The mention about Oppenheimer's promethean punishment is one hell of a personal connection. When what you've done, what you know, what your aim is, you see the results of it everywhere in everything and everyone.
This is a great breakdown. I haven't been as big a fan of the film as many people this year and I've been trying to understand why. Tou've help me understand where some people are connecting with the film where I've had a few misgivings. I definitely see where you're coming from and I think it is interesting to have Strauss as the mouthpiece for the "truth" of the story in a sense, even though he himself is a unreliable narrator. But I guess ultimately where you're seeing this as brilliant irony, it's just kinda left me feeling confused and baffled about what the film's perspective on Oppie is. I don't want media to spoon feed me easy commentary or messages, but there's also a fine line between intentionally obscuring things to portray a subjective perspective, and just creating a slightly messy narrative. Anyway I appreciate your perspective and breakdown and while the movie just hasn't resonated with me on the 11/10 level it seems to for some people, you've persuaded me that some of what I'm seeing as flaws might have been more intentional then I'm giving the film credit for. Cheers!
@ThomasFlight Thanks for the comment! I'm a fan of your videos! This is just my interpretation, but I think the film is sort of comparable to novels like Lolita and The Private Confessions and Memoirs of a Justified Sinner in that is mostly from an unreliable narrator’s perspective who is telling a giving a very self serving account of events and the reader is expected to read between the lines to figure out what's actually going on. Both those novels also have a fictitious “editor” who undercuts the protagonist’s account, although they themselves are biased and untrustworthy, I think Strauss serves that purpose in the film. So I think the film presents a deliberately muddled and contradictory view of Oppenheimer, however there is an underlying clarity, but it's up to the audience to figure it out using small hints and clues. If you liked the video could you maybe share it? I just have a small channel so it would mean a lot!
Thank you for articulating this position. Speaking as someone who's on the spectrum, I often struggle with subtleties in film, and I generally need to really hunker down and roll around in a film like Oppenheimer to feel like I'm really absorbing everything it wants me to. There was actually another great video essay on this film that goes into Rami Malek's role in the film. I highly recommend watching the whole thing (ruclips.net/video/uSDyY2DJnpI/видео.html), but it goes into how he reigns his baser impulses to testify against Lewis Strauss in spite of Oppenheimer refusing to sign his petition and knocking the clipboard out of his hand at one point, something that Strauss and Oppenheimer both fail to do (with Strauss setting out to destroy Oppenheimer because of perceived slights, and the instance of Oppenheimer poisoning a teacher's apple being a kind of harbinger of his building the bomb).
This is by far the best Oppenheimer analysis I have seen. You took many thoughts I had about the film (and its critics) right out of my head lol It's insane to me how poorly some people read this film, not understanding that protagonist does not equal main character purely good.
@@philipmateo3816 I don't agree with the "subtle means", I think they are very obvious. People would understand more easily how Oppeinheimer is portrayed if it weren't for the absurd and caricatured resentment that Strauss possesses. The key is who you empathize with, and the audience will always empathize with the right people with simple moralities. A guilty haughty man who tries to avoid more tragedies versus a resentful, lunatic and vain man who tries to discredit him with dirty tricks and McCarthyite conspiracies. It is easy for the general public to sense that, despite Oppenheimer's arrogance, there is really no good excuse for Strauss's resentment; it is easy for people to assume that what Oppenheimer says to Einstein has nothing to do with Strauss (something that is confirmed even at the end), but the film takes the recurring path of Hollywood films of condemning the actions of the "villain" to delimit his character from a dualistic perspective (almost always carried out with cartoonish acts of evil). It surprises me that despite the analytical nature of its script and its many successes in direction, the film continues to fall into such a simple trick. Oh, and the mention of Kennedy at the end of the movie is nothing more than liberal condescension, really out of place. Seeing different historical figures from the world of physics is perfect because they are part of the context and are involved on a thematic level, but the mention of Kennedy, as a hero who is yet to come, is nothing more than a very ugly parallel with a cinematographic universe with stories of origins and cameos to make you point at the screen.
I read many many books about oppie and I actually like the guy, I think the portrait was good and it's very loyal to the book its based on. Nolan did an incredible movie, he knew what he was doing
@@fernandohinojosa3211I actually like oppenheimer as a person, it's very interesting reading about him, he was incredibly charismatic (at least from what I read). Nolan did a very close portrait of the book. I feel that it's hard to see oppie as a bad guy, even while reading everything he did imo. Don't think he tries to make him a good person, he is just portraing the vibes he gets from the bio
@@fernandohinojosa3211 not reading that paragraph but I’m very stupid and also watched this movie on a pos tv from 20 ft away without the aid of my glasses
Great analysis. Nolan has repeatedly talked about how subjective the film was designed to be and when viewed a certain way, Nolan's genius really shows in the screenplay and film
We cannot deny Oppenheimer's contribution to physics, one need no more than just have a quick look at the papers he co-authored to understand his importance in the creation of the basis of the new physics that our world now relies upon. That said, in regard to his contribution to the evil of atomic weapons, what comes to mind is that famous phrase from Hannah Arendt, in regard to the perpetrators of the holocaust, who instead of Bond villains were simply people like you and me, just plain old beaurocrats who were able to commit the worst attrocities just because they were part of the system - "The Banality of Evil". I do not think even for a second that even someone who might be completely detached from human society due to their intellectual genius, would be so naive as to think that the atomic bomb would only need to be created so it could be put in a safe and serve just as an abstract deterrent as the threat of its use would compell an eternal peace between nations, thus it would never be used, instead of the US from that moment on having the justification for achieving their worst hegemonical impulses, so eloquently put by Matt Damon "The first one so that they see its power, and the second so that they know we can keep doing it over and over". Oppenheimer in fact tries to rationalize it with another alternative, even worse that the unreal naivete of the bomb not needing to be ever used instead it is enough to just exist, which is the fact that they as scientists are just cogs in the nation's machinery and thus they do not have any say in its use, they are just the builders, so they can sleep tight at night knowing it was just a job for them and nothing more and this in my opinion relates perfectly to the "banality of evil" as a concept, related to people who were a crucial part of evil but considered themselves as detached from it because they did not have any say in it, they were merely "following orders". From all the scientists that were depicted in the film as main characters I tend to like most Isidor Rabi as he was the only one who was clear in what he believed would happen, which it did and the most hateful one even in real life is Edward Teller, who was in fact the inspiration for Kubrick's "Doctor Strangelove" but at least he was honest about being a belligerant asshole scientist looking for fame. The ironic thing in all this, is that even though here they tried to depict Werner Heissenberg as an evil scientist working for the Nazis'atomic bomb, he was in fact not responsible for anything the Americans insinuated. After the end of the war he was captured by the British and was put under surveillance for about 18 months and in the documents of his surveillance, which are public and can be easily downloaded in pdf, alongside what the Americans discovered in regard to Uranwerein and the Nazis'atomic program, is the fact that they discarded from the beginning the creation of an atomic bomb as it was practically unfeasable as they could not afford 120.000 personel and a billion of dollars to build it when all the best scientists were already drafted in the Wehrmacht and so their attempts in regard to the uranium programs they created were only in the context of creating atomic plants and atomic engines for electricity in their cities and their u-boats, that is mentioned in passing in the film during the section where Niels Bohr arrives at Los Alamos and told them the Nazis were speaking about heavy water and not grafite, because heavy water is used in atomic plants not in weapons, and so they rejoiced for how ignorant the Nazis were, never taking into consideration they were not trying to build a bomb. I think the film tried to depict Oppenheimer as intelligently as they could, due to the fact that he was a hermetic individual and his public persona did not show anything from the man inside. In fact even Cillian Murphy said the same thing, expressing his frustration about the fact that all the archival footage of Oppenheimer showed only his stoic public persona giving no indication on what he really felt and thus the difficulty in playing him as a human being with a complex personality instead of the usual bkck-and-white depictions in films. I fear that at least in the US, the public has failed to grasp the subtle critique Nolan did to Oppenheimer through all his directorial techniques that you mentioned, as they will still see him as a martyr, a victim of the American Industrial Military Complex when he was its instigator. We cannot really know why he did it of course, fame, prestige, career advancement, real belief that it would not be used, and a million other speculations. But the fact remains that his conscience came too late and the damage was irreversible and here we are now, almost a century later, with Oppenheimer's scientific "achievement" looming over our heads. Maybe someday all war will end, but I fear that day will come only after we have destroyed everything, and he will forever be etched in the annals of history, and the science beaurocrat who cast the first stone in this new world order that brought only death and destruction, instead of that idyllic permanent peace, for which you would have to either be a chiild or a complete imbecille, to really believe in.
