The Oppenheimer Discussion (Full Spoilers) | Cinema of Nuclear Dread #3

Come hang out with us on Discord to jump right into our next series! www.patreon.com/cinemaofmeaning

Two things you misread/misquoted here: 1. Oppenheimer's "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds" isn't all about him. It's not him having some high horse moment where he thinks he's better or bigger than anyone, because the rest of the quote is : "I suppose WE ALL thought that, one way or another". He fully recognizes it's a communal effort and a communal problem 2. Strauss' aide doesn't say "Maybe they were talking about someONE more important than you" [implication: Oppenheimer is more important, possibly the most important man]. Strauss' aide says "Maybe they were talking about someTHING more important" [Implication: nuclear proliferation and the threat of Armageddon is more important than Strauss or Oppenheimer]

Oppenheimer is about the internal struggle of a man between his duty as husband, patriot, scientist and human being. Nolan creates a dual structure: Fission: A man allows himself to be tortured to atone for his sins and justify his live and actions, and he's precisely taken apart to pieces such as an atom. Color represents Oppie's varied vision of the world and contradictions. Fusion: Two personalities collide, one believes he's responsible for giving humanity the power to destroy themselves and the other an arrogant man who thinks the world revolved around him. Their paths cross to give each one a lesson in humility. Black and White represent Stauss vision of the world: maniquean and limited, as he puts it, the power in the shadows. Nolan has made a true masterpiece not by reducing a historical figure to a three hour movie, but exploring the human condituon through the extrordinary life of one man who is and isn't responsible for the entire humanity. But as usual, people don't get Nolan just as they didn't get Hitchcock or Kubrick im their time. Now that's Nolan's real life tragedy... Also, you can see GUILT as a big part of Nolan's work: Lenny for having murdered his wife in Memento, Pacino's character for his coleague, Bruce Wayne for his parents, Cooper in Interstellar for leaving Murph, etc.

While it's understandable that some viewers might believe showing the aftermath of the nuclear bomb in a film like Nolan's could enhance its impact, there are valid reasons why he chose not to do so. Nolan likely aimed to maintain a certain thematic focus and storytelling style in "Oppenheimer." By leaving out explicit depictions of the aftermath, he might have been emphasizing the perspective of the scientists, the moral dilemmas they faced, and the historical context leading up to the development of the bomb.There are already several powerful and graphic films that delve into the events and aftermath of the nuclear bombings in Japan, such as "Grave of the Fireflies," "Barefoot Gen," and "White Light/Black Rain." These films offer a more detailed exploration of the human suffering and consequences, allowing audiences to engage with the full extent of the tragedy. Nolan's decision not to show these scenes might also reflect his intent to approach the story from a different angle, focusing on the scientists' internal conflicts and the broader implications of their work. This approach allows for a different kind of emotional resonance, prompting viewers to reflect on the ethical and scientific dilemmas involved in creating such destructive technologies. To my mind, his choice to omit explicit depictions of the aftermath is a creative one, aligning with his directorial vision and storytelling objectives. For a comprehensive understanding of the events,exploring both "Oppenheimer" and the existing films that address the aftermath can provide a * WELL-ROUNDED PERSPECTIVE *

You mention the nuclear explosion being silent. But I don't think they did this for effect. Light travels much faster than sound so I'm pretty sure the delay between the actual explosion and the sound from the shockwave actually happened in the real life trinity test.

I think the whole Oppenheimer-Strauss dynamic is framed as an analogy for M.A.D. Strauss strikes Oppenheimer first, but at his own peril. He organised a sham hearing to discredit Oppenheimer because of some paranoia, but like two Scorpion in a tank analogy, gets self annhilated as well. I would also add the movie is not about bomb or McCarthyism, but nuclear arms race and why majority of the people who made these devices believed their use, if any, or even further proliferation, would be catastrophic. This fear didn't originate just because of their destructive impact, but because of the fact that it would force the rest of the world to get their own arsenal, leading to multiple nuclear factions. This will invariably lead to an unstable system, in which a slightest of paranoia or misinformation can lead to total extinction of the planet

That conversation about which cities to bomb really happened. I learned about that at the Peace Museum in Hiroshima. It was Kyoto (original capital of Japan for literally thousands of years), and that guy and his wife really did honeymoon there, and he really did cite that as a reason for taking it off the list. 1:00:18

hearing that you guys are reacting to this film only hours after having seen it the first time makes me wish you'd revisit the discussion now. It took me till the third time seeing it that I felt like I was able to come to terms with what it was trying to be (as far as my interpretation takes me). But I was a bit shell shocked the first time seeing it. I told my brother "it was definitely something, just not sure what."

