Hollywood's Complex Dynamics

It seems that Hollywood can be a challenging environment for certain ethnicities and age groups. The awards often provide a sense of rejuvenation for older individuals and a feeling of belonging for marginalized communities. While I appreciate this sentiment, I question how it aligns with the notion of Best Film.

To be honest, I found the winning film to be quite disappointing. My viewing experience ended when Jamie Curtis was overpowered by Michelle Yeoh, while the young actor from "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" (1984) battled security guards with his fanny pack. At one point, I could have sworn he called out for "Indy" to rescue him, though he seemed to manage on his own. I couldn't endure more, so I paused my viewing. Perhaps I’ll revisit it when it airs on TV; maybe my perspective will change—unless, of course, the war in Ukraine is still ongoing.

The Case for "All Quiet on the Western Front"

I firmly believe "All Quiet on the Western Front" deserved the accolade. Its failure to win can be attributed to its anti-war message. The film does not romanticize warfare or the sacrifices made in its name; instead, it portrays war as a source of existential dread, responsible for countless displacements throughout history. To end war is to alleviate immense suffering.

In 2023, Hollywood seemed unprepared to embrace films that depict the bloody futility of war. With the American hegemony threatened by a coalition of Russia and China, there is a clear desire for narratives that present heroes and villains, casting war as a noble endeavor. This aligns with the American sentiment that casts Putin as the new Hitler and President Xi as a modern-day Chairman Mao.

The narrative surrounding the war in Ukraine paints it as a patriotic struggle against invasion and tyranny. A film that illustrates the futility of war is unlikely to win favor in such a climate. Furthermore, the fact that "All Quiet on the Western Front" is based on a German book and features German actors adds to the controversy surrounding its recognition, especially considering the historical contexts of WWI, WWII, and Vietnam.

A Parallel Universe of Recognition

When the Best Film award was announced, I felt as though I had stepped into a parallel universe where the aversion to war was overlooked, and peace was dismissed as anti-patriotic. Hollywood seems reluctant to confront the realities of war and the profound implications that films like "All Quiet on the Western Front" present—a plea for solutions through peaceful means over a century later. This is humanity's only viable path forward.

Today, we are fortunate; Hitler did not possess nuclear weapons, but now we live under the threat of nuclear annihilation from land, air, and sea. Is there a way to escape into a parallel universe? Regardless, I predict that "Oppenheimer" will sweep the 2024 Oscars. This film chronicles the development of the first atomic bombs in the desert, led by Dr. Robert Oppenheimer and his team, who transformed theory into reality. The author of the source material aptly dubbed Oppenheimer 'American Prometheus' for harnessing the destructive power of nuclear fission for the American military.

The Complexity of Oppenheimer's Legacy

The narrative also delves into Oppenheimer's mistreatment by the American establishment due to his communist leanings, despite having provided them with unparalleled power. Following the defeat of Hitler and Japan, Oppenheimer became a target during the communist witch hunts that swept through America, as Stalin emerged as the new enemy in the Cold War narrative. The U.S. has always needed an adversary—both foreign and domestic—to justify its military aggression and regime change efforts.

Oppenheimer's vilification and the character assassination he faced mirror the missed opportunity represented by "All Quiet on the Western Front." In many respects, "Oppenheimer" serves as an anti-war statement, engaging with the moral dilemmas surrounding warfare through its central character and a few others, like Teller.

With the wisdom of hindsight, we recognize the catastrophic potential of the weaponized power they created. Oppenheimer and his colleagues at Los Alamos were aware of the destructive capabilities, yet they chose to proceed with its development before the Nazis or Japanese could. Should we commend them for safeguarding Western liberal democracy or condemn them for birthing the means to obliterate human civilization?

This dilemma encapsulates the essence of "Oppenheimer." It offers a nuanced portrayal of our precarious existence, teetering on the brink of nuclear destruction. Christopher Nolan and Cillian Murphy's performance as Oppenheimer is nothing short of remarkable, effectively illustrating how the 'American Prometheus' engineered the potential for human extinction and subsequently became a national security threat, as he acknowledged the magnitude of his error and refused to be silenced.

It's for these reasons that I believe "Oppenheimer" will claim the title of 'Best Film' at next week's Oscar ceremony.

Reece Beckett Sadie Seroxcat