (w)ane, his (v)engeful (w)orst art thou, To dash the boldness of ad(v)ancing March! Shakespearean™ : the (w) / (v) interplay. Let’s use an example from Keats, “Ode on Melancholy” (which also employs the (m) / (w) interplay) : But when the melancholy fit shall fall Sudden from heaven like a weeping cloud, That fosters the droop-headed flowers all, And hides the green hill in an April shroud; Then glut thy sorrow on a morning rose, Or on the rainbow of the salt sand-wave, Or on the wealth of globed peonies; Or if thy mistress some rich anger shows, Emprison her soft hand, and let her rave, And feed deep, deep upon her peerless eyes.

Empire of the Sun (1987) “I got a new one today—pragmatist.” “Good word.” (1:19:34) “I learned a new word today. Atom bomb.” (2:17:10)

Please, kind reader, recall the self-reflexive transition of “Just fix it, sir” in Punch-Drunk Love and its analogue in Hamlet—“The air bites shrewdly; it is very cold.” The Revenger’s Tragedy has a spectacular example of this technique. “Spectacular”, because the example is multifaceted—it incorporates into its self-reflexive transition an extra element : a perversely humorous self-reference directed towards the audience. In 3.5, the criminal Duke receives his horrid, long-drawn-out retribution in a strikingly original way, and the scene ends with his death. So then : 3.6—how does it start? Two characters are speaking of another man’s troubles (not the Duke), yet the scene’s opening line corresponds closely to the grisly matter of 3.5, as if it were indeed a commentary on the action : Ambitioso Was not this execution rarely plotted? It is as if the play’s author is taking a victory lap for a cheering audience. * In on the joke : Another example of dialogue directed toward the audience Polonius to Ophelia : Marry, I’ll teach you: think yourself a baby; That you have ta’en these tenders for true pay, Which are not sterling. Tender yourself more dearly; Or—not to crack the wind of the poor phrase, Running it thus—you’ll tender me a fool. (1.3.114–8) Scrooby theory : The part in bold was designed by Shakespeare to be belted out directly to the audience as if Polonius was asking pardon of the people for his garrulousness; and in response the audience might have laughed jeeringly at the blabbering old fellow. It’s Shakespeare’s way of bringing the audience “in on the joke”—an interactive audience moment. * * * Genius Move Repetition transforms a metaphor-technique from humorous to serious, in order to conform with the context of the moment. After a clever speech by Vindici comes the lightly humorous reply— Hippolito You flow well, brother. This is another example in The Revenger’s Tragedy of a self-reference by the author to the well-written matter of the play. In this manner does the author wryly bring the audience into the action, as if author and audience are together elbowing each other knowingly and sharing the yuks on the damned characters. Now see how this self-referential technique returns, but with its audience-in-on-the-joke knowingness drained away. While the “flowing” metaphor returns, now the playfulness of the self-referentiality is gone, due to the extremity of the situation—death : DUKE I cannot brook— (dies) (2.2.146 / 3.5.220)

Theory : Humanness will jeopardize itself, if it must, in the next humanness it sees. Empathy is “towards-humanness”. Art opens us up to the empathy of towards-humanness. * * * The Revenger’s Tragedy The Revenger’s Tragedy transmits its information in a stark, contemporary way. The narrative has the stripped-down ornamentation of Hitchcock’s Psycho. * “I’ve seen this before!” Spurio Faith, if the truth were known, I was begot After some glu(tt)onous di(nn)er; some sti(rr)ing dish Was my (f)irst (f)ather. When d(ee)p healths went round, And ladies’ ch(ee)ks were painted red with wine, Their tongues as short and nimble as their h(ee)ls, U(tt)ering words sw(ee)t and thick, and when they rose Were me(rr)ily dispos’d to fa(ll) again And get a load of the letters (w) and (m)—their interplay contributing to the Sonic Situation—especially the kick of nimble, and the (bawdy) resoluteness of merrily. The engineering here is, in a word, Shakespearean™. * Read the following quietly, because the Senecan vibe is everywhere afoot. . . . e.g., daughter Sin to daddy Satan : Thy self in me thy perfect image viewing Becam’st enamour’d, and such joy thou took’st With me in secret, that my womb conceiv’d A growing burden. Paradise Lost, 2.629–814 * Early exemplar of a Henry James Positive-Negative Statement Antonio I joy In this one happiness above the rest, Which will be call’d a miracle at last, That being an old man I’d a wife so chaste. i.e. I am pleased that my ravished wife, being so pure a woman, killed herself in response. * A cheerful end to Act I of The Revenger’s Tragedy—not for kiddults.

