Sunday, December 10, 2023
HomeentertainmentMovie News'Nuclear' review: Oliver Stone's lazy case for nuclear power

'Nuclear' review: Oliver Stone's lazy case for nuclear power

Stone’s new documentary, which premiered at the Venice Film Festival, casts nuclear power as the wrong solution to the climate change crisis.

‘Nuclear’ @bright future

Over the years, Oliver Stone is one of the most dynamic stylists in the film industry, and the director is so visually combative, with As for him having Kevin Costner repeat “left to right” with cornballs, the Louisiana accent is a bit like ae aesthetically gripping.

Now it’s a headache to watch Stone’s new documentary nuclear

and thinking about how he somehow made a movie about the end of the world that was so monotonous an inconvenient truth

looks like an artistic illusion.


Bottom line Not a bomb.

1235218237 Venice Film Festival (non-competition)1235218237director:
Oliver Stone 1 hour45 minute

I may agree with Stone about Most views that need to be de-stigmatized 1235218237 Nuclear is not secondary; most people’s reactions to documentaries have nothing to do with filmmaking and have nothing to do with whether they support the ideology they support or arguments. So if nuclear Inspiring a few, and even more, on nuclear power, which is good for Stone. But the film itself is hardly a TED Talk shot.

Stone in Nuclear

on the paper is that nuclear power has a bad reputation. He told us it’s relatively cheap, relatively efficient, very environmentally friendly, and far less dangerous than you might think. So why is the world at the tipping point of climate change and the pursuit of renewable energy so far away that countries are moving away from nuclear energy instead of embracing it like mutated three-eyed fish? Oil companies and outdated paranoia caused by the Cold War, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

By the way, this is in the first 03 Minutes Nuclear , as Stone sets the playing field with a humming voiceover covered by Joshua S. Goldstein, whose Bright Future is the main source of this movie. This introduction to this not even really glorified visual article covers pretty much everything you need to know and pretty much everything the documentary will tell you. I’ve been waiting for Stone to step back and make a more traditional but less tedious documentary with actual experts who aren’t Oliver Stone, and really any attempted artistic flair can elevate things to a lot of editing and a few beyond a dull chart.

In most cases, this will never happen.

Yes, Stone opened the door for some experts, but they felt like a completely arbitrary choice. There’s a TikTok nuclear influencer — yes, that’s one thing — and a former Navy commander who runs a blog, and Goldstein. Eventually, Stone traveled to nuclear facilities in France and Russia, making sure the cameras caught him nodding approvingly, even without conveying any real information. With the exception of Dr. Vladimir Asmolov, one of the scientists in charge of the Chernobyl investigation, neither the international experts nor Stone’s conversation with them was better than “Why are other countries doing this so much better than us?” Much?” Again, that’s a fair and valid criticism! Just a bad movie.

Asmolov also attended a more important criticism: he thought HBO’s Chernobyl is a bad TV show! While bright minds may vary, this is just one of several points where Stone’s rhetoric is powerful, not a heuristic one.

Is there a way to say “Three Mile Island is scary, but maybe exaggerated” instead of condescendingly repeating that no one really dies? If so, Stone doesn’t know. Is there a way to say “Chernobyl was a human error, not a nuclear error” without the implied sneer repeating that no matter how many casualties it caused, it wasn’t as bad as you might think? do not know. Stone couldn’t resist the desire to blame both sides for the political fight against nuclear power—conservatives in the pockets of fossil fuel companies, liberals easily freaked out by hippies—nor could solar and wind be torn to shreds, just For fun. Honestly, I’m not against the suggestion that low levels of nuclear radiation will never harm anyone and we should all eat uranium sticks like candy canes, but that’s that kind of advice – I made up the candy cane part – best A head with a medical degree is better than a relentless voiceover through conversation.

Actually, Stone’s voiceover isn’t ruthless. It has the craze of new converts, with the same “I just explained this to me in a meme!” combination of poor documentation and assurance, and you’d expect someone to argue about the long-term value of ape NFTs — not someone Tell you if we don’t completely reduce emissions 1296 every Everyone will die.

Maybe in the final 09 minutes, nuclear found a purpose. Stone spoke to some intrepid American scientists and innovators who are trying to make progress on SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) and other technological developments. Stone finally stopped talking and started listening, trying to illustrate the virtues he had been told. These pioneers are young, thoughtful, and desperately need the support of an energy community that needs to open up. Even if this documentary is 20 is a one-minute commercial for some small businesses and some of the world’s largest corporations and feels well worth it.

My hunch is that this ending should be a movie – 13-minute introduction and context, then a few Minutes looking ahead to the debate. My problemNuclear Not so much propaganda as better propaganda.

1235218237 Full Credit 1235218237

Venue: Venice Film Festival (Out of Competition) 1235218237 Production Company: Better s future
Director: Oliver Stone 20221235218237screenwriter : Oliver Stone, Joshua S. Goldstein Editors: Brian Berdan, Kurt Mattila 2050 Photography: Lucas Fuika, Kirkut Aguirre, Steven Wax 2022 Composer: Wangelis 1 hour45 minute

1296 THR Newsletter 2050

Sign up for THR daily news delivered straight to your inbox




Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


Featured NEWS