I find the thematic analogies that can be drawn between Oppenheimer and Sunshine are very revealing. If one watches Sunshine with his future performance in Oppenheimer in mind, you can see a parallel characters logical development. Using Kenneth Burke’s analogy, both films have a purpose/passion/perception tripartite dramatic structure as the main character and his mission partners attempt to unfold a plan of salvation, the descent into the chaos of achievement, and the blistering fulfillment of the chaos in an uncertain future. The fact that Cilian Murphy is the lead in both films further helps the effect of a dialogic interplay. Worth watching Sunshine again with this new film in mind.

My favorite quotes from the film, seem to speak to Nolan himself somehow. "You see beyond the world we live in, there’s a price to be paid for that." "Now it’s your turn to deal with the consequences of your achievement."

Great discussion. It echoes so many of my own feelings about the film after a first viewing. I do think that ultimately it didn’t have the moral courage to really confront the horror of nuclear war. The focus in the third act on the red scare and Cold War aspects seemed to diffuse the impact even more. Edit: I watched it again, this time in IMAX, and I actually enjoyed it more upon a second viewing. The nonlinear structure was easier to follow this time, and the film is visually very impressive in IMAX. I still feel like it could have grappled with the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more, but taken on its own terms it’s still a great film with terrific performances and some incredible visuals.

1.) Oppenheimer realized that the Soviets and eventually the Chinese and other political states would develop their own. 2.) The display of National resolve to 'use' the weapon on civilians was the perceived threat 'before' the onset of MAD. 3.) The Allies knew for a fact that the loss of life for both sides during an invasion of Japan would be many times more than the bomb's destruction. 4.) Oppenheimer never felt that he could 'contain' the use of these weapons - that was the purview of the political apparatus. 5.) I must firmly agree with your notice of the analogy of the 'atmosphere on fire' to the proliferation of the weapons. Thank you guys for your exposition and discussion. You've made many, many interesting and profound points concerning the movie.

That's the thing about art, there is no expectation for it to require it to be conveyed emotionally. I hear that from so many critiques saying because t doesn't grip the viewer emotionally, that it fails as a film. If every film did that there would be no art as it becomes just a structure to be met like a quota in a business. Furthermore, this film is also being praised for being predominantly accurate to historical context. Bar one or two scenes, the film doesn't twist historical events to suit a more typical narrative or emotional payoff. That takes skill.

Switching over to show the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would sort of go against the film's logos and what could best be described as it's vibe. It would be breaking the film's own rules. The film Oppenheimer is chiefly told from the respectice perspectives of Oppenheimer (in color) and Strauss (in black and white). Breaking the established dynamic and the rules of engagement that the film sets up from the beginning would break the immersion and the vibe. The fact that we don't see the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki directly but instead see its effects on the characters on screen effectively presents the horror without coming across as exploitative or preachy. The film is centered between Oppenheimer and Strauss and it was the right decision to be restrained and not break that dynamic that the film painstakingly set up. There are plenty of other films that depict the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in muxh better ways, some of which are from Japanese films themselves. The one I would recommend is the 1983 Japanese anime film Barefoot Gen .Switching over to show the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would sort of go against the film's logos and what could best be described as it's vibe. It would be breaking the film's own rules. The film Oppenheimer is chiefly told from the respectice perspectives of Oppenheimer (in color) and Strauss (in black and white). Breaking the established dynamic and the rules of engagement that the film sets up from the beginning would break the immersion and the vibe. The fact that we don't see the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki directly but instead see its effects on the characters on screen effectively presents the horror without coming across as exploitative or preachy. The film is centered between Oppenheimer and Strauss and it was the right decision to be restrained and not break that dynamic that the film painstakingly set up. There are plenty of other films that depict the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in much better ways, some of which are from Japanese films themselves. The one I would recommend is the 1983 Japanese anime film Barefoot Gen .

