https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/media/india-oppenheimer-backlash-hindu-right-intl-hnk/index.html

Christopher Nolan’s latest blockbuster movie “Oppenheimer” has sparked controversy among the Hindu-right in India, with some calling for a boycott and demanding the removal of a sex scene in which the titular character utters a famous line from the religion’s holy scripture.

The film tells the story of the atomic bomb through the lens of its creator, Robert Oppenheimer, and the scene in question depicts actor Cillian Murphy, who plays the lead role, having sex with Florence Pugh, who plays his lover Jean Tatlock.

Pugh stops during intercourse and picks up a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, one of Hinduism’s holiest scriptures, and asks Murphy to read from it.


“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds,” Oppenheimer’s character says, as they resume intercourse.

The scene has caused outrage among some right-wing groups, with a politician from India’s Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) calling the film a “disturbing attack on Hinduism” and accusing it of being “part of a larger conspiracy by anti-Hindu forces.”

In a statement Saturday, India’s Information Commissioner, Uday Mahurkar, said the scene was “a direct assault on religious beliefs of a billion tolerant Hindus,” likening it to “waging a war on the Hindu community.”

He added: “We believe that if you remove this scene and do the needful to win hearts of Hindus, it will go a long way to establish your credentials as a sensitized human being and gift you friendship of billions of nice people.”

The film has been received well in most quarters in India, which conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, with critics giving it rave reviews and people flocking to cinemas to watch it.

You can't please everyone.

Sometimes you should take pride in whom you choose not to please.

and it's no different if she'd picked up a copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible and asked him to translate a verse at random to see if he could actually read it. She didn't get into the meaning or context.

The context is very signifigcant. Vishnu's avatar displays his divine true form when Arjun is hesitant to attack people who are friends and family and the meaning is that Arjun must do his duty regardless.

Peter Jackson's attempt to remake the "Dam Busters" ran into the same problem. Guy Gibson's dog, the squadron mascot, was a black Lab literally named the N-word. The dog was hit by a car the day before the mission, and the dog's name was selected as the code word to send back if the mission was successful. Unpalatable as it is, that's the history, that's what happened.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2023 05:01PM by anybody.

Perfectly stated!

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't please everyone.


That's what the kama sutra is for :)

All these huge cohesive conspiracy forces must have a direct line to heaven.

I can't get three people to all agree on which way is North.

And that's on a clear day when the North Shore mountains are clearly visible and shining in the sunlight.

The more outlandish they are, the more willing the marks are to jump through hoops to believe them.


"So the CIA was working with the Trilateral Commission with a secret group from MI6 and scientists from Sara Lee foods to put alien nanoparticles recovered from the 1947 Roswell UFO crash in frozen TV dinners to alter kid's DNA to turn them into genderless consumers..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2023 05:13PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "So the CIA was working with the Trilateral
> Commission with a secret group from MI6 and
> scientists from Sara Lee foods to put alien
> nanoparticles recovered from the 1947 Roswell UFO
> crash in frozen TV dinners to alter kid's DNA to
> turn them into genderless consumers..."

Well, when you put it that way... :/


Seriously though, it is getting scary out there. Up is down and down is sideways.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "So the CIA was working with the Trilateral
> Commission with a secret group from MI6 and
> scientists from Sara Lee foods to put alien
> nanoparticles recovered from the 1947 Roswell UFO
> crash in frozen TV dinners to alter kid's DNA to
> turn them into genderless consumers..."


Someone is going to get paid a visit by the Men In Black.

And all that s time you actually believed it was the deadly poison fluoride they were putting in the water and forcing everyone to drink.

I think it's Wisdom to be sensitive to others, the means / methods of sending the messages do count (if U don't like it, don't go...)

Was the scripture reading a relevant, germane fit with a sex scene? Part of the overall story? Important for viewers?

I don't see that, and I believe film-makers, authors, radio & television personalities, bloggers & others can have kindness, consideration and respect others' values too.

We need to be civil to & with others, at all times lest CIVILization deteriorate into carelessness then hurting others.

O, and yes this also applies to those who carry weapons irrespective of any permits or 'permissions' they have or claim.