Lawrence. From Oxfordshire. Tafas. Is that a desert country? Lawrence. No. A fat country. Fat people. * Vindici Advance thee [skull], O thou terror to fat folks To have their costly three-piled flesh worn off As bare as this—for banquets, ease, and laughter Can make great men, as greatness goes by clay, But wise men little are more great than they. The Revenger’s Tragedy (1606) (1.1.49–53) (“three-piled” : elaborate clothing of the wealthy) (“clay” : of the flesh) * Julius Caesar Let me have men about me that are fat; Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o’ nights: Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. (1.2.202–5) * Hamlet We fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots. Your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service—two dishes, but to one table. That’s the end. (4.3.26–28)

Lawrence of Arabia 20:24–20:48 The Master 1:35:31–1:35:46

Remoteness Spielberg : Lawrence of Arabia. . . . A very personal story that could have been told in close-ups is set against a backdrop of spectacular scenic action. It’s basically the juxtaposition between the small and the gargantuan. —“The Film Steven Spielberg Has Watched More Than Any Other” (YT) The cinematographic strategy of continually framing the protagonist in long shots in Lawrence of Arabia is equivalent to, say, the structural monumentality of Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Gibbon’s Roman Empire. Director David Lean’s storytelling decision to continually present the film’s protagonist visually at a distance accords, in a multifaceted way, with the vastitude of the locations—e.g., (1) “our place in the universe”; (2) the drama of humankind abiding harsh earthly conditions; (3) the epic effort of trailblazing through mystery; (4) the grandiosity of human populations— also— Spielberg. It is a deeply detailed portrait of a lonely human being who doesn’t know anything about himself. T. E. Lawrence’s distance to the lens is our distance to understanding him. (cf. The ever-increasing remoteness of the character Oppenheimer in Hour 3.) also— Lawrence of Arabia’s composition-strategy of long shots sets the protagonist in the Historical. T. E. Lawrence is captured in “the wide frame of history” in the manner of his name printed in a heavy history book. His distance to the lens is our distance to the past.