The idea that our options were our current world of fear of nuclear war and a world of peace is very naive. Wars between major powers have been a frequent event historically - it is baked into human nature. The bomb has made the cost of a major power conflict much higher and there is an argument that the lack of a major power conflict in the last 80 years is in large part due to the destructive power of the bomb making the costs outweigh the benefit Also, I think human advancement in scientific understanding was inevitably going to lead to discovery of nuclear power which was going to lead to a nuclear weapon (if it wasn’t Oppenheimer it would have been someone else). That this happened at a time where the world was at war is a blessing and a curse. That we used the bomb at a point where it wasn’t optimized for destructive power has given us all an initial demonstration of the cost which has spared the need to learn the lesson at a much higher cost later
The fact of the matter, the A. bomb would have been invented anyway. It was just a matter of time. So, Op took this opportunity to make himself famous. It was a big vanity project for him. Then he played having a moral guilt.
@@alexxx4434not rlly, he wanted to create the A bomb so he, along the scientist and politicians, could cooperate with other governments to create world peace, the United Nations like Roosevelt wanted, Oppenheimer himself said that, obviously he also wanted to be recognized for his achievement, but that wasn’t his main goal
Stories that told from the point of view of a character (even an unreliable one) are my favorite kinds, whether they be movies, books, or audio dramas.
This was the breakdown I was looking for! Many people I talked to criticized Nolan for "picking a side." Sure, Nolan likes to film science porn, but I think he was able to maintain a more neutral stand in this movie than his other ones. I loved that many things that we expected to happen did not, because Oppenheimer did not experience them or didn't care too much about them, like the actual trinity explosion being visible only a few frames because of its intense brightness. Painting Strauss as the bad guy but also stressing how correct he was in certain places worked really well. Even if Oppenheimer had moral issues after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again which adds a lot to his character. It also makes us question ourselves; would we build such a bomb to feed our own personal ego? Keep up the good work!
This is a great breakdown, and I agree with many of your points. Especially Oppenheimer choosing to bring about his own downfall and him being somewhat prescient (ever since the first scenes) of the horror to come. Where my view differs from yours is in the way I think Nolan chooses to heroicize and celebrate him for it (think of The Dark Knight's ending: heroism Is achieved through lying); on one hand, his male heroes have always been pathological and on the run from terrifying truths. On the other hand, this seems to me the only way that he as an auteur sees possible a redemption of the world. For the same reason I would tend to take literally the idea of a "bomb to end all wars". In my view Oppenheimer was always aware of the destruction to come, chose to do it anyway because that was the only way to show the world what he already knew (i.e. that knowledge is evil and destructive) and to try to invert the course of history. And he somewhat succeeded - we got a Cold War instead of a WWIII with destruction of the whole world, as in his nightmarish visions. He lies about being entirely guilty of it (so a Hero of Lie) but at the same time he was aware of what he was doing. Think of the scene where he speaks about "maintaining moral advantage" in the bombings by opening diplomatic relationships with Russia. This is before the bombings, not after, so he's already accepting the death of people as long as it helps to save the world. And in the end he takes the blame because we need a scapegoat, national conscience must be protected and washed if we want to be able to live with ourselves. He's a hero because he is strong enough to take that blame for us, just like Batman was (hence the superhero dressup scene). I wrote an article about this, it's in italian but I could translate it for you if you're interested.
Disagree w/ Truman characterization slightly. He was smarter and more mature than the boy wonder because he actually understood what the Bomb would do and why he had to use it. It wasn’t idiocy, lack of foresight or naïveté. Truman calculated the cost of continuing ground operations or dropping two bombs on civilians and made the decision. To assume he didn’t deal w/ guilt or doubt about the morality of his decision is an insult. It’s why he was so annoyed w/ Oppenheimer complaining he felt guilt about the bomb when it was Truman who made the tough decision. It was Truman and Roosevelt who’d been making the same tough decisions when they approved bombing Germany and firebombing Japanese cities built of paper and wood that killed as many or more than both Bombs. Oppenheimer was the one who was naïve and shortsighted, the genius too stupid to see that his actions had only one conclusion. It conflicts w/ the notion that he was Prometheus, a great man who stole fire from the gods when in reality he was a useful childish idiot who used his gifts for something he knew and felt was evil because it gave him a sense of purpose and power, which does fit w/ the rest of your thesis. Again, I just disagree that Truman was a vacuous fool who found his daddy’s gun, when it’s Oppenheimer who helped discover develop the bomb and ignore every single warning.
Moreover Truman after the Nagasaki attack was shocked, because it happened without his knowledge and he told the military not to use atom bombs without his express authority. For one - he took the bomb under civilian supervision and second - he was sincerely appalled and as Secretary of Commerce and former VP Wallace recalled “the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, ‘all those kids.'” He was ruthless, but to a degree.
“Blood on his hands, dammit, he hasn’t half as much blood on his hands as I have,” Truman said afterward. “You just don’t go around bellyaching about it.” Truman later told Dean Acheson, his secretary of state: “I don’t want to see that son of a bitch in this office ever again.”
Yet Oppenheimer wanted to create the A bomb to cooperate with the other nations as Roosevelt wanted, “the United Nations”, but Truman opposed to that, as he didn’t want to have anything to do with the Russians, I think that’s a little selfish
Edward Teller was the true antagonist of Oppenheimer. I wish he had more screen-time. Kubrick used him as inspiration for the character Dr. Strangelove.
Honestly there's no righteous hero in this story. Even Oppenheimer has this inner evil in him. Sure I agree that Teller is one of the more problematic (and arguably the most dangerous) figures in this history but so many involved in the Manhattan Project and beyond are at fault of the rippling effects of the nuclear weapon. Everyone's selfish ambition drives them to do things that cause destruction to others less fortunate in the pursuit of achieving the legacy of benevolent importance. Back to Teller,he was probably the most ambitious physicist in the project. But he was pushing to create a bomb much more powerful and devastating than the atom bomb. He possibly could've work with the Soviet mole on his Hydrogen bomb in hopes of progressing the realization of its creation.
@@CharlieA24Teller (in the movie) comes off to me as simply pragmatic in a sense that he knew a better solution existed, a more effective option, and felt that artificially holding off any longer than needed to develop a fusion devise was only holding off inevitability. So if the job is a bomb that will win the war or scare the enemy, or just assert dominance, whatever; build the best bomb. Someone will take the credit, why not me? He knew the physics and so he knew in time someone would get to using fusion to boost the explosion inevitably. The same way the fission bomb will always have been an inevitable invention for any society that grasps the basic physics. From the moment the nucleus was first seen to split, they all knew what it meant. A point of the film, in my mind, was the scientists all coming to their realizations that they had as a community finally turned a page in the physics book in which this quirk of the atom was going to be exploited by humanity. By people from their community. Someday, maybe now maybe later. So those who we see take it on for whatever reason decided that if it was to happen, may as well be them doing it.
@@mmartinu327 Teller is one of the few characters that parallel Oppenheimer and his ambition. Besides the Soviet mole wasn't found out till after the Manhattan Project. He could've lend an ear to Teller's ideas on the H-bomb during that time when no one was none the wiser.
From a filmmaker to a filmmaker - this is absolutely brilliant man! Thank you for this new perspective, I was enthralled for the entirety of this piece! Please keep going
interesting points. thanks for your interpretation and the work to put it into a video. Oppenheimer is a movie that keeps me thinking about the subject over and over again, even after months. but one thing should not be forgotten. this universe and its natural laws make these weapons possible. from the mid-forties of the twentieth century it became technically possible to build them. so it was only a matter of time before it happened. Imagine a world in which Hitler or Stalin exclusively held this weapon in their hands. The democratic USA ended a war that it had not started. Both the Nazis and Stalin would have used the weapon to oppress, terrorize and dominate the world, that is for sure. there was ultimately no alternative for the US. Roosevelt knew that, Oppenheimer knew that, Einstein knew that. I am not writing this out of a patriotic mindset, I am not American. I am German, and as such I watch this movie with a slightly different, additional feeling. "I just wish we had it in time to use against the Germans" The atomic bomb gives power, tremendous power. The great achievement of a democracy is that those we give power to have it only for a limited time. Only in this way are we as human beings able to ensure that it is not abused.
Great analysis, but the segment about how Oppenheimer is actually a Western and the accompanying visuals like showing the train tracks when you say trail or reversing the bomb when you say put the genie back was truly special, huge props!