Road Rage, anyone?

>> Was the scripture reading a relevant, germane fit with a sex scene? Part of the overall story? Important for viewers?

I take your point, but the article stated that most people in India are fine with the movie, and even like it. The unhappiness is just with a small segment of their society, and you will always have unhappy people.

I think that (I haven't seen it) part of the film was superfluous.

I also believe that offending others isn't cool, no matter what the numbers are... That doesn't mean I / we / you / anyone should 'cater' to groups, minorities or majorities, but rather to avoid doing things that might inflame or anger others.

'Give Peace A Chance'!

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also believe that offending others isn't cool,
> no matter what the numbers are... That doesn't
> mean I / we / you / anyone should 'cater' to
> groups, minorities or majorities, but rather to
> avoid doing things that might inflame or anger
> others.

In at least some cases those objectives are doomed to be incompatible: If giving offence is to be avoided then, by definition, it would be necessary, at times at least, to 'cater' to others.

Catering in this instance would mean the movie script would not include the scene that would predictably be offensive to some.

Not catering would mean the script would keep the scene, thereby causing offence.

It's Lose-Lose when it comes to catering or not catering - you're either squelching yourself or offending others.

Such is the dance of life.

Art has no obligation to avoid offending people.

So Anything that Anyone regards as art (objective or subjective determination?) has free range to belittle, denigrate, offend others without responsibility?

tell me like I'm a third-grader.

If a person offends you, and you tell that person that what they did/made/said offended you, will their apology make things better if they refuse to change or remove what they did/made/said?  

It seems you want to advocate for a world where a thing cannot exist if it displeases anyone, nor an action taken if it will 'harm' someone's emotional state....

Would it be a world where no one keeps score so that no one will be unhappy that their team lost?

extreme examples show the need for moderation in most endeavors,

I hope to always side with Kindness, empathy as well as honesty.

Calling something 'art' isn't a Get Out of Jail card.

> Calling something 'art' isn't a Get Out of Jail
> card.

It kind of is.

When DaVinci created Vitruvian Man, he put himself in the center where God traditionally belonged. It was a statement intended to offend all of Christianity, and the world is better off for it.

When Salman Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses, he intended to offend Islamic extremists. He brought to public attention critically important issues.

When that McNaughton character paints flattering images of Trump and insulting images of Obama, he does so intentionally and offensively.

So what? That's part and parcel of liberalism. And we would be fools to let Christian extremists or Mormon schoolmarms conceal Michelangelo's David or Rodin's sculptures because a flaccid penis offends their sensibilities.

The alternative is to live in a world where Xi Jinping bans "Winnie the Pooh" because people say they look alike; and in which Putin imprisons women for forming a band called Pussy Riot and tortures gay people whose mere existence infuriates the orthodox. Surely that's not how healthy societies function.


"Let a hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred artists piss me off."

--Mao Zedung, after too many Maotais

I agree whole-heatedly with Freedom of Speech - Expression, however I also agree whole-heartedly with people being responsible for their choices - decisions & Actions... Can you imagine a world 'society' where people Aren't responsible for those? Yikes!!!

extreme example-wise:

You've heard of 'performance art' I presume...

So, I could open fire on a crowded street with an AK and call it 'performance art'. Now do you see the fallacy of your reasoning?


Same with yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater when there was no fire (many including EoD & Elder Berry have wanted to do, btw)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2023 06:44PM by GNPE.

Since you and I are both aware of the constitution and its interpretation, I did not see the need to state the obvious.

Your position has in fact changed. You initially said that your favored standard for "art" is "I hope to always side with Kindness, empathy as well as honesty." I was objecting to that extreme attitude and its implicit endorsement of a nanny state and infringements on expression.

I mentioned as examples DaVinci, Michelangelo, Rodin, and McNaughton--none of whom ascribe to your emphasis on "kindness, empathy as well as honesty." Your original standard disfavors them and suggests they are morally wrong.

So make up your mind. Are you still of the opinion that offensive art is bad or do you think offensiveness is fine as long as it exists within constitutional bounds?

