Oppenheimer

[Prrambulate]

Anyone planning on seeing this when it comes out on 21st July?

I'm looking forward to a fascinating exploration of the life of the atom bomb inventor gazing at Cillian Murphy for 3 hours.

Some recent promotional stills. The horse riding one gives off Peaky vibes!

The whole point of the inclusion of Strauss was to pull together the post war security trial Oppenheimer had. Strauss was a key person in Oppenheimer's story - therefore Nolan used Strauss as the focus for the post war chapter of Oppenheimer's story.

This was shown from the beginning when there were the two labels "1.Fusion" and "2. Fission" - the fusion was the chapter of Oppenheimer's story leading up to the combination of the scientific knowledge to create the bomb, and the fission was where that knowledge breaks down due to the uncertainty of the future after creating a chain reaction that, once started, can't be stopped.

Strauss was the catalyst for fission in Oppenheimer's story - he started the chain reaction that lead to the security trial, which once started could not be stopped, even after Strauss had realised that the chain reaction had careered out of his control he had no way of stopping it, he just had to live with the consequences, much like Oppenheimer had to do with the knowledge that once he had discovered the knowledge to create the bomb he couldn't undiscover it.

I do know all that. Just didn't find it very absorbing at least not in the way presented.

I found the Wikipedia page clearer and more interesting!

I was bothered by the colour/b and w too because the colour stuff in the poky little room was from the black and white period but I didn't know if it was at exactly the same time. Nor the bit with the ridiculous flowers on the table . I found that I couldn't place when that meeting with Einstein happened. Unlike most biopics, Nolan eschewed helpful intertitles. A few dates might have helped.

I went to see this yesterday and I think I was 'whelmed'. It did seem too long and quite slow.

I vaguely know the basics of Oppenheimer and his moral queasiness, and i think I was expecting more of a straightforward biopic type film, rather than the swirling, multi-character, jumping timeline, political mish mash that I found it to be. I missed quite a lot of the dialogue, particularly names, which didn't help, and zoned out a bit from the post-war political machinations as I got confused with the nuances of all the political/personal relationships and motivations and how and why they shifted over time. I do think if you know who all the characters are beforehand it would help. Maybe I will read the book...

In summary, I'm not sure I'd watch it again if it comes on the TV.

The Fusion and Fission bit went over my head tbh. Interesting to read that.

A yes for the film from me.

I filled in facts afterwards when I read up about it. I love a film that does that.

It was dramatic, cinematic and visually absorbing enough to carry me through without knowing all the background information. For that I think it was exceptional in conveying what could have been a really dry story.

I didn't expect a documentary and just went with it.

I had a little snooze. I thought the sound and dialogue were weirdly mixed. I got bored and twitchy and hated the gratuitous sex which wasn't relevant. The real life mistress of him was, in fact, a psychiatrist and may have killed herself because she was actually a lesbian and very conflicted about that.

I don't think it really gave the issue of the fact that there was such horrendous loss of life in Japan and that we've been living with gravest existential threat since it was invented.

I just couldn't see what the fuss was about. The real measure of the film is that I fell asleep. Maybe if I thought CM was eye candy, it would've kept me awake, but I bat for the other side anyway.....

The Fusion and Fission bit went over my head tbh. Interesting to read that

It's one of those things where if you get it then it adds an extra layer to the nuance but if you don't then it doesn't detract from the story. Initially I didn't get the relevance either, it was only afterwards when discussing it with my friend that I started to actually think more about it and realised how clever it actually was to split his story arc into those two distinct phases.

I don't think it really gave the issue of the fact that there was such horrendous loss of life in Japan and that we've been living with gravest existential threat since it was invented.

But it wasn't a film about the atomic bomb and its impact so of course it's not going to focus on that, it's a film about Oppenheimer and his life and work hence why everything was centred around him and his life.

But it wasn't a film about the atomic bomb and its impact so of course it's not going to focus on that, it's a film about Oppenheimer and his life and work hence why everything was centred around him and his life.

We would have been looking at about 6hrs then....

I have a feeling my H will love this and I will get bored ( and I'm not a shallow unintellectual person) I also struggle with really really long films.

I don't think it's overly "intellectual " to be honest.

I'd say for quite a dry subject it's quite dramatic and emotional.

I think that's why people who want lots of explanation and facts and figures would maybe struggle.

I got lucky and my cinema seat was incredibly comfortable😁

I'm not sure whether I enjoyed it. I watched it last night and am still thinking about it today, which is a measure of a piece of art's worth imo. And I'm looking forward to discussing it with others who have seen it. However, the questions it raises about the ethics of nuclear weapons is mostly what I'd like to discuss. Though I found the pacing of it interesting and impressive.

The film was too long imo.

