Let’s start by saying, yes this movie is a masterpiece and absolutely lives up to the hype.
I was blown away by the script, the storytelling, the acting, the cinematography, the sound design, the make up (I didn’t realise it was Robert Downey Jr until after the credits started rolling…).
The film lasted 3 hours but it didn’t feel too long at all. Every scene had its place. I wish I could watch it again, only this time pausing to take notes so I can analyse it, A-level Literature style. That’s how rich this movie is.
And as with most great movies, Oppenheimer sparked lots of conversation and reflection. I’m not going to go into the ethics of creating a weapon of mass destruction, as the film itself explores that already. But other topics did come up in my post-movie discussions and as I scoured YouTube for explainer videos. Below is a summarised list of thoughts I’m still chewing on.
Some disclaimers:
I’m only considering what the film presents, which may not be a fully accurate or comprehensive view of reality (though I’m now thinking of reading American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin).
Many of these thoughts aren’t mine, but a consolidation of ideas from my boyfriend and the internet.
Some spoilers ahead. (Then again, it’s the kind of movie that’s better appreciated when you know what’s going on. Also, it’s based on a true story so… technically the plot is already open information.)
Juxtaposition of the two women in his life
Oppenheimer was married to Kitty but carried on an adulterous relationship with Jean throughout their marriage. I found the differences in his relationships with them intriguing.
Jean and Oppenheimer were nude in most of their scenes together, but ironically he never could be vulnerable with her. She had no access to his everyday life, and he couldn’t tell her that he was working on an atomic bomb.
The only way he could show her affection was with the customary act of bringing her flowers. She kept trashing them and he kept coming back with more. This became a sort of running joke between them - perhaps they both knew how little the flowers meant, and so how disposable they were. What she wanted wasn’t flowers, but that was all he could offer. There was just too much of a power imbalance between them, which led to her suicide when he eventually ended things. (The film does hint at her death being staged as a suicide but that’s for another discussion.)
With Kitty, we don’t see many physically intimate scenes between her and Oppenheimer, but it was clear they shared a trust and mutual investment in the relationship. She knew about his work and moved into the secret town with him. That’s extra significant given how classified the entire project was. They shared emotional intimacy: if Oppenheimer told her to bring in the sheets, she knew that was code for ‘things had turned out well’.
There’s a scene during the not-hearing when Oppenheimer is supposed to bring in witnesses to testify for his character, and his friend/advisor questions if it’s wise to ask Kitty to testify, as she had just found out he had been having an affair. He responds by saying it’s okay, they’re both adults, which shows that he trusts her completely. Not just in her loyalty, but also in her resilience and cleverness, because these board members were out to tear him down.
And Kitty was fantastic in that scene. She was smart and confident, even when the asshole interrogator pulled his chair all the way up to her at the table to physically intimidate her. (He didn’t do this with any other witness, presumably because they were all men.) She was the one who correctly identified the person throwing Oppenheimer under the bus, and she constantly asked him to fight against that. It might have come across as condescension, but I saw it more as anger at seeing her husband being treated unfairly, and wanting him to push back so he wouldn’t get taken advantage of.
She was loyal even when her husband wasn’t. She never forgave his colleague Edward Teller for not standing behind Oppenheimer during the hearing and even years later when they met at Oppenheimer’s medal ceremony, she refused to shake his hand.
She was strong and told him what he needed to hear, when he was freaking out about Jean’s death. It was something along the lines of: “you don’t get to commit the sin and try to make everyone feel sorry for you while you deal with the consequences”. I thought this was interesting in the context of his work on the bomb. Did he commit a sin? Is passivity a sin? Or was passivity his responsibility as a scientist?
Which leads nicely on to the next point.
Taking a stand
Throughout the movie, Oppenheimer tried to remain impartial. He always presented views on the bomb as the collective view of the scientists he was working with instead of his own opinion. He refused to sign a petition that other scientists had started against using the bomb on their enemies. There was a scene after the bombing in which Teller confronted him and asked what he thought; he couldn’t give a straight answer.
Perhaps he saw it as his duty as a scientist to be neutral. Their role is to push the boundaries of science, not to decide what to do with the discovery. In fact it seemed that he saw most things as a mere intellectual pursuit. He attended communist gatherings and read the manifestos, but never joined the party.
But in the end, he was forced to articulate his stance during the closed hearing. It was sad that he only did it in front of a small board who only wanted to discredit him and remove his influence, rather than people who might have listened to him.
Obviously it’s important to be unbiased and open to all perspectives. But I wonder about the dangers of not committing strongly and publicly to a stand you believe in, or even doing the work to reflect and determine what it is you believe in, until it’s too late.