Now do you see the fallacy of your reasoning?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Same with yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater when
> there was no fire (many including EoD & Elder
> Berry have wanted to do, btw)


Do you want to talk about this accusation? My memory isn't what it once was but I'm thinking examples of our wanting this is needed.

Yeah, I for one do not believe you are a theater arsonist and I am almost as confident about Jesus.

I'm a literary hooligan.  I might type "FIRE!" on my phone in a crowded theatre (as if I'd ever be in one!), but I would never shout it.

You're making stuff up to suit what you feel are your current needs.  Stick with reality, and let's see how you do...

Presumably a reply to GNPE rather than EB.

I was whispering in a crowded theatre...

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GNPE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Same with yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater
> when
> > there was no fire (many including EoD & Elder
> > Berry have wanted to do, btw)
>
>
> Do you want to talk about this accusation? My
> memory isn't what it once was but I'm thinking
> examples of our wanting this is needed.

I have attained the status - privilege of saying - doing Anything that pleases me without being responsible - accountable to others!

Now if my boss & the IRS were on that channel...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2023 07:17PM by GNPE.

On a recovery board this attitude is irresponsible. I'm glad it was me and not someone else.

Have you had your SA?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've heard of 'performance art' I presume...

> So, I could open fire on a crowded street with an
> AK and call it 'performance art'.

> Same with yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater when
> there was no fire


Britannica defines performance art as:

"...performance art, a time-based art form that typically features a live presentation to an audience or to onlookers (as on a street) and draws on such arts as acting, poetry, music, dance, and painting. It is generally an event rather than an artifact, by nature ephemeral, though it is often recorded on video and by means of still photography."

-----

I don't see any room there for a perp to excuse as "art" violent and illegal acts resulting in dire consequences and/or mayhem.

There is an enormous difference between an artist in any medium offending the sensibilities of viewers and a weapon-wielding assailant endangering lives.

Not the same thing. At all.

Too, one can ignore art. Not so with unexpected and unavoidable violence.

If we have to tiptoe around everybody's potential sensibilities for fear of possibly causing offence even if unintentionally we may as well shut down the world.

I'm offended by a person choosing to wear a suit that's orange in colour. "Off with the clothes" I shout. And then faint away from the sight of public nudity.

Because nakedness is so offensive.

I mean. Where would it end?

Stifling ideas or shying away from differences doesn't advance civilization.

If I want to avoid something I do so. I don't demand that everyone else cease and desist from it if they are interested in it or not bothered by it.

Except noise. I would like all the clamour to stop.

I'm in the No Noise group for People with Sensitive Ears.

Is that too much to ask of everybody else?!

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Anything that Anyone regards as art (objective
> or subjective determination?) has free range to
> belittle, denigrate, offend others without
> responsibility?
>
> tell me like I'm a third-grader.

I don't think that I could tell it like a third grader but I will respond just the same. Sometimes it is *absolutely* necessary to offend someone or a group of people to get across a point.

For example, several years back, a French newspaper office was bombbed. It took some doing, but it was found that the reason that the French newspaper office was bombed was because it had printed some cartoons making fun of the Quoran. In many conservative Middle Eastern countries, making fun of the Quoran could get you killed, whether it was done good-naturedly or critically. Many Muslims, fleeing dictatorships and economic hardships in their own countries, had come to France and the rest of Europe for reprieve and opportunity. Unfortunately, many didn't realize that western European countries, like the U.S., believed it is okay to criticize all religions, no matter the specific faith or the financial worth of those supporting those religions.

This is an area where I agree with both the French government and our own U.S. constitution. people's personal beliefs should not always be treated as being too sacrosanct for even the lightest of criticisms. For if that sacrosanctity were to take hold, then many things would be done in the name of any religion you choose that could not be stopped because nobody could criticize them.

Think about it this way. If you were a cartoonist named Steve Benson and you couldn't draw any cartoons making fun of religions or any other subjects that might offend someone somewhere, then your cartoons would not only stop selling but you would find yourself with much less fodder to lampoon with.

Yes, there is a sort-of line we in the U.S. have to walk on the question of offending people, but I'd rather that line be drawn more conservatively with fewer areas that are off-limits than to have little or no allowances for offensive religious criticisms.

