Oppenheimer Opinions

Oppenheimer the movie has covered itself with Oscars, and I must say that I enjoyed it too, as entertainment. But, as cinematic storytelling is not documentary, it inevitably invites a closer look at the historical events involved – in this case, the rapid development of the atomic bomb by the USA in WW2.

Screenwriters are entitled to select an arc of history they prefer, to tell a good story. But, the critical role of British institutions in convincing the US government of the viability of developing a compact nuclear fission bomb is ignored. The Brits did not have the resources to develop it themselves, and pushed the Americans to do so. Mark Oliphant was an Australian, who as Head of Physics at Birmingham University, oversaw the theoretical research and then went to America to lobby the scientific community and government.

J. Robert Oppenheimer was one of those convinced by Oliphant, and became director of the Manhattan Project’s Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico, where development of the new atomic bomb proceeded quickly and successfully.

A less forgivable creative liberty taken in the movie is the omission (whitewashing?) of Oppenheimer’s role in selecting the bomb targets in Japan for their maximum deadly effect on the civilian population. Paul Ham is a prolific Australian writer of war histories, who has looked at Oppenheimer’s actual actions and subsequent attitudes.

Ham also criticises the sexing up of the movie with an irrelevant affair, the avoidance of any portrayal of the horror of the bombing; and particularly Oppenheimer’s lack of any regrets. The portrayal of his struggle to maintain his security clearance after the war, due to over-zealous anti-communist McCarthyists, seems to even give him victimhood status. 

The bottom line is that for commercial success, Hollywood blockbusters always need a clear-cut hero, with few grey areas. And a narrative which keeps America’s gross military and political actions (dare I say, crimes) out of focus. Except for Oliver Stone.