Your assessment of Lewis Strauss actually makes me think of Colonel Tom Parker in the Baz Luhrmann Elvis movie. In both movies, the antagonist is made to be generally repellent to the audience so that valid points they make about the protagonist are obscured (in Elvis's case, he DOES spend money faster than the Colonel can make it, which ultimately leaves him trapped in the end) so much so that he is vilified by history where the protagonist is vindicated by it.
I already liked you for your Blonde breakdown and once again you’ve shown how good of a deep reader you are. I can safely say you’re one of the best movie analysts in RUclips.
As someone who really really liked this movie and thought it was a really well made one with interesting coverage of the entire story, i really enjoyed this analysis! It was really good and it made me go back to how i percieved these scenes and gained a new perspective on them :)
Don't have time to watch the video right now, but I just had to drop a massive hat tip to you for the Memento reference in the thumbnail. Excellently done.
I completely agree, and have failed a few times in organizing the evidence myself. For me the smoking gun is when Kitty incredulously asks Oppenheimer if he thinks they'll forgive him, and he knowingly says "We'll see." Oppenheimer's clear guilt is portrayed in the subjective color, and the actions he takes to secure his good name in history are in objective black and white.
I don't believe that's what Nolan wanted to show... because the last scene where It is revealed what Oppenheimer told Einstein is in color while the first time we have that scene it is in black and white from Strauss point of view. I think that black and white is the point of view of Strauss while color is either objective or Oppenheimer pov.
@@julienbeisson-li8355 He's said that color = Oppenheimer's POV/subjective, while BW = Strauss' POV/objective. Not that Strauss was an objective character, just that he, like us, can't actually know what was in Oppenheimer's mind. We're stuck with the historical record. You can reach a different conclusion than Strauss, but the distinction is there to emphasize that Oppenheimer may not be a reliable narrator. The last scene is in color because that conversation isn't recorded by history, but *maybe* it went something like that.
Fair point. Which is why his comment to Einstein is finally said at the end. It’s the nucleus in the story, where Straus, Einstein and Oppenheimer meet. Though it is in color, it is the one thing that, despite all subjectivity, is the truest thing Oppenheimer says. In Oppenheimer’s view, he finally sees what he’s done.
Great review, you really cracked the code. Also your observation at 30:16 reminded me of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Similar outcomes in both stories. And kind of a cool coincidence that Casey Affleck is in both movies.
Thanks! I'm glad someone else picked up on that! I actually nearly called the video The Assassination of J Robert Oppenheimer by the Coward Lewis Strauss but I thought nobody would watch it. I'm working on a long video about The Assassination of Jesse James at the moment so it's very much in my head and I immediately saw the parallels.
I really hate how critics and audiences receive Nolan's work trying to find "mistakes" and missing the point altogether of his art. It's Hitchcock all over again, and in 40 years we'll have people studing his work and doing documentary after documentary trying to rid themselves from the GUILT of not understanding the artist while he was alive. Film Theory made also a great interpretation of the film as with Nolan basically justifying himself for ushering the new wave of superhero movies which have practically crashed and broke Hollywood the very same year Oppeheimer was released. You really are watching the film as a true critic and mining the true intentions of the filmmaker, great analysis!!! Thanx!!! P.D.: May I point out the color part of the film is called Fission because is about the splitting of Oppeheimer's life into pieces, and the B&W is caled Fussion as it pertains to the clash of th titulr character with Strauss.
Congratulations man, this is the most incredible analysis I've seen of Oppenheimer in YT, you took me back to the months in which I saw the film (twice, second was even better because I saw it on a BIGGER SCREEN, unfortunately I have no IMAX in my country), even my Mom loved the film. Tho I already knew about Oppenheimer, in the next months I re-read his whole Wikipedia article, even about the seccurity clearance, I even saw an exposition about it in my university, I'm surprised by the amount of harsh criticism has received despite being well made, you showed scenes that I didn't even remembered, reminding how it was beautifully filmed, I loved the ambience, to put it simple, I have sensibillity for period pieces (that even includes the old cars). Speaking about the setting, love that you referenced Oppenheimer is secretly a western, now I have more to think about american colonialism and indians, the exploitation of resources, reminds me of There Will Be Blood (another of my favorite movies). The final scene in which Oppenheimer is interrogated perfectly captures how the mind of a person feels when it is being repressed, I myself have felt that way, like my mind is going to explode, but still I like how in the film Oppenheimer is trying to mantain calm, even if sometimes he might not feel secure about himself, or at least that's how I interpret it. P. S: loved how you used the score by Ludwig Göranssonn and that thumbnail referencing Memento, just rewatched it and left me wondering about if Leonard tells the truth, all three main characters are sick, each one manipulating their own reality, just to feel themselves happy and sure.
Thank you so much this analysis really gets to the heart of what i felt watching the movie more then any other ive seen of it, especially about the famous line and its placement in the film.
this was an absolutely wonderful video! these were many of the points that i understand subconsciously, but couldn’t put into words. as someone who tends to be dissuaded from biopics, i love how nuanced this movie is and how deep you can look into the subtext of the film.
Wow. This was amazing. I felt hollow after watching the film. But you've just filled in all the blanks and helped me understand and appreciate the film a lot better. Superb analysis.
Idk why you have such a small sub count but the video is beautifully made..one question tho.. if all of your points were similar to strauss's (and mine as well) should u and i consider ourselves similar to the nationalistic dupes that was the McCarthy era politicians?
I also wish I knew why I had such a low sub count! Probably because I post like one video per year. I think Strauss is angry about Oppenheimer's hypocrisy: Oppenheimer participated in the same awful system, but he pretended to be above it, and pretended he was better and more moral than the likes of Strauss. He isn't angry that Oppenheimer facilitated the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but rather angry that he tried to distance himself from it afterwards. Whereas my critique (and I guess yours) is more grounded in the fact that Oppenheimer actually did those terrible things in the first place, rather than just the fact that he was a hypocrite. Although I also think Oppenheimer is a terrible hypocrite. So Strauss says a lot of stuff I agree with, but he's coming from a completely different place politically. Sometimes I do find myself agreeing with Conservative critiques of Liberals on a superficial level, but that doesn't mean I'm a Conservative, or agree with their underlying views.
@@JamesVarley i mean so does Lemmino but here we are.. world's unfair and all that haha I understand now. I agree with your views too! Also, a bit redundant, but impressive video!! KEEP IT UP
I missed half this stuff on first viewing. It's an insanely dense film, I think there's a lot of stuff in there you couldn't possibly pick up until the second or third go. I really love when films are like that.
"Something the audience in 2023 knows is far from the case..." Hmm. I'm going to have to disagree with you here. While the term "peace" is thrown around loosely these days, Opppenheimer was essentially correct in his belief that the bomb would usher in a new era of peace mankind had never seen. Since the surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945, there has been no open war between the major powers of the world. Sure. There have been smaller wars involving the proxies of major powers (see Ukraine vs. Russia) but there hasn't been a legitimately major conflict between the global powers since World War II. This part of history that we are living now has been dubbed by military historians as the "Long Peace." You have to go back to the Pax Romana of Caesar Augustus more than 2,000 years ago to find its equivalent. If not for the atomic bomb, and later the hydrogen bomb, it is undoubtable that the United States and the Soviet Union would have gone to war against each other for hegemony over the world.
“Of what use is guilt you can’t make up for what you’ve done.” Well, guilt seems to sell movie tickets, draw funding for whole university departments, drive legislation and campaigns, and it even makes for good click-bait titles on RUclips for videos that prattle on about the immorality of people whose achievements you stand upon and enjoy daily. So, it seems guilt has quite a lot of uses.
Lucid. This is how film criticism should be done! Although my own view of America's war-time and post-war history differs considerably from that expressed here, you have given me a reason to watch a film that didn't much interest me previously. P.S. Love the box-art reference to Nolan's thematically related 'Memento.' 🤗🤗🤗
I was wondering if you still were planning on making a video on The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford? It's my favorite film of all time.
I really like that point about the movie distorting reality because it's through the lens of Oppenheimer. I still disagree with a number of your assertions, but that's okay.
