Oppenheimer

Christopher Nolan makes long, beautifully produced, and convoluted movies.  Oppenheimer is no exception.  Sometimes that works better (The Dark Knight, Dunkirk) than other times (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises) and, sometimes, well and not so well at the same time (Interstellar).  Oppenheimer falls in the last category, though it is still worth seeing.

The acting is uniformly excellent, particularly Cillian Murphy as the title character, and Robert Downey Jr as Lewis Strauss.  The cinematography and imagining, both visually and in the screenplay, is outstanding.  Many of the set piece scenes are incredibly well done - I found myself very tense in the lead up to the Trinity test, even though I knew how it turned out.  Nolan does a fine job portraying the complexities of Oppenheimer's character and the perplexity of his behavior.  But the movie is just too long and the tacked on story of Lewis Strauss' revenge and destruction of Oppenheimer's career in the 1950s makes the movie drag at the end.(1) It's a bridge too far. Because it is all jammed into one movie, the last part also does a disservice to Strauss, a difficult, but interesting, figure in his own right and who, like Oppenheimer, served his country well.  It appears the studio recognized this problem, as the film's trailer pays no attention to what is a significant element in the movie.

Some specific comments:

I enjoyed the movie's portrayal of General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) and his relationship with Oppenheimer.  Most film depictions, as well as book and documentaries, have provided a negative picture of Groves, portraying him as a block headed, manipulative, military martinet.  Oppenheimer shows him as tough, but also perceptive, sympathetic, and with the sense to know when to not blindly follow the rule book.  It also depicts him defending Oppenheimer during the secret 1954 Atomic Energy Commission hearing that resulted in the scientist's security clearance being revoked.  In fact, Nolan could have cut the film in such as way as to create a two hour, 80s style odd-couple buddy movie about the pair.

The movie is a reminder of the remarkable job that Groves and Oppenheimer did for this country.  Although much of the work of the Manhattan Project went on at other sites, like Hanford and Oak Ridge, the work of designing and assembling the bomb was at Los Alamos.  There was very little in Oppenheimer's pre-war work and personality indicating his suitability for the task of project manager, coordinating and corralling physicists and other scientists unused to operating in such an environment, yet Groves recognized his potential and working together they succeeded.

Nolan does a terrific job showing Oppenheimer's desire for fame and recognition and how it intertwined and conflicted with his desire to also portray himself as a morally driven person with all his agonizing over the development of the bomb and later opposition to the development of thermonuclear weapons.  There is a memorable scene during the 1954 security clearance hearing where he is forced to confront the inconsistencies in his policy views and actions, as well as how his own careless actions damaged his position in those hearings. (2) 

The contradictions are also seen in the scientist's only meeting with President Truman (played by Gary Oldman, whom I didn't recognize until the credits), who becomes exasperated with Oppenheimer's indulgent moral martyrdom (declaring he has blood on his hands), declaring that it was he, not the scientist, who had to make the decision whether to use the bomb.  The film accurately shows Truman's direction to an aide after the meeting that he never wanted to have another meeting with Oppenheimer.

The movie shows the Los Alamos scientists debating whether, in the wake of Germany's surrender and what they believed was the imminent surrender of Japan, if they should petition against the use of the bomb.  Oppenheimer opposes this, stating that it is only if the bomb is used and people see its destructive power, will future use be deterred.  If created, but not used, it would not have the same deterrent factor.  With the conclusion of the Cold War and now 32 years further one without the use of nuclear weapons, might Oppenheimer have been correct in his analysis?

Oppenheimer would be a good choice of a movie to screen in an academic course because of the discussions it would prompt.  That is, if we are still allowed to have such discussions in academia.

------------------------------------------------

(1) And the third and final section of the movie leaves the impression that the Senate's 1959 rejection of Strauss' nomination to become Secretary of State was due to his treatment of Oppenheimer though, in reality, it was only a secondary reason for the Senate action.  The real reason is that Strauss alienated a lot of people in his AEC role and withheld information from Congress.

(2) For a more complete analysis of the background to the security clearance hearing read this piece by Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes.  I'm very familiar with the work of Klehr and Haynes, who are the leading authorities regarding Soviet espionage in the United States during the 1930s and 40s.  They've done groundbreaking work on this topic, illuminating our knowledge while eloquently opposing the more extreme theories in which FDR and Harry Hopkins were supposedly Soviet agents.  Their conclusion:

Knowing what we know now, America’s public interest would have been best served if Oppenheimer had been able to continue in his role as a consultant to the government on various atomic projects. The evidence by the mid-1940s was that he had left his earlier Communist allegiance behind and was anything but a party sympathizer. But one of the major contributing factors to his loss of security access was his own unwillingness to provide a candid and honest account of his earlier Communist ties and why he had put them aside. If he continued to lie about such matters, how could he now be trusted? 

None of this detracts from the greatest achievement of Oppenheimer’s life and one of the great scientific and engineering achievements in human history. It does, however, complicate the morality-play version of his life. Unquestionably, the hearing that denied the renewal of his security clearance (and that is portrayed so powerfully throughout the movie) was stacked against him. His archnemesis, Lewis Strauss (played by Robert Downey Jr.), orchestrated a dishonest and biased attack, deprived Oppenheimer and his lawyer the opportunity to see key evidence, and distorted some of his views and behavior. But Oppenheimer’s lack of candor made him a contributor to his own destruction. That truly makes the story of his life a Greek tragedy. As good a movie as it is, Oppenheimer would have been richer still if it had plumbed these deep waters.