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon Universal Studios should win an Oscar for its superior distribution of Oppenheimer. For all those “wonderful people out there in the dark” whose little-child selves once lived under the spell of Universal’s E.T., the Oppenheimer phenomenon is a satisfying life-climacteric book-end. Q : How did Universal Studios accomplish such a spectacular triumph with Oppenheimer? The executives involved were smart enough to trust the artist. Talk about a 1970s movie! Talk about Kane! * The Winner’s Motto : “We knew whom to trust.” * * * Hamlet Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well, When our deep plots do pall: and that should teach us There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough-hew them how we will— e.g. If the young Oppenheimer hadn’t injected the green apple with cyanide, he wouldn’t have met with Niels Bohr face-to-face in the classroom, and thus Oppenheimer would not have received the encouragement that prompted his shift out of the doldrums of dusty Cambridge. In this instance, Destiny worked out well for the young Oppenheimer. * “Destiny worked out well”—in one sense. Oppenheimer is a complicated narrative. The triumph of Trinity is at the same time a questionable triumph. (Call it a “Catastrophic Triumph”?) So when one speaks of Destiny favoring the character Oppenheimer, “It’s not that simple.” * * * Hamlet, on his conspiracy to have Rosencrantz and Guildenstern put to death, remarks : They are not near my conscience; their defeat Does by their own insinuation grow. This reflection of Hamlet’s prompts Scrooby to recall that it was Oppenheimer’s natural character that inspired the vengeance of Strauss in the shape of Room 2022. All of Oppenheimer’s slights of Strauss, small and large, contributed to Strauss’ eventual bid for satisfaction. So it makes all the more sense that Oppenheimer takes his punishment patiently, like a penitent, considering that his personal character is not blameless in the matter. The penance of Room 2022 addresses the colossal “sin” of creating the Atomic Bomb; yet, seen from another POV, Oppenheimer’s penance also addresses the caustic manner in which Oppenheimer insulted Strauss (offhandedly, and not always inattentively) a number of times. Oppenheimer explores the concept of personal honor : The character Oppenheimer does not run from what he has done in his life. The antihero faces himself—heroically. (Isn’t it interesting that the character Oppenheimer’s heroism in Hour 3 (his penitent patience in Room 2022) involves not responding? In Hour 3, the character Oppenheimer is the inverse of, say, an Indiana Jones. Hour 3 explores the Strength that Holds Back the Hand.) (And isn’t Oppenheimer’s personal odyssey of Restraint an analogue of “Arms Talks” between nations?) Also—Oppenheimer’s penance of Hour 3 incorporates in it his relationship with Jean Tatlock, who as a character is a manifestation of a similar vibe somewhere inside Oppenheimer, a vibe he must recognize and reckon with, the “green apple vibe”. This vibe is hinted at, for example, in the following plea : Groves. Try not to blow up the world. * Remember what Snake Plissken is doing in his final shot of Escape from New York? Now remember Oppenheimer’s magic circle : the green leaf floating amid the raindrop-circles in shot 1, and then the raindrop-circles in the final scene. . . . * No surprise that Oppenheimer tells Jean Tatlock about the green apple, considering that she represents that aspect of his character. [For a verbal example of their deep connection : Oppenheimer. She [Tatlock] was undergoing psychiatric treatment. (87) Oppenheimer. Took my analysts two years. . . . (27)] The fusion of treacherous apple/Jean Tatlock haunts the narrative of Oppenheimer. (We’ve been through this before in this thread, but the following reprise leads to a new concept.) Example 1 : Oppenheimer is strolling with Tatlock when he sees Alvarez’s response to “They’ve split the uranium nucleus.” Example 2 : Oppenheimer. A bomb, Alvarez. A bomb. cuts to Tatlock. I told you, Robert, no more flowers. = Is the memory of dark Jean Tatlock encoded into the visual recollection of Borden’s V-2 rocket experience in the climactic moments of Oppenheimer (2:53:45)? Two thoughts for now : from Morn To Noon he fell, from Noon to dewy Eve, A Summers day; and with the setting Sun Dropt from the Zenith like a falling Star Paradise Lost, 1.742–5 And the final lines of Biskind : In the weeks that followed, Griff occasionally invited small groups of Hal’s friends over to the Colony house for a sort of service, to bring Hal’s spirit back. Bob Jones was there once, on the deck, at night: “Griff saw a meteor streak across the sky, and she said, ‘That’s Hal.’ I never heard from her again.” * * * In the moments before Hamlet’s final confrontation, he remarks : Hamlet. I shall win at the odds. But thou wouldst not think how ill all’s here about my heart. In the moments before the Trinity detonation, Oppenheimer remarks : Oppenheimer. These things are hard on your heart. * Just because Oppenheimer recalls details of other artworks doesn’t automatically mean that storyteller Nolan was inspired by each and every connection that Scroob has traced. Thing is— All authentic artists throughout time breathe the same air, so to speak, so it is no surprise that close-seeming connections between their artworks will exist. Considering connections between Oppenheimer and past artworks assists the Participant along the path of understanding. * * * Isn’t it interesting that the character Oppenheimer becomes ever-more remote to the audience during Hour 3? There are no scenes of Oppenheimer wrestling with his conscience (such as in Bergman’s Winter Light); or debating morality and ethics with himself aloud (as in Hamlet). Storyteller Nolan, Kubrick-like, shows us his behaviour—the results of his thinking—and we the audience have the freedom to understand as we will. Storyteller Nolan doesn’t tell us what to think. He doesn’t deliver to us dialogue that might supplant our own provisional conclusions. The authentic artist doesn’t spoon-feed the audience. Instead, Oppenheimer gives the audience the benefit of the doubt. Watching the movie is only the beginning. The next stage is thinking about it. By not explaining to us “Why?”, storyteller Nolan would have us ask the question ourselves. (The question “Why?” is a Gateway to Revelation. A thinker can be helped along the road toward Revelation—and responsible art is the best help there is to the spirit—but only one’s own thoughts can send a person through that Gate.) Perhaps the Spectator of a first-rate artwork has a duty to understand. By understand, Scroob means “explore”, since, of course, there is no ultimate understanding (A≠A). Why “duty to understand”? A first-rate artwork is an alarm clock to wake a person to one’s own Personality. (“Personality” = “potential”.) Exploring a first-rate artwork is advance research—Preparation for the Question at the Gate. Or rather— The artwork is the pathway to the Question at the Gate. Or even— * The artwork is the key to the Gate of Redemption. Who turns the key? The Spectator. Sometimes turning a key involves a great effort, which yet leads to a great reward : Getting to where you want to be. Art leads you where you want to be, if you effortfully turn the key.