Ultimately I do agree with a point more or less made early on: the movie tried to tell a limited story from a specific perspective and so not all aspects of the Manhattan Project and its context were going to be covered nor would it be right to do so. While hearing it from others is often frustrating, I caan understand the mindset of those who wished the movie covered more about the part that they are particularly concerned in: wanting more representation of the women involved, or more talk about the peoples displaced, or more coverage of the science and engineering, or some depiction of what the bombs were used for in Japan, or less focus on the trials. Certainly I have in my head the version of this movie that I wished we got: which would have had significantly more time spent with the theoretical physics ensemble doing science things and Feynman picking locks and so-on. But that's not what Nolan and the story he adapted was concerned with, probably for the better. Film makers doing historical works do have to ride a line of telling the truth and making an interesting story, but should at least be able to focus on the parts of that history that relate to the story they are telling. That means not every historical covering of a topic, even a controversial and sensitive one, needs to namecheck every anecdote, atrocity, alteration and anything else that fits this alliteration. The only hope I can have is that there is purpose and thought that goes into what is included, and that the creator doesn't omit truths and details that really ought to be there in the context of the story they are in fact trying to tell. I think the movie does cover those topics faithfully, within its framing. For a counter-example, while I think the Chernobyl series was quite good overall at its attempt to tell that story; but I felt like some of the decisions to put so much of the scientists and work being done down to more or less two people (with one of them being fictitious) was a disservice to the telling of the event. Had the show had more of a constant entourage of scientists on site working in the background with some of the characters, I feel it would have told the same story only better. The decisions to put all that work into one composite character was for convenience in the script writing. I felt Oppenheimer did a better job showing that many significant and intelligent people were involved, even if it barely spent any time with them. Personally, Strauss being written as he was, I wished there was more subtlety. And Trinity, well, looked pretty bad. And I still do wish that we had gotten a movie or miniseries more about the Manhattan Project as a whole, and the various personalities, science, and hijinks that ensued in developing the fission devices. But what we got was a hell of a movie and a Nolan work through and through, and so I can't complain too badly about how he was able to make the perspectives he took tell the story he thought worth telling.
When you say Oppenheimer is lying do you mean the man or the movie? Because your analysis seems to agree with what the movie shows rather than than contradicting it. If so a decent review, despite the clickbait title.
American film criticism became so reductive and stupid in recent years. All major points of criticism of this film come down to identity politics. It’s intellectual degradation that happened in American journalism in general. They have to think only in certain way as American society is highly divided in two sets. Objective critical thought is banned in US cultural landscape. You would be canceled if you aren’t following certain way or don’t use reductive identity politics optics. Nolan didn’t show indigenous people and their issue? How dare he? His female characters don’t talk much? Sexist! Quotas aren’t fulfilled. So no Oscar to him. And in-depth criticism of Nolan and his work don’t even exist in mainstream media. It’s either silly “he didn’t show enough women” type of “criticism” or general idolization and praise.
Great analysis, Strauss was right in every one of his rants, except the Einstein thing. Oppenheimer wasnt naive, he knew the bomb he made wouldn't get to be used however he wanted, he even said as much to Szlard when he was asked to sign a petition. He was incredibly charming to used it to his ends and pushed to be the leader of the Manhattan project. He knew how the H Bomb was more than feasible and dismissed it because Teller came up with the idea, this was evident even as it was first suggested while they were figuring out how to make an fission bomb. He actively tried to stop the development of the H Bomb, and suggested to deal with Stalin, which at that point was a known liar and mass murderer. One unmentioned thing everybody skips when talking about the Mccarthy-ites, Mccarthy actually found spies, spies and collaborators who actively wanted for a violent overthrow of the American government. When Robb said "No moral scruples in 1945, plenty in 1949." it nailed home Oppenheimer's ridiculous excuse about fueling the Soviet efforts. The Atomic bomb was a much closer race between the American and Nazis, compared to the H Bomb race. The only difference now is the enemy, which he was a sympathizer. Oppenheimer was either too naive, or an actual traitor to survive the smallest scrutiny, let alone an actual aggressive prosecutor.
I enjoyed the analysis....O is definitely a complicated and tragic figure but I do disagree with your final thoughts....you may never be able to completely rectify your guilt or mistakes, but at least after the war O did try to move the U.S. and the World toward arms control through lobbying and other actions. Unfortunately many were not listening.
Yeah that may be a fair point. I tried to limit myself to just talking about Oppenheimer as the character in the film, rather than as a historical figure as it's primarily a work of film criticism not history. Although my next video is going to include a lot more historical research and context.
Great video aside from the stereotype “America bad” tone. Probably unpopular to say on RUclips, but the US has been the greatest beacon of hope and inspiration the world has ever seen.
The fact of the matter, the A. bomb would have been invented anyway. It was just a matter of time. So, Op took this opportunity to make himself famous. It was a big vanity project for him. Then he played having a moral guilt.
I was going to dislike because of the title, I thought it was a hate vid, but your video seems to agree with the movie? Actually it’s a great analysis, so I wonder, what did u mean with the title?
Does he really feel any guilt though after the bomb? Sure he looks older and lost in thought a lot, but that’s similar to his he was when he was younger. When the audience are stamping their feet, he has visions of the human suffering, but what then, he shrugs it off and continues. He seemed driven to power and relevance when young, and his feeling sad could just be him wanting more power and a new kind of relevance. Does he say he feels ashamed, and regrets making the bomb? Does he say he is guilty?
He doesn't shrug off the feelings of immense guilt and death in that vision. It continues to haunt him for the entire last act of the film. When he was young man he was an ambitious physicist who was lost in physics and atoms. When he was older post WW2 and the bombs he seems paralyzed with feelings of torment which fits the theme of Prometheus(Ancient Greek God of Fire) that film states. In the Truman scene tried to open up about feelings of guilt but was shut down. In the final interrogation scene when Roger Robb exposes Oppenheimer as a flip flopping hypocrite Oppenheimer still does openly admit about feelings of regret for innocents dying in the bombings and does start visibly showing signs of emotionally cracking. The final scene of the film he openly states that he destroyed the world and envisions nuclear annihilation in his head.
Question; had those cities been carpet bombed like Dresden or Berlin…would that have been more acceptable because it would have taken a bit longer and had less visual spectacle? Japan was still 100% fighting before the second bomb was dropped. We were gearing up for a full scale land invasion, and the Soviets were about to do the same from Hokkaido in the North. Do you think the civilians of Japan would have been ANY better off dealing with a two front ground invasion while down to their last resources? Do you know what ground invasions into countries who are losing the ability to defend themselves looks like?? Check Nanking and what Japan did to them not long before this moment in history…it’s not pretty. In fact, I’d rather get 2 bombs on small cities even if I was in one of them, compared to the alternative. Look at what happened to the Germans when the Soviets came into Berlin! I won’t lie, I spent many years opposed to the bombing. Like vehemently opposed. But once I really learned about different generations of warfare and the specific details of each gen’s capabilities in a realistic and accurate sense, and a very detailed History of the events of the Pacific Theatre of ww2, it finally became clear that the bomb wasn’t foolish at all. There were a million factors at play and that was a very complex call since the ramifications would clearly go farrrrrrrr beyond the lives lost in those bombings. I personally believe it was the right thing to do. Not that all involved wanted it done for the right reasons, but in a humanitarian sense, it was the right move. The land invasion would have turned Japan into Afghanistan.
I thought large portions of the film were too "on the nose" for me. Especially the scenes involving Lewis Strauss interacting with the senate aide. It felt like the aide was playing the role of what the scriptwriter wanted his audience to be. It felt unnatural and forced. The aide would ask questions that audience should be asking themselves. There seems to be little left to subtext in this regard. In addition, just about every scene in the first act was incessantly pertinent to the plot. There was very little breathing room that might add realism to the viewer. The second act successfully brought me back into the movie. I thought it was good. But the third act lost me again. I think mostly because I didn't see Oppenheimer as a moral character, so I didn't feel the interest in watching him attempt to justify his position. I had no investment in the character. The film looked fantastic though, and the acting was excellent.
@@vaultsuit Agreed. In the film's defense: The casting, cinematography, costuming, set-design, and overall look/feel were perfect. I just think Nolan lazily phones-in the story-telling, and I've never liked any of his films.
Where's the lie? I watched this entire video waiting for you to validate your clickbait title and you never did! I didn't even like this movie, I found it boring, overlong and messy BUT WHERE'S THE LIE!?!