Je suis Charlie.

"Pugh stops during intercourse and picks up a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, one of Hinduism’s holiest scriptures, and asks Murphy to read from it."

They must not have been staying at the Marriott. Otherwise, she would have asked him to read from the Book of Mormon. While soaking.

Seriously, what were the producers thinking? It saves me the expense of movie tickets.

The biggest bomb of all is the movie. It sucks.

Would the producers have used the Koran in a similar way? Doubtful.

Or the Bible?

Give it some time.

Yes, the Christian extremists in the US are on the same page as the Islamic extremists in the Muslim world and the Hindu extremists in India.

For one of those groups to criticize another for intolerance is . . . amusing.

Wondering, what qualifies someone from any religious group as an extremist? Can non religious people be extremists?

> Can non religious people be extremists?

What do you think?

In my opinion, YES, yes they can.

I'm surprised that needs saying. Yes, there are all sorts of extremists.

But here we are discussing a subset of the larger phenomenon.

Pissing off a religion (pick one) is a worthy quest.

at the expense of others' dignity? I think that's selfish & self-serving.

"Dignity" does not depend on the kindness of others, much less their permission.

The number of photos and drawings I've seen of dirty, lazy Mexicans asleep with their backs against a wall, a tree, or a cactus while wearing a sombrero is beyond my counting, but none of them ever bothered me.  I'm not them, I'm me.

I may not have what you would call dignity (thankfully), either from within or without, but I get along just fine and I like myself ... probably too much, but then I deserve it.

"I think that's selfish & self-serving."

Making a film that's essentially nuke porn is selfish & self-serving. I want to know what the families of those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki think of the movie.

The entire premise is so obscene it's comical. It would have been much better as a prequel to Dr Strangelove.

Things like hate, weapons, etc. remind me of how absurd our 'civilization' is.

We're all going to die, why don't we invoke & live Kindness, Respect & Loving for & with each other.

Instead, we have (and was worshipped) people like Hitler, Pol Pot, 'President For Life' Papa Doc Duvalier (educated to be a physician in the U.S.) and lately the leaders of Russia & N. Korea...

I must be on the Wrong Planet!!?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We're all going to die, why don't we invoke &
> live Kindness, Respect & Loving for & with each
> other.
Amen!

> I must be on the Wrong Planet!!?
I think we all are on the wrong planet.

It's so offensive to watch a movie and see that the couple isn't using the most effective angle, movement, and other interactions while they are making love. So much opportunity for heightened pleasure is being lost when they fail to get it right. Thus, I'm deeply and hopelessly offended.

When I went to the LDS temple for endowment sessions I noticed that those sessions also were lacking in enough passion. So, I guess one might argue that I left the LDS church because I was offended ;) The fact that Joseph Smith was a con artist had nothing to do with it because I would've stayed in if the temple sessions would've been more passionate and they didn't keep BS in their procedures like tithing, guilt trips, and Bishops having private 1:1 talks about sex with children.

That's very good.

'Being offended' has cascaded in our time to the point of religious zealots claiming the right to control - manipulate & micro-manage the choices & actions of others, especially those outside their groups.

For me, I think of the 'need' of people to Demand that I wear clothes, so I rode by bike on WNBR in downtown Seattle. & Fremont Soltstice



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2023 11:53AM by GNPE.

No, but that actress is really cute, wot?

Mean while the Great Abomination is leading a pilgrimage to Japan in hopes of ending nuclear war.

Archbishops of Seattle and Santa Fe are meeting with the archbishops of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as gesture of peace.


https://angelusnews.com/news/world/us-archbishops-japan-pilgrimage-of-peace/#:~:text=Two%20U.S.%20archbishops%20are%20leading%20a%20%22Pilgrimage%20of,cities%20of%20Tokyo%2C%20Akita%2C%20Kyoto%2C%20Hiroshima%20and%20Nagasaki.

Hmmm, the culture that gave us the Kama Sutra is offended? Perhaps Oppie shouldn't have waxed philosophical at all and instead stuck with the tried and true, "Who's Your Daddy?"