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon One can compose in a contemporary language, imparting archaic attributes to contemporary intonations; or, conversely, one can compose in an “antiquated” language, but follow a contemporary developmental logic. The resulting musical logic will inevitably involve a sense of paradox because it no longer falls within the framework of a single style or single era. Alfred Schnittke, “Paradox as a Feature of Stravinsky’s Musical Logic”, in A Schnittke Reader (Indianapolis : Indiana University Press, 2002), 154. & Q : In the case of Oppenheimer, you have to capture both the period and the protagonist’s point of view in these environments. How’d you balance that? I’m paraphrasing, but Nolan told me : “I want to make this film timeless with the overarching period correctness, but not to the degree that it’s distracting the film.” “Oppenheimer Production Designer Ruth De Jong on Helping Christopher Nolan Build the Bomb”, The Credits (Motion Picture Association), 10 August 2023. = All of Oppenheimer is equivalent to Stravinsky’s musical logic. * What with everything else going on within it, Oppenheimer, like Hamlet, is, from first to last, a story of revenge. And there’s more than one character looking for satisfaction. Yet Oppenheimer is also a story of the opposite of revenge—repentance and forgiveness! * Is Oppenheimer’s ordeal of penitence in Hour 3 equivalent to Barry Lyndon saying “Yes” in his final duelling scene of his film? * In our debased age in which no one on earth takes responsibility for anything, storyteller Nolan presents us with a character willing to take responsibility for his own actions. Oppenheimer prompts us to follow the following precept : “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Oppenheimer shows us the ugliness of cancel culture—and promotes its kind opposite : humanness. * A revenge story . . . which is at the same time a spiritual epic? * A spiritual epic . . . concerning the gravest threat to humankind? * Theory : Oppenheimer is a once-in-a-generation artistic experience for Hollywood. * How many genres are fused together in the narrative of Oppenheimer? Is Oppenheimer record-setting in this category, too? Unspeakable. * The following is why first-rate artists need to be fostered and cherished : In ten to twenty years from now, how many new filmmakers—indeed, how many new scholars, in a variety of disciplines—will say, “It was Oppenheimer that was my primary inspiration.” New fine art provides us with new fine feelings, new fine thoughts, and new fine encouragement. Oppenheimer : the most distinguished blockbuster in Hollywood history.