FIlm school Brits (not all Brits obviously) are usually athiestic, narcissistic, skinny or shlubby, balding or bearded wannabee filmmakers, and love dark and depraved cinema. They constantly cry about how films are not like Kubrick, Scorsese, or Tarantino. They know nothing of making films about humility, levity, and hope. They just want more "real" cynical and depressing movies made.@@somelikeithoth
I have career, and I enjoy it. One can enjoy VFX but have a distain for the terrible hack filmmakers who make the crap films we labor VFX into@@vaultsuit
This was the breakdown I was looking for! Many people I talked to criticized Nolan for "picking a side." Sure, Nolan likes to film science porn, but I think he was able to maintain a more neutral stand in this movie than his other ones. I loved that many things that we expected to happen did not, because Oppenheimer did not experience them or didn't care too much about them, like the actual trinity explosion being visible only a few frames because of its intense brightness. Painting Strauss as the bad guy but also stressing how correct he was in certain places worked really well. Even if Oppenheimer had moral issues after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again which adds a lot to his character. It also makes us question ourselves; would we build such a bomb to feed our own personal ego? Keep up the good work!
Truly great analysis. Particularly about Lewis Strauss & that summation. These points really nagged me ever since I've watched the film. I always felt agreeing with many of Strauss's assessments of Oppenheimer just as I found many of Oppenheimer's justification of his own action pathetic & self-serving.
Great analysis. Appreciate it. For some, they felt everything you explained in the movie itself, but I keep unraveling more and more layers of this movie. Thanks you
Incredible analysis, very well argued. I always saw the sensory scenes of this film more as a result of the progress of Nolan's intentions that he has been seeking, since many of his films behind, to daze the viewer with stimulating images and thunderous sound. Also as a tool of immersion and anguish borrowed from Oliver Stone's film JFK. Don't get me wrong, Nolan wants us to see the world in the same "physical" way as Oppenheimer sees it, but because the film focuses on so many other aspects most of the time, I saw it as something secondary and not thematically linked to the film.
The mention about Oppenheimer's promethean punishment is one hell of a personal connection. When what you've done, what you know, what your aim is, you see the results of it everywhere in everything and everyone.
This is a great breakdown. I haven't been as big a fan of the film as many people this year and I've been trying to understand why. Tou've help me understand where some people are connecting with the film where I've had a few misgivings. I definitely see where you're coming from and I think it is interesting to have Strauss as the mouthpiece for the "truth" of the story in a sense, even though he himself is a unreliable narrator. But I guess ultimately where you're seeing this as brilliant irony, it's just kinda left me feeling confused and baffled about what the film's perspective on Oppie is. I don't want media to spoon feed me easy commentary or messages, but there's also a fine line between intentionally obscuring things to portray a subjective perspective, and just creating a slightly messy narrative. Anyway I appreciate your perspective and breakdown and while the movie just hasn't resonated with me on the 11/10 level it seems to for some people, you've persuaded me that some of what I'm seeing as flaws might have been more intentional then I'm giving the film credit for. Cheers!
@ThomasFlight Thanks for the comment! I'm a fan of your videos!
This is just my interpretation, but I think the film is sort of comparable to novels like Lolita and The Private Confessions and Memoirs of a Justified Sinner in that is mostly from an unreliable narrator’s perspective who is telling a giving a very self serving account of events and the reader is expected to read between the lines to figure out what's actually going on. Both those novels also have a fictitious “editor” who undercuts the protagonist’s account, although they themselves are biased and untrustworthy, I think Strauss serves that purpose in the film.
So I think the film presents a deliberately muddled and contradictory view of Oppenheimer, however there is an underlying clarity, but it's up to the audience to figure it out using small hints and clues.
If you liked the video could you maybe share it? I just have a small channel so it would mean a lot!
Thank you for articulating this position. Speaking as someone who's on the spectrum, I often struggle with subtleties in film, and I generally need to really hunker down and roll around in a film like Oppenheimer to feel like I'm really absorbing everything it wants me to.
There was actually another great video essay on this film that goes into Rami Malek's role in the film. I highly recommend watching the whole thing (ruclips.net/video/uSDyY2DJnpI/видео.html), but it goes into how he reigns his baser impulses to testify against Lewis Strauss in spite of Oppenheimer refusing to sign his petition and knocking the clipboard out of his hand at one point, something that Strauss and Oppenheimer both fail to do (with Strauss setting out to destroy Oppenheimer because of perceived slights, and the instance of Oppenheimer poisoning a teacher's apple being a kind of harbinger of his building the bomb).
This is by far the best Oppenheimer analysis I have seen. You took many thoughts I had about the film (and its critics) right out of my head lol It's insane to me how poorly some people read this film, not understanding that protagonist does not equal main character purely good.
To be fair, the movie does try to make the protagonist unquestionably good through pretty subtle means
@@philipmateo3816 I don't agree with the "subtle means", I think they are very obvious. People would understand more easily how Oppeinheimer is portrayed if it weren't for the absurd and caricatured resentment that Strauss possesses. The key is who you empathize with, and the audience will always empathize with the right people with simple moralities. A guilty haughty man who tries to avoid more tragedies versus a resentful, lunatic and vain man who tries to discredit him with dirty tricks and McCarthyite conspiracies. It is easy for the general public to sense that, despite Oppenheimer's arrogance, there is really no good excuse for Strauss's resentment; it is easy for people to assume that what Oppenheimer says to Einstein has nothing to do with Strauss (something that is confirmed even at the end), but the film takes the recurring path of Hollywood films of condemning the actions of the "villain" to delimit his character from a dualistic perspective (almost always carried out with cartoonish acts of evil).
It surprises me that despite the analytical nature of its script and its many successes in direction, the film continues to fall into such a simple trick. Oh, and the mention of Kennedy at the end of the movie is nothing more than liberal condescension, really out of place. Seeing different historical figures from the world of physics is perfect because they are part of the context and are involved on a thematic level, but the mention of Kennedy, as a hero who is yet to come, is nothing more than a very ugly parallel with a cinematographic universe with stories of origins and cameos to make you point at the screen.
I read many many books about oppie and I actually like the guy, I think the portrait was good and it's very loyal to the book its based on. Nolan did an incredible movie, he knew what he was doing
@@fernandohinojosa3211I actually like oppenheimer as a person, it's very interesting reading about him, he was incredibly charismatic (at least from what I read). Nolan did a very close portrait of the book. I feel that it's hard to see oppie as a bad guy, even while reading everything he did imo. Don't think he tries to make him a good person, he is just portraing the vibes he gets from the bio
@@fernandohinojosa3211 not reading that paragraph but I’m very stupid and also watched this movie on a pos tv from 20 ft away without the aid of my glasses
"When Oppenheimer speaks they hear a prophet.. When Strauss speaks they hear themselves"
-Isidor Rabi
This came on my recommendation, well done mate, new generation of creators of 2024 is what I’m here for
Great analysis. Nolan has repeatedly talked about how subjective the film was designed to be and when viewed a certain way, Nolan's genius really shows in the screenplay and film
We cannot deny Oppenheimer's contribution to physics, one need no more than just have a quick look at the papers he co-authored to understand his importance in the creation of the basis of the new physics that our world now relies upon.
That said, in regard to his contribution to the evil of atomic weapons, what comes to mind is that famous phrase from Hannah Arendt, in regard to the perpetrators of the holocaust, who instead of Bond villains were simply people like you and me, just plain old beaurocrats who were able to commit the worst attrocities just because they were part of the system - "The Banality of Evil". I do not think even for a second that even someone who might be completely detached from human society due to their intellectual genius, would be so naive as to think that the atomic bomb would only need to be created so it could be put in a safe and serve just as an abstract deterrent as the threat of its use would compell an eternal peace between nations, thus it would never be used, instead of the US from that moment on having the justification for achieving their worst hegemonical impulses, so eloquently put by Matt Damon "The first one so that they see its power, and the second so that they know we can keep doing it over and over". Oppenheimer in fact tries to rationalize it with another alternative, even worse that the unreal naivete of the bomb not needing to be ever used instead it is enough to just exist, which is the fact that they as scientists are just cogs in the nation's machinery and thus they do not have any say in its use, they are just the builders, so they can sleep tight at night knowing it was just a job for them and nothing more and this in my opinion relates perfectly to the "banality of evil" as a concept, related to people who were a crucial part of evil but considered themselves as detached from it because they did not have any say in it, they were merely "following orders".
From all the scientists that were depicted in the film as main characters I tend to like most Isidor Rabi as he was the only one who was clear in what he believed would happen, which it did and the most hateful one even in real life is Edward Teller, who was in fact the inspiration for Kubrick's "Doctor Strangelove" but at least he was honest about being a belligerant asshole scientist looking for fame.