However it made me wonder, for the first time, why didn't they drop the bomb on somewhere much much less populated? As a threat of what they could do if Japan didn't agree to peace talks or surrender.

I know that Japan still didn't surrender after Hiroshima but maybe it would have surrendered after a bomb dropped on a much more rural area and on a city? Saving tens of thousands of lives.

Nolan has apparently said that the colour is subjective (Oppenheimer's perspective) and the black and white is objective. That makes more sense than the changes being indicative of different time periods.

Ah, now that does make sense!

Didn't they say he chose Hiroshima?

The bit where Kyoto was taken off the list was one of the more darkly interesting exchanges.

Anyone know why at the beginning someone said the J stood for nothing in his name?

I thought it was astounding. Christopher Nolan back on track after Tenet!

Anyone know why at the beginning someone said the J stood for nothing in his name?

Because it doesn't stand for anything, https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/national-security-science/2021-spring/oppenheimers-name/

His official security records say it was Julius (which is why some say he used Robert bc Julius was a very common Jewish name at the time) but Oppenheimer himself said that wasn't true and that the J was literally just an initial.

I walked out maybe 30 mins before the end.
2.5 was long enough!
Give me the Intimation Game any day.
Yeh I know completely different..

I wonder why Nolan doesn't like writing parts for women!

I wondered when Emily Blunt was going to turn up, then thought afterwords it made no difference.

Right. Wikipedia says he is Julius Robert Oppenheimer.

@mibbelucieachwell

*However it made me wonder, for the first time, why didn't they drop the bomb on somewhere much much less populated? As a threat of what they could do if Japan didn't agree to peace talks or surrender.

I know that Japan still didn't surrender after Hiroshima but maybe it would have surrendered after a bomb dropped on a much more rural area and on a city? Saving tens of thousands of lives.*

By late July/ early Aug 1445 the US basically had only produced enough fissile material for just three weapons: they had adequate enriched Uranium for the one gun type bomb that was used on Hiroshima, (that's one reason that bomb was dropped untested) and enough Plutonium for two implosion weapons - the design that got tried out in the Trinity test and was used on Nagasaki.

As the story goes one worry the US was supposedly had was that if a bomb got dropped as a demo, and was a dud or it went off but the level of damage produced didn't make it obvious to the Japanese what damage could be inflicted on major cities then the war would drag on until the US could produce subsequent weapons. Hence a decision was made to go all in with an attack on a city with those first two bombs.

For context it might be worth bearing in mind that if there had been no surrender post the Nagasaki bomb then no doubt the sort of firebomb raids that killed 100,000 in Tokyo in one night would have resumed until weapon 4 had become available, which would have probably been a matter of weeks if not a month or two.

Thank you @notimagain . This is exactly what DH was saying this evening. Also, Oppenheimer underestimated the force of the explosion. Still, to drop an untested weapon of mass destruction on a city is well. ethically dubious.

On the other hand the number of casualties from conventional warfare was expected to be more than from the atomic weapons. A higher percentage of those would have been armed forces though.

The simple fact is we won't ever know what an alternative decision may have resulted in.

The US only had enough fuel for 3 bombs.

Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

They wanted Japan to believe they could keep dropping atomic weapons indefinitely.

If Japan had understood they were out of A bombs would the result have been different?

Remember in context the Japanese at that time were totally against any truce/surrender.

Whilst the impact of the A bombs was awful, conventional bombing was also able to obliterate cities (cite Dresden) - it just took more bombs and more time and the aftermath of radiation exposure was not well understood.

Japan was losing anyway and there is still a lot to be said about how victors have written the history of war.

Personally I think dropping the bombs saved allied forces lives.

But I think it's likely it came at a higher count in overall deaths.

Whose to blame?

It's a very complicated question.

The marbles in the glass fishbowl and brandy(?) glass were a representation of how much uranium had been enriched, which I hadn't properly picked up on.

It's a very clever, detailed film. There are lots of devices used to great effect.

Of the supporting cast, I thought Matt Damon's performance was excellent and his character was the perfect foil for Oppenheimer. I preferred his performance to that of RDJ who just reminded me of Stanley Tucci throughout and who I could completely see playing that role.

It was alluded to rather than spelled out in the film, but Oppenheimer was a multi millionaire who didn't need to work having inherited from his father. He went from poster boy to scapegoat in the aftermath of WWII.

I got a bit lost in the political stuff towards the end, partly because I was tired, but I understood enough.

I’m finding it interesting that there’s been no mention of Teller by anyone who has seen the film so far, so I have to ask has Nolan ignored his conflicts with Oppenheimer over the years and Tellers pivotal role along with Strauss, in Oppenheimers downfall?

According to Rhodes and others Teller very much wanted to work on the “super”, saw the A-bomb as a distraction and certainly didn’t appreciate Oppenheimer lobbying against the H-bomb post WW2…