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon Stephen Walsh, Stravinsky : The Second Exile (New York : Alfred A. Knopf [Bertelsmann], 2006), 524 At Princeton in 1967, Stravinsky was given a standing ovation both at the start and the finish, led by the tall figure of Robert Oppenheimer, whom the Stravinskys had met at Princeton seven years before. “Even his feet,” Stravinsky had remarked, “are intelligent.” * Oppenheimer. Lewis Strauss was once a lowly shoe salesman? Hamlet. O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who (for the most part) are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb shows and noise. (3.2.8–13) Here the character Hamlet goes one better than the character Oppenheimer—Hamlet doesn’t just insult a character inhabiting with him the theatrical world of make-believe. No, Hamlet insults the audience watching Hamlet! He jeers at the theatregoers standing in front of him at the foot of the stage. Hamlet’s flamboyant criticism of the audience is neither his first awkward interpersonal moment nor his last. Like the character Oppenheimer, Hamlet often rubs people the wrong way—simply because he’s always himself. * The character Oppenheimer is a 1970s antihero in a 1930s production. An antihero, yet presented at face value as heroic. —Yet remember the apple. * Hamlet’s feigning of lunacy accords with Oppenheimer’s passivity in Hour 3 : both characters hold the mirror up to nature; to show . . . the very age and body of the time its form and pressure. (3.2.23–6) In being themselves (“only better”), both Hamlet and Oppenheimer reveal the questionable characters of most everyone around them— * —just as an artwork reveals more of the Spectator than the art. Consider the play-within-a-play in Hamlet 3.2. The Globe’s audience of Hamlet watches the King becoming ever-more uncomfortable seeing a double of himself in the theatrical performance before him. The play-within-a-play reminds Hamlet’s audience that Art is not a window, but a mirror of the Self. In this spirit are various audiences and crowds in Oppenheimer. Two examples : (1) the feet-stamping audience at Fuller Lodge (“The world will remember this day”); (2) the ecstatic cheering in the dawn following the Trinity detonation. Like Hamlet 3.2 (and the opening lines of Οἰδίπους Τύραννος), storyteller Nolan incorporates the real-life audience into the narrative. In storyteller Nolan’s case, Oppenheimer absorbs the audience into itself in order to generate thought on morality and ethics. * * * Hamlet feigns madness. But Hamlet is mad. * Mad—just as the character Oppenheimer, motivated by rationalizations, creates the weapon with the power to destroy the world. One such rationalization is : Oppenheimer. Izzy, I don’t know if we can be trusted with such a weapon, but I know the Nazis can’t. We have no choice. (59) No choice? Oppenheimer could have presented himself to Groves in their initial meeting as incompetent for the job, or he could have simply refused it. Instead, Oppenheimer leapt at the chance to direct Trinity. Later, while others on the Project either quit or try to quit, Oppenheimer never leaves his post. * Hamlet / Oppenheimer : two characters of implacable rationalizations. * Hamlet leaves the world before he can re-evaluate his position, but Oppenheimer survives on, to explore personal responsibility in an Inhuman world. In Hour 3, Oppenheimer has to reckon with the choice he made. It is a multi-reckoning : What the choice means to the world; and what the choice means to him, and about him; and what the choice means to those near to him. The creation of an Inhuman Bomb—strange narrative twist!—brings Oppenheimer closer to humanness! * Walden, Ch18. We know not where we are. Beside, we are sound asleep nearly half our time. Yet we esteem ourselves wise, and have an established order on the surface. And then Thoreau of Massachusetts cannot help but cut like Hamlet : Truly, we are deep thinkers, we are ambitious spirits! * We are not in control of ourselves, though we celebrate ourselves—like fans cheering on a home team. Still, a home team might win a Super Bowl. Oppenheimer explores what “Winning” means.

Le Chat Charles Baudelaire Come, beautiful cat, to my lover’s heart, withhold the claws of your paws; I shall sink into your pretty eyes, that blend of metal and agate. While my fingertips softly stroke your head and your elastic spine, while my hand drunkens at the pleasure of feeling your body electric, I see my wife at heart. Her gaze, like yours, lovable animal serious and cold, cuts and opens like a swipe, while from head to paw, a subtle air, a dangerous scent swims round her dark body. Viens, mon beau chat, sur mon coeur amoureux; Retiens les griffes de ta patte, Et laisse-moi plonger dans tes beaux yeux, Mêlés de métal et d'agate. Lorsque mes doigts caressent à loisir Ta tête et ton dos élastique, Et que ma main s'enivre du plaisir De palper ton corps électrique, Je vois ma femme en esprit. Son regard, Comme le tien, aimable bête Profond et froid, coupe et fend comme un dard, Et, des pieds jusques à la tête, Un air subtil, un dangereux parfum Nagent autour de son corps brun. * Then you get to go back to chatting with your precious customers . . . * One book that shaped Oppenheimer’s “philosophical outlook” : Shakespeare’s Hamlet. * What happens in Hamlet? Shakespeare shows us human behaviour. What do we see? One item (of a theoretical infinity of them) : Gertrude Good Hamlet, cast thy nighted colour off, And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark. Do not for ever with thy veiled lids Seek for thy noble father in the dust: Thou know’st ’tis common; all that lives must die, Passing through nature to eternity. Hamlet Ay, madam, it is common. What is this? The Queen banalizes the death of her late husband, thereby reducing his stature and dignity (and therewith her own). Worse, the mother endeavours to persuade the son to forget the father. She thinks she’s being reasonable. Not seeing oneself. Not hearing oneself. But such confidence! That is the “pith and marrow” of Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