The ironic thing in all this, is that even though here they tried to depict Werner Heissenberg as an evil scientist working for the Nazis'atomic bomb, he was in fact not responsible for anything the Americans insinuated. After the end of the war he was captured by the British and was put under surveillance for about 18 months and in the documents of his surveillance, which are public and can be easily downloaded in pdf, alongside what the Americans discovered in regard to Uranwerein and the Nazis'atomic program, is the fact that they discarded from the beginning the creation of an atomic bomb as it was practically unfeasable as they could not afford 120.000 personel and a billion of dollars to build it when all the best scientists were already drafted in the Wehrmacht and so their attempts in regard to the uranium programs they created were only in the context of creating atomic plants and atomic engines for electricity in their cities and their u-boats, that is mentioned in passing in the film during the section where Niels Bohr arrives at Los Alamos and told them the Nazis were speaking about heavy water and not grafite, because heavy water is used in atomic plants not in weapons, and so they rejoiced for how ignorant the Nazis were, never taking into consideration they were not trying to build a bomb.
I think the film tried to depict Oppenheimer as intelligently as they could, due to the fact that he was a hermetic individual and his public persona did not show anything from the man inside. In fact even Cillian Murphy said the same thing, expressing his frustration about the fact that all the archival footage of Oppenheimer showed only his stoic public persona giving no indication on what he really felt and thus the difficulty in playing him as a human being with a complex personality instead of the usual bkck-and-white depictions in films.
I fear that at least in the US, the public has failed to grasp the subtle critique Nolan did to Oppenheimer through all his directorial techniques that you mentioned, as they will still see him as a martyr, a victim of the American Industrial Military Complex when he was its instigator. We cannot really know why he did it of course, fame, prestige, career advancement, real belief that it would not be used, and a million other speculations. But the fact remains that his conscience came too late and the damage was irreversible and here we are now, almost a century later, with Oppenheimer's scientific "achievement" looming over our heads.
Maybe someday all war will end, but I fear that day will come only after we have destroyed everything, and he will forever be etched in the annals of history, and the science beaurocrat who cast the first stone in this new world order that brought only death and destruction, instead of that idyllic permanent peace, for which you would have to either be a chiild or a complete imbecille, to really believe in.
A great read, thanks for writing this comment
The idea that our options were our current world of fear of nuclear war and a world of peace is very naive. Wars between major powers have been a frequent event historically - it is baked into human nature. The bomb has made the cost of a major power conflict much higher and there is an argument that the lack of a major power conflict in the last 80 years is in large part due to the destructive power of the bomb making the costs outweigh the benefit
Also, I think human advancement in scientific understanding was inevitably going to lead to discovery of nuclear power which was going to lead to a nuclear weapon (if it wasn’t Oppenheimer it would have been someone else). That this happened at a time where the world was at war is a blessing and a curse. That we used the bomb at a point where it wasn’t optimized for destructive power has given us all an initial demonstration of the cost which has spared the need to learn the lesson at a much higher cost later
The fact of the matter, the A. bomb would have been invented anyway. It was just a matter of time. So, Op took this opportunity to make himself famous. It was a big vanity project for him. Then he played having a moral guilt.
@@alexxx4434not rlly, he wanted to create the A bomb so he, along the scientist and politicians, could cooperate with other governments to create world peace, the United Nations like Roosevelt wanted, Oppenheimer himself said that, obviously he also wanted to be recognized for his achievement, but that wasn’t his main goal
Stories that told from the point of view of a character (even an unreliable one) are my favorite kinds, whether they be movies, books, or audio dramas.
The best Oppenheimer analysis by a long shot! Certainly will show this to my friends who thought Oppenheimer as boring.
This was the breakdown I was looking for! Many people I talked to criticized Nolan for "picking a side." Sure, Nolan likes to film science porn, but I think he was able to maintain a more neutral stand in this movie than his other ones. I loved that many things that we expected to happen did not, because Oppenheimer did not experience them or didn't care too much about them, like the actual trinity explosion being visible only a few frames because of its intense brightness. Painting Strauss as the bad guy but also stressing how correct he was in certain places worked really well. Even if Oppenheimer had moral issues after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again which adds a lot to his character. It also makes us question ourselves; would we build such a bomb to feed our own personal ego? Keep up the good work!
This is a great breakdown, and I agree with many of your points. Especially Oppenheimer choosing to bring about his own downfall and him being somewhat prescient (ever since the first scenes) of the horror to come. Where my view differs from yours is in the way I think Nolan chooses to heroicize and celebrate him for it (think of The Dark Knight's ending: heroism Is achieved through lying); on one hand, his male heroes have always been pathological and on the run from terrifying truths. On the other hand, this seems to me the only way that he as an auteur sees possible a redemption of the world. For the same reason I would tend to take literally the idea of a "bomb to end all wars". In my view Oppenheimer was always aware of the destruction to come, chose to do it anyway because that was the only way to show the world what he already knew (i.e. that knowledge is evil and destructive) and to try to invert the course of history. And he somewhat succeeded - we got a Cold War instead of a WWIII with destruction of the whole world, as in his nightmarish visions. He lies about being entirely guilty of it (so a Hero of Lie) but at the same time he was aware of what he was doing. Think of the scene where he speaks about "maintaining moral advantage" in the bombings by opening diplomatic relationships with Russia. This is before the bombings, not after, so he's already accepting the death of people as long as it helps to save the world. And in the end he takes the blame because we need a scapegoat, national conscience must be protected and washed if we want to be able to live with ourselves. He's a hero because he is strong enough to take that blame for us, just like Batman was (hence the superhero dressup scene). I wrote an article about this, it's in italian but I could translate it for you if you're interested.
Disagree w/ Truman characterization slightly. He was smarter and more mature than the boy wonder because he actually understood what the Bomb would do and why he had to use it. It wasn’t idiocy, lack of foresight or naïveté. Truman calculated the cost of continuing ground operations or dropping two bombs on civilians and made the decision. To assume he didn’t deal w/ guilt or doubt about the morality of his decision is an insult. It’s why he was so annoyed w/ Oppenheimer complaining he felt guilt about the bomb when it was Truman who made the tough decision. It was Truman and Roosevelt who’d been making the same tough decisions when they approved bombing Germany and firebombing Japanese cities built of paper and wood that killed as many or more than both Bombs. Oppenheimer was the one who was naïve and shortsighted, the genius too stupid to see that his actions had only one conclusion. It conflicts w/ the notion that he was Prometheus, a great man who stole fire from the gods when in reality he was a useful childish idiot who used his gifts for something he knew and felt was evil because it gave him a sense of purpose and power, which does fit w/ the rest of your thesis. Again, I just disagree that Truman was a vacuous fool who found his daddy’s gun, when it’s Oppenheimer who helped discover develop the bomb and ignore every single warning.
Moreover Truman after the Nagasaki attack was shocked, because it happened without his knowledge and he told the military not to use atom bombs without his express authority. For one - he took the bomb under civilian supervision and second - he was sincerely appalled and as Secretary of Commerce and former VP Wallace recalled “the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, ‘all those kids.'” He was ruthless, but to a degree.
“Blood on his hands, dammit, he hasn’t half as much blood on his hands as I have,” Truman said afterward. “You just don’t go around bellyaching about it.”
Truman later told Dean Acheson, his secretary of state: “I don’t want to see that son of a bitch in this office ever again.”
Yet Oppenheimer wanted to create the A bomb to cooperate with the other nations as Roosevelt wanted, “the United Nations”, but Truman opposed to that, as he didn’t want to have anything to do with the Russians, I think that’s a little selfish
Damn bro you really on that Truman meat, you’ve been indoctrinated well
Brainwashed much.....
This was really really good. Thank you for putting it out there.
Edward Teller was the true antagonist of Oppenheimer. I wish he had more screen-time. Kubrick used him as inspiration for the character Dr. Strangelove.
Honestly there's no righteous hero in this story. Even Oppenheimer has this inner evil in him.
Sure I agree that Teller is one of the more problematic (and arguably the most dangerous) figures in this history but so many involved in the Manhattan Project and beyond are at fault of the rippling effects of the nuclear weapon.
Everyone's selfish ambition drives them to do things that cause destruction to others less fortunate in the pursuit of achieving the legacy of benevolent importance.
Back to Teller,he was probably the most ambitious physicist in the project. But he was pushing to create a bomb much more powerful and devastating than the atom bomb. He possibly could've work with the Soviet mole on his Hydrogen bomb in hopes of progressing the realization of its creation.
@@CharlieA24Teller (in the movie) comes off to me as simply pragmatic in a sense that he knew a better solution existed, a more effective option, and felt that artificially holding off any longer than needed to develop a fusion devise was only holding off inevitability. So if the job is a bomb that will win the war or scare the enemy, or just assert dominance, whatever; build the best bomb. Someone will take the credit, why not me? He knew the physics and so he knew in time someone would get to using fusion to boost the explosion inevitably. The same way the fission bomb will always have been an inevitable invention for any society that grasps the basic physics. From the moment the nucleus was first seen to split, they all knew what it meant.
