I think this is a great summation of what I’m reading about Oppenheimer (I think it’s “J. Robert” by the way). That said, having just seen it yesterday, I’m leaning towards thinking that it didn’t show enough of the horror that resulted in creating nuclear weapons. I think it was a no-win situation for Nolan here in making this film. Show the devastation, he can be accused of exploiting tragedy for profit. Avoid showing it, it lessens the impact (for me, at least). It makes me wonder what people would make of “Schindlers List” in the the age of all us being “very online.” Would Spielberg be praised or vilified?
I appreciate your piece and perspectives, both as articulated here, and on The Filmcast.
It did seem to me that missing from all these discussions was a balanced viewpoint on the decision to use the bomb on Japan, and the incredible devastation that decision brought to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
However, my understanding is that similar or worse effects resulted from the firebombing of Japanese cities, and much more were expected if the US & Allies had had to invade the Japanese home islands, not to mention the expectation and estimates of enormous losses of US lives. All this to end a war of aggression by Japan in which their military committed numerous atrocities against innocent civilians and non-combatants as well.
Truman is portrayed as heartless in the movie -- i believe his encounter with Oppie is faithful to what was reported at the time, but there’s also plenty of documentation that he struggled with the weight and consequences of the decision. It wasn’t undertaken lightly, nor was he cavalier about his moral responsibility in the aftermath.
I think the film does a good job of showing JRO’s motives for working on the project -- the need to beat Germany in the race to develop the bomb. I think there’s no moral ambiguity there -- had the Nazis developed it first, it’s likely the outcomes could have been much much worse.
Most commentary I’ve seen views Oppenheimer’s reputation as in need of rehabilitation, or generally sees him as a villain of history.
I disagree. I think the Manhatten project was necessary, and I think once they’d progressed as far as they had, completed the project was the right choice, even after Germany surrendered. Science doesn’t stand still. By that point, some nation would have developed atomic & nuclear weapons.
And if if lax security or active spying gave secrets to the Soviets and accelerated their nuclear program, and led to the Cold War, it may also have helped prevent another use of nuclear weapons.
If we’d had decades where US was the only nuclear power, I’m in no way confident subsequent US presidents wouldn’t have used it against Russia or in Korea, Viet Nam, etc.
Ultimately, Oppenheimer has (thus far!) be proven right when he said that using it was the only way to prevent it from being used again.
In my opinion, this is the best piece you have written for the newsletter to date.
As always a very insightful, well thought out post. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you for this!
Thank you for such a nuanced and thoughtful piece.
Really enjoyed your well balanced take on this. Thank you
Great summary and perspective. I was particularly frustrated when Oppenheimer turns his eyes/head away from the film
I think this is a great summation of what I’m reading about Oppenheimer (I think it’s “J. Robert” by the way). That said, having just seen it yesterday, I’m leaning towards thinking that it didn’t show enough of the horror that resulted in creating nuclear weapons. I think it was a no-win situation for Nolan here in making this film. Show the devastation, he can be accused of exploiting tragedy for profit. Avoid showing it, it lessens the impact (for me, at least). It makes me wonder what people would make of “Schindlers List” in the the age of all us being “very online.” Would Spielberg be praised or vilified?
I appreciate your piece and perspectives, both as articulated here, and on The Filmcast.
It did seem to me that missing from all these discussions was a balanced viewpoint on the decision to use the bomb on Japan, and the incredible devastation that decision brought to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
However, my understanding is that similar or worse effects resulted from the firebombing of Japanese cities, and much more were expected if the US & Allies had had to invade the Japanese home islands, not to mention the expectation and estimates of enormous losses of US lives. All this to end a war of aggression by Japan in which their military committed numerous atrocities against innocent civilians and non-combatants as well.
Truman is portrayed as heartless in the movie -- i believe his encounter with Oppie is faithful to what was reported at the time, but there’s also plenty of documentation that he struggled with the weight and consequences of the decision. It wasn’t undertaken lightly, nor was he cavalier about his moral responsibility in the aftermath.
I think the film does a good job of showing JRO’s motives for working on the project -- the need to beat Germany in the race to develop the bomb. I think there’s no moral ambiguity there -- had the Nazis developed it first, it’s likely the outcomes could have been much much worse.
Most commentary I’ve seen views Oppenheimer’s reputation as in need of rehabilitation, or generally sees him as a villain of history.
I disagree. I think the Manhatten project was necessary, and I think once they’d progressed as far as they had, completed the project was the right choice, even after Germany surrendered. Science doesn’t stand still. By that point, some nation would have developed atomic & nuclear weapons.
And if if lax security or active spying gave secrets to the Soviets and accelerated their nuclear program, and led to the Cold War, it may also have helped prevent another use of nuclear weapons.
If we’d had decades where US was the only nuclear power, I’m in no way confident subsequent US presidents wouldn’t have used it against Russia or in Korea, Viet Nam, etc.
Ultimately, Oppenheimer has (thus far!) be proven right when he said that using it was the only way to prevent it from being used again.