In Punch-Drunk Love, the Mattress Man’s conspiratorial conference with his criminal henchmen transitions to Barry light-heartedly speaking with Lena : “Just fix it, sir.” This recalls Hamlet, 1.3. After Polonius’ prolix declamation prompting Ophelia to reject Hamlet’s love, Shakespeare cuts to 1.4, which begins with Hamlet himself remarking, as if in commentary on the foregoing, “The air bites shrewdly; it is very cold.” * Bird & Sherwin, American Prometheus, 574–5. When the editors of Christian Century asked him in 1963 to list some of the books that had shaped his philosophical outlook, Oppenheimer named ten. At the top of the list was Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du mal, and then came the Bhagavad Gita . . . and last was Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon—and Shakespeare 1. Kenneth Branagh choosing to shoot Hamlet (1996) in 65mm was a Genius Move. Why? The grand celluloid format wasn’t chosen to capture faithfully the scope of the visual Situation. After all, Shakespeare’s Hamlet is “people talking in rooms”. The 65mm format was chosen by Branagh, first and foremost, to approximate and convey the range and depth of the density of the play’s structural Situation. 2. A first-rate storyteller conveys a wondrous density of information in a single scene. Example : Hamlet 1.2. Example : Oppenheimer (2:00:31–2:02:38 / pp. 135–7). 3. Hamlet 1.2 is, so to speak, three discrete scenes in one (a “compendium scene”) : (a.) A scene at court, in which the King and Queen address various issues, including the nation’s political Situation, and Hamlet’s mourning for his father. (1–132) (b.) A centre-stage Hamlet monologue (the first of many). (133–164) (c.) A “conspiracy”-type scene, in which two watchmen come to Hamlet to convey the news that the ghost walks. (165–280) Each of these scene-parts is colossal enough to exist as its own scene! Moreover : Each scene-part is strikingly individual in its general, overall tone—e.g., (a.) regal / (b.) depressed / (c.) tense. Furthermore : The interpersonal dynamics existing within each general tone add further contrast and change;—add microtones within general tones. Shakespeare presents “people talking in rooms” in as exciting a manner as possible—e.g., his micro-editing is as accomplished as Jennifer Lame’s—to keep the general pace of Act 1 (for all its dense dialogue) galloping along. Hamlet 1.2 is so dense with information that the one scene could have easily been restructured as its own act! 4. The triple-structure of Hamlet 1.2 has an equivalence in a scene of triple-structure built into the wondrously literate Oppenheimer. What? Four shots into Hour 3 of Oppenheimer, the character Oppenheimer, standing at a T-Section exterior, (a.) speaks with Groves; (b.) watches the atomic bombs being conveyed away; (c.) speaks with Teller. As with Hamlet 1.2, each of these three elements might be a scene in itself. But storyteller Nolan, accomplished author, fuses all of the information into a “compendium scene”. 5. What about those four shots that begin Hour 3? The first shot of Hour 3 is of the character Oppenheimer at the exterior location of the triple-structured scene. The narrative then moves backwards in time for three shots to an interior; then returns to the aforementioned exterior for the duration of the triple-scene. So we must amalgamate the triple-scene with the precise start of Hour 3, creating a discrete structure of 2:00:18–2:00:34. What does this mean? The duration of 2:00:18–2:02:38 incorporates four general structural situations in one scene, the fourth being : (d.) Inside a T-Section interior. And so? Oppenheimer’s quantum editing motivates Scroob to say that Oppenheimer has gone one better, structually speaking, than Hamlet 1.2. 6. At 2:00:18–2:02:38, storyteller Nolan outdoes, structurally speaking, the structural wonder of Hamlet 1.2?! 7. Oppenheimer is the structure of Hamlet. Just as Stephen King described novelist John Irving as the Charles Dickens of our time (in the foreword to The Green Mile), so, at this moment, storyteller Nolan is our Shakespeare—a world-popular storyteller providing us with first-rate, pioneering, encouraging technicity.