A point of the film, in my mind, was the scientists all coming to their realizations that they had as a community finally turned a page in the physics book in which this quirk of the atom was going to be exploited by humanity. By people from their community. Someday, maybe now maybe later. So those who we see take it on for whatever reason decided that if it was to happen, may as well be them doing it.
@@CharlieA24No, Teller hated the soviets more than anything.
@@mmartinu327 Teller is one of the few characters that parallel Oppenheimer and his ambition. Besides the Soviet mole wasn't found out till after the Manhattan Project. He could've lend an ear to Teller's ideas on the H-bomb during that time when no one was none the wiser.
From a filmmaker to a filmmaker - this is absolutely brilliant man! Thank you for this new perspective, I was enthralled for the entirety of this piece! Please keep going
Still waiting for that promised analysis of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford...
I'm working on it!
@@JamesVarley Glad to hear it. I was beginning to worry. I did enjoy the Oppenheimer video, and would love to hear your take on Maestro...
@@billg5723 You can watch the first half hour of the video if you subscribe to me on patreon: www.patreon.com/JamesVarley
Been waiting for a thorough breakdown of this film for a while. Great work!
interesting points. thanks for your interpretation and the work to put it into a video.
Oppenheimer is a movie that keeps me thinking about the subject over and over again, even after months.
but one thing should not be forgotten. this universe and its natural laws make these weapons possible. from the mid-forties of the twentieth century it became technically possible to build them. so it was only a matter of time before it happened. Imagine a world in which Hitler or Stalin exclusively held this weapon in their hands. The democratic USA ended a war that it had not started. Both the Nazis and Stalin would have used the weapon to oppress, terrorize and dominate the world, that is for sure. there was ultimately no alternative for the US.
Roosevelt knew that,
Oppenheimer knew that,
Einstein knew that.
I am not writing this out of a patriotic mindset, I am not American. I am German, and as such I watch this movie with a slightly different, additional feeling.
"I just wish we had it in time to use against the Germans"
The atomic bomb gives power, tremendous power.
The great achievement of a democracy is that those we give power to have it only for a limited time. Only in this way are we as human beings able to ensure that it is not abused.
Great analysis, but the segment about how Oppenheimer is actually a Western and the accompanying visuals like showing the train tracks when you say trail or reversing the bomb when you say put the genie back was truly special, huge props!
Your assessment of Lewis Strauss actually makes me think of Colonel Tom Parker in the Baz Luhrmann Elvis movie.
In both movies, the antagonist is made to be generally repellent to the audience so that valid points they make about the protagonist are obscured (in Elvis's case, he DOES spend money faster than the Colonel can make it, which ultimately leaves him trapped in the end) so much so that he is vilified by history where the protagonist is vindicated by it.
I already liked you for your Blonde breakdown and once again you’ve shown how good of a deep reader you are. I can safely say you’re one of the best movie analysts in RUclips.
There is so much to the film. It will spark discussions for many years.
“It is not merely that the people of Hiroshima are not shown, but the audience’s attention is drawn to their absence”. Excellent insight.
Brilliant video, you've helped me find a new perspective on a film I already adored, bravo!
I would legitimately pay for a Patreon for more of your video essays
same!
I have a patreon now! www.patreon.com/JamesVarley
@@JamesVarley subscribed!
@@timr9225 Thanks so much!
So you realize that the necessity for individual focus for the camera renders cinematic narrative ineluctably conservative.
This is an insightful analysis of a masterpiece. So well done and it shows you how genius this movie is on the part of Nolan and Cillian.
As someone who really really liked this movie and thought it was a really well made one with interesting coverage of the entire story, i really enjoyed this analysis! It was really good and it made me go back to how i percieved these scenes and gained a new perspective on them :)
Don't have time to watch the video right now, but I just had to drop a massive hat tip to you for the Memento reference in the thumbnail. Excellently done.
the title of this video caught my attention by 100. saved it so I can watch it later
We're so back
I watched your video from top to bottom! Really really well explained and also cut together. Thank you!
this video is fire. please make more
I completely agree, and have failed a few times in organizing the evidence myself. For me the smoking gun is when Kitty incredulously asks Oppenheimer if he thinks they'll forgive him, and he knowingly says "We'll see." Oppenheimer's clear guilt is portrayed in the subjective color, and the actions he takes to secure his good name in history are in objective black and white.
I don't believe that's what Nolan wanted to show... because the last scene where It is revealed what Oppenheimer told Einstein is in color while the first time we have that scene it is in black and white from Strauss point of view. I think that black and white is the point of view of Strauss while color is either objective or Oppenheimer pov.
@@julienbeisson-li8355 He's said that color = Oppenheimer's POV/subjective, while BW = Strauss' POV/objective. Not that Strauss was an objective character, just that he, like us, can't actually know what was in Oppenheimer's mind. We're stuck with the historical record. You can reach a different conclusion than Strauss, but the distinction is there to emphasize that Oppenheimer may not be a reliable narrator. The last scene is in color because that conversation isn't recorded by history, but *maybe* it went something like that.
Fair point. Which is why his comment to Einstein is finally said at the end. It’s the nucleus in the story, where Straus, Einstein and Oppenheimer meet. Though it is in color, it is the one thing that, despite all subjectivity, is the truest thing Oppenheimer says. In Oppenheimer’s view, he finally sees what he’s done.
Great review, you really cracked the code. Also your observation at 30:16 reminded me of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Similar outcomes in both stories. And kind of a cool coincidence that Casey Affleck is in both movies.
Thanks! I'm glad someone else picked up on that! I actually nearly called the video The Assassination of J Robert Oppenheimer by the Coward Lewis Strauss but I thought nobody would watch it. I'm working on a long video about The Assassination of Jesse James at the moment so it's very much in my head and I immediately saw the parallels.
I really hate how critics and audiences receive Nolan's work trying to find "mistakes" and missing the point altogether of his art. It's Hitchcock all over again, and in 40 years we'll have people studing his work and doing documentary after documentary trying to rid themselves from the GUILT of not understanding the artist while he was alive. Film Theory made also a great interpretation of the film as with Nolan basically justifying himself for ushering the new wave of superhero movies which have practically crashed and broke Hollywood the very same year Oppeheimer was released. You really are watching the film as a true critic and mining the true intentions of the filmmaker, great analysis!!! Thanx!!!
P.D.: May I point out the color part of the film is called Fission because is about the splitting of Oppeheimer's life into pieces, and the B&W is caled Fussion as it pertains to the clash of th titulr character with Strauss.
Congratulations man, this is the most incredible analysis I've seen of Oppenheimer in YT, you took me back to the months in which I saw the film (twice, second was even better because I saw it on a BIGGER SCREEN, unfortunately I have no IMAX in my country), even my Mom loved the film.
Tho I already knew about Oppenheimer, in the next months I re-read his whole Wikipedia article, even about the seccurity clearance, I even saw an exposition about it in my university, I'm surprised by the amount of harsh criticism has received despite being well made, you showed scenes that I didn't even remembered, reminding how it was beautifully filmed, I loved the ambience, to put it simple, I have sensibillity for period pieces (that even includes the old cars).
Speaking about the setting, love that you referenced Oppenheimer is secretly a western, now I have more to think about american colonialism and indians, the exploitation of resources, reminds me of There Will Be Blood (another of my favorite movies). The final scene in which Oppenheimer is interrogated perfectly captures how the mind of a person feels when it is being repressed, I myself have felt that way, like my mind is going to explode, but still I like how in the film Oppenheimer is trying to mantain calm, even if sometimes he might not feel secure about himself, or at least that's how I interpret it.
P. S: loved how you used the score by Ludwig Göranssonn and that thumbnail referencing Memento, just rewatched it and left me wondering about if Leonard tells the truth, all three main characters are sick, each one manipulating their own reality, just to feel themselves happy and sure.
That was brilliant!
Thank you so much this analysis really gets to the heart of what i felt watching the movie more then any other ive seen of it, especially about the famous line and its placement in the film.
amazing essay dude.
this was an absolutely wonderful video! these were many of the points that i understand subconsciously, but couldn’t put into words. as someone who tends to be dissuaded from biopics, i love how nuanced this movie is and how deep you can look into the subtext of the film.
Wow this is very insightful. I loved hearing your analysis you’ve given me a new perspective on the film.
Wow. This was amazing. I felt hollow after watching the film. But you've just filled in all the blanks and helped me understand and appreciate the film a lot better. Superb analysis.