In your podcast, you posed the prospect of adding moments of silence in the film, giving time for the viewer to grabble with the gravity of Oppenheimer’s perspective; thereby expanding the meaning of the subject matter. By granting this time to reflect on these defining moments, allowing one to put the pieces together, it was hopeful the viewer would grasp a deeper appreciation and understanding of the events and Oppenheimer’s choices. But I wonder, in the bigness of Oppenheimer’s life, his contribution to catapulting science, the never-ending game to beat the bad guy so to speak; with so many ongoing moving parts, was there truly time for Oppenheimer to reflect and contemplate what the future might hold? As I watched the film, I wondered if it was a venue for us as the viewer to experience, that when our own subjective world is spinning so fast, and whatever ball we have our eye is all we care about; that until we have one of those reality moments, where a shattering startling explosion imposes an about face halt, do we truly retrospect. As light was cast on the density of what was uncertain for Oppenheimer, a peek into his internal private world, at best we got a shadowy glimpse of his perspective. As these very public events unfolded, Oppenheimer bravely grasped these with a moral reflection. In these moments I was moved to reference my own personal tragedy. When the timeline of Trinity escalated, echoing an insurmountable urgency, human emotions were at their peak. After the test, the roaring rumble of this scientific race went still; revealing a new imprint on our world. This new landscape exposed to Oppenheimer the vengeance, the politics, the military aspirations; inspiring an urgency within him of his dutiful responsibility, to fight for what was good, to do the right thing. So how do we in these defining moments, stop the particles, stop the running dialog of solving that problem, dial down the passion of achievement, and truly reflect on the morality of our choices? The effects of these choices on others lives, that what we create is now defining the tools that can be weaponized, where power and control holds an insatiable hunger. How often do we have sufficient awareness to stop in silence, to pause the movie and analyze? As I reflect on the tragedy I was a part of, the catastrophic effects on so many people’s lives. How so many of us were naïve, our biased perspective was framed with a compartmentalized blind-sidedness. And now my view of the world is always looking through this tragic lens. To watch Oppenheimer harness every bit of his being to do the right thing, to ingeniously do his best to overcome every obstacle, wrestling the psychological limitations that held him in an internal torment, he relied on his wit and fervor to persevere. One might say, the will of the gods spoke as loud as thunder, harkening the dark horror of man’s new creation. And for those who possessed some moral construct were humbled to their knees unlike ever before. This creation opened a forbidden gate granting the prospect to employ death as an easy bargaining chip, offering the means to control the chaos of humanity without eyes. Human existence has its darkness, it begs one to willfully embrace their moral service, and possibly realize that attempting to eradicate the darkness externally will albeit nothing more than a band aid fix. Maybe Nolan wanted us individually to experience our own subjective cathartic moment, and maybe walk away with how do we make those pauses to stop and reflect; as we weil our own fervor of chaos and hubris, to really ask are we doing the next best right thing and what that serves?

As for the "dutch" scene at the university of Leiden: in the german dub they actually had him speak dutch. Wouldve probably been too time intensive to have Murphy learn both for the movie.

Overall, I really enjoy the conversations the two of you have, and I've seen a lot of nuance drawn out with some of my favorite films. But I also think that this one specifically deserves an extra rewatch and a revisit to the conversation. The main overarching theme of the film to me seems to be in how to resist evil in the world without proliferating it. It seems like Nolan's pointing to the fact that Oppenheimer wasn't just tortured by his work on the bomb, but motivated to do better. The "tarred and feathered" comment has more to do with his wife not understanding him than him being a defeated man. She wants him to go up in opposition, but he's seen (through the atomic bomb) that all opposition causes is proliferation. That it takes a different kind of stand not based in power plays and direct opposition. His entire character from the beginning was shown by Nolan to be one who looks into things no matter the cost and waits to see the outcome before moving forward. A skeptic, but not an inactive one. Overall, it seems to me the character arc is one of overcoming fear, and the way it makes us unsafe when we act on it. The final scene shows this clearly, where his and Einstein's fears proliferate what would eventually become the case against him. To me, the entire movie is a process of letting go of a clear enemy, and striving for nuance. The first half of the movie was fission, which involves separation. And the second half of the movie was fusion, which involves reuniting. The film seems to be about how to prevent an atmosphere from igniting by hoping and acting for the sake of good in the world, rather than simply trying to eradicate evil (which always backfires). With this in mind, I'm kind of surprised that wasn't picked up on when you were watching the movie. I've heard both of you talk about things like the myths of masculine purpose, or why a hero mentality can be problematic. It seems to resonate with mich of those threads.

I totally agree about having more moments of silence. He did a great job in Interstellar when Dr. Mann blew up the docking station. It was total silence for a few seconds and it worked great

The film was INCREDIBLE! Appreciate that you "go there" on the deeper existential aspects of cinema. My soul is full!

The city was Kyoto BTW…..