Throwback to Katy Perry in 2013.
Openness VS secrecy
Or compartmentalisation, as the film liked to refer to it.
There’s a lot of tension between the scientists and the soldiers in the movie, as they had fundamentally opposing positions on this. For science to advance, they have to share knowledge. Their objective is not to defeat the enemy but to move forward together, which is of course in direct conflict with why the military exists.
Oppenheimer’s stance on openness extended beyond the lab. He wanted the US government to tell Russia about the dangers of the atomic bomb and agree to not use it ever. Otherwise, it would lead to an arms race. The government didn’t, and that’s exactly what happened.
He also argued for the government to be transparent with American citizens and give them a say in how to manage nuclear weapons. This is what he said:
“The trouble with secrecy isn't that it doesn't give the public a sense of participation. The trouble with secrecy is that it denies to the government itself the wisdom and the resources of the whole community, of the whole country; and the only way you can do this is to let almost anyone say what he thinks — to try to give the best synopses, the best popularisations, the best mediations of technical things that you can, and to let men deny what they think is false, argue what they think is false. You have to have free and uncorrupted communication.”
Source: Why America Betrayed Oppenheimer
I think this is applicable in our own lives too. Openness is often better than secrecy when it comes to things that could harm us. It’s important to seek help when we need it, and remain accountable so we don’t struggle on our own. My church has a mentoring system, where each member is paired with a mentor. They can offer prayer, advice, friendship, whatever we may need in our spiritual walk. I didn’t realise that not all churches practiced this, and it’s definitely something I appreciate very much. There were so many instances when a mentor’s gentle probing question or well-timed prayer gave me the perspective and hope to see beyond what I was struggling with at the time.
Going beyond individuals, openness serves nations as well. The same video above mentioned that by closing off German society and kicking out everyone who was different, Hitler accelerated Germany’s downfall because he forced all of the brightest minds out of the country and into the arms of the enemy. So many scientists on the Manhattan Project were refugees. Albert Einstein was a German Jew!
I see this relating to trade and geopolitics today. I just started reading New Ideas from Dead Economists by Todd G. Buchholz and he puts it really well:
“...economists agree on enough to say that countries and individuals take foolish risks in ignoring the basic tenets of economic theory. The nation that raises trade barriers in an atavistic yearning for stable, mercantile times hurts its own consumers…”
Basically, openness is better than closedness for a country’s wealth, or material health. Not in the superficial sense, but in the sense of putting food in people’s pantries and making sure everyone can afford a roof over their heads.
Identity, race and religion
I didn’t realise how much religion and race played into the creation of the atomic bomb. Oppenheimer was a Jew, and so definitely would have been invested in the war and defeating Hitler. Interestingly, Strauss, the villain of the film, actively sought to dissociate himself from his Jewish identity by asking that his name be pronounced in a more English way.
The war moved a lot of academia forward. My favourite example from linguistics is how German-Jewish Franz Boas came up with the theory that all languages are equal, and no language is inherently superior to another. Before this, lots of scholars assumed that European languages were better, which reflected how their speakers were smarter. Because racism.
Today, when I look back at World War II as a Christian, I see it as a way the enemy tried to destroy God’s chosen people through Hitler. The Jewish people went through horrifying discrimination and violence, but ultimately the enemy wasn’t successful in destroying the race. He got pretty far, and I’m not saying God was happy such atrocities happened, but He was sovereign throughout pure pure evil, and He continued to protect the Jews so they wouldn’t be completely wiped out.
and said: “Lord, the God of our ancestors, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you.
2 Chronicles 20:6
So, this was an attempt at organising my thoughts. Coincidentally, today happens to be the anniversary of the Little Boy bombing, which was the first of two atomic bombs the US dropped on Japan.
This was obviously a movie with very heavy subject matter, but it was engaging and educational and got me thinking a lot about how the same issues then are still relevant today. Let me know if you disagree, if you have more to add or if I’ve gotten any facts or quotes wrong (sorry, all my examples from the movie are based on memory alone!).
BISCUIT ON THE SIDE
If you’ve read to the end, thank you!
To end on a lighter (and sweeter) note…
GUYS. Not sponsored (I wish!) but y’all need to try Summer Acai. The amount of sauce they give is ridiculous, and I’ve been completely spoiled by their cookie butter to acai ratio. I now cannot go back to any other store for my acai fix.
It’s been nice to get back into this again. I’m watching Barbie tomorrow night so there may or may not be another one of these blog posts soon. Either way, I hope 2023 has been kind to you so far. Here’s to more great movies!
Comments