Idk why you have such a small sub count but the video is beautifully made..one question tho.. if all of your points were similar to strauss's (and mine as well) should u and i consider ourselves similar to the nationalistic dupes that was the McCarthy era politicians?
I also wish I knew why I had such a low sub count! Probably because I post like one video per year.
I think Strauss is angry about Oppenheimer's hypocrisy: Oppenheimer participated in the same awful system, but he pretended to be above it, and pretended he was better and more moral than the likes of Strauss. He isn't angry that Oppenheimer facilitated the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but rather angry that he tried to distance himself from it afterwards.
Whereas my critique (and I guess yours) is more grounded in the fact that Oppenheimer actually did those terrible things in the first place, rather than just the fact that he was a hypocrite. Although I also think Oppenheimer is a terrible hypocrite.
So Strauss says a lot of stuff I agree with, but he's coming from a completely different place politically.
Sometimes I do find myself agreeing with Conservative critiques of Liberals on a superficial level, but that doesn't mean I'm a Conservative, or agree with their underlying views.
@@JamesVarley i mean so does Lemmino but here we are.. world's unfair and all that haha
I understand now. I agree with your views too! Also, a bit redundant, but impressive video!! KEEP IT UP
Great vid! I missed so much of this on 1st view. And now I’m wondering how much of that was intentional. Chris is in my head
I missed half this stuff on first viewing. It's an insanely dense film, I think there's a lot of stuff in there you couldn't possibly pick up until the second or third go. I really love when films are like that.
Bravo! Great video essay!
This was fucking amazing! Well done!
Great video essay
"Something the audience in 2023 knows is far from the case..."
Hmm. I'm going to have to disagree with you here. While the term "peace" is thrown around loosely these days, Opppenheimer was essentially correct in his belief that the bomb would usher in a new era of peace mankind had never seen. Since the surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945, there has been no open war between the major powers of the world. Sure. There have been smaller wars involving the proxies of major powers (see Ukraine vs. Russia) but there hasn't been a legitimately major conflict between the global powers since World War II. This part of history that we are living now has been dubbed by military historians as the "Long Peace." You have to go back to the Pax Romana of Caesar Augustus more than 2,000 years ago to find its equivalent.
If not for the atomic bomb, and later the hydrogen bomb, it is undoubtable that the United States and the Soviet Union would have gone to war against each other for hegemony over the world.
“Of what use is guilt you can’t make up for what you’ve done.” Well, guilt seems to sell movie tickets, draw funding for whole university departments, drive legislation and campaigns, and it even makes for good click-bait titles on RUclips for videos that prattle on about the immorality of people whose achievements you stand upon and enjoy daily. So, it seems guilt has quite a lot of uses.
Lucid. This is how film criticism should be done! Although my own view of America's war-time and post-war history differs considerably from that expressed here, you have given me a reason to watch a film that didn't much interest me previously.
P.S. Love the box-art reference to Nolan's thematically related 'Memento.' 🤗🤗🤗
I was wondering if you still were planning on making a video on The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford? It's my favorite film of all time.
Yeah. I'm still working on it. It's my favourite film too! It's gonna be a long video and it's taking a lot of time to make.
You can watch the first half hour of the Jesse James video if you subscribe to me on patreon: www.patreon.com/JamesVarley
Great video, I thought the film was just ok but your analysis made it better
amazing!
Amazing. You, sir, are a fantastic critic.
lol @ 1:53
I really like that point about the movie distorting reality because it's through the lens of Oppenheimer. I still disagree with a number of your assertions, but that's okay.
Ultimately I do agree with a point more or less made early on: the movie tried to tell a limited story from a specific perspective and so not all aspects of the Manhattan Project and its context were going to be covered nor would it be right to do so.
While hearing it from others is often frustrating, I caan understand the mindset of those who wished the movie covered more about the part that they are particularly concerned in: wanting more representation of the women involved, or more talk about the peoples displaced, or more coverage of the science and engineering, or some depiction of what the bombs were used for in Japan, or less focus on the trials. Certainly I have in my head the version of this movie that I wished we got: which would have had significantly more time spent with the theoretical physics ensemble doing science things and Feynman picking locks and so-on. But that's not what Nolan and the story he adapted was concerned with, probably for the better.
Film makers doing historical works do have to ride a line of telling the truth and making an interesting story, but should at least be able to focus on the parts of that history that relate to the story they are telling. That means not every historical covering of a topic, even a controversial and sensitive one, needs to namecheck every anecdote, atrocity, alteration and anything else that fits this alliteration. The only hope I can have is that there is purpose and thought that goes into what is included, and that the creator doesn't omit truths and details that really ought to be there in the context of the story they are in fact trying to tell.
I think the movie does cover those topics faithfully, within its framing.
For a counter-example, while I think the Chernobyl series was quite good overall at its attempt to tell that story; but I felt like some of the decisions to put so much of the scientists and work being done down to more or less two people (with one of them being fictitious) was a disservice to the telling of the event. Had the show had more of a constant entourage of scientists on site working in the background with some of the characters, I feel it would have told the same story only better. The decisions to put all that work into one composite character was for convenience in the script writing. I felt Oppenheimer did a better job showing that many significant and intelligent people were involved, even if it barely spent any time with them.
Personally, Strauss being written as he was, I wished there was more subtlety. And Trinity, well, looked pretty bad. And I still do wish that we had gotten a movie or miniseries more about the Manhattan Project as a whole, and the various personalities, science, and hijinks that ensued in developing the fission devices. But what we got was a hell of a movie and a Nolan work through and through, and so I can't complain too badly about how he was able to make the perspectives he took tell the story he thought worth telling.
When you say Oppenheimer is lying do you mean the man or the movie? Because your analysis seems to agree with what the movie shows rather than than contradicting it. If so a decent review, despite the clickbait title.
Masterful work.
I'll have to chew a bit on this video, think on it. Highly interesting analysis.
I think there are some parallels between Oppenheimer building a bomb and Walter white cooking in breaking bad. Both trying to justify their actions
If most of the viewing audience didn't pick up on these subtle critiques of Oppenheimer as a man, then the film failed to do its job.
Great video mate, really enjoyed it
Very cool video dude.
American film criticism became so reductive and stupid in recent years. All major points of criticism of this film come down to identity politics. It’s intellectual degradation that happened in American journalism in general. They have to think only in certain way as American society is highly divided in two sets. Objective critical thought is banned in US cultural landscape. You would be canceled if you aren’t following certain way or don’t use reductive identity politics optics. Nolan didn’t show indigenous people and their issue? How dare he? His female characters don’t talk much? Sexist! Quotas aren’t fulfilled. So no Oscar to him. And in-depth criticism of Nolan and his work don’t even exist in mainstream media. It’s either silly “he didn’t show enough women” type of “criticism” or general idolization and praise.
Great analysis, Strauss was right in every one of his rants, except the Einstein thing.
Oppenheimer wasnt naive, he knew the bomb he made wouldn't get to be used however he wanted, he even said as much to Szlard when he was asked to sign a petition.
He was incredibly charming to used it to his ends and pushed to be the leader of the Manhattan project.
He knew how the H Bomb was more than feasible and dismissed it because Teller came up with the idea, this was evident even as it was first suggested while they were figuring out how to make an fission bomb.
He actively tried to stop the development of the H Bomb, and suggested to deal with Stalin, which at that point was a known liar and mass murderer.
One unmentioned thing everybody skips when talking about the Mccarthy-ites, Mccarthy actually found spies, spies and collaborators who actively wanted for a violent overthrow of the American government.
When Robb said "No moral scruples in 1945, plenty in 1949." it nailed home Oppenheimer's ridiculous excuse about fueling the Soviet efforts.
The Atomic bomb was a much closer race between the American and Nazis, compared to the H Bomb race. The only difference now is the enemy, which he was a sympathizer.
Oppenheimer was either too naive, or an actual traitor to survive the smallest scrutiny, let alone an actual aggressive prosecutor.
Great work!!!!
I enjoyed the analysis....O is definitely a complicated and tragic figure but I do disagree with your final thoughts....you may never be able to completely rectify your guilt or mistakes, but at least after the war O did try to move the U.S. and the World toward arms control through lobbying and other actions. Unfortunately many were not listening.
Yeah that may be a fair point. I tried to limit myself to just talking about Oppenheimer as the character in the film, rather than as a historical figure as it's primarily a work of film criticism not history. Although my next video is going to include a lot more historical research and context.
arms control became important in his life only when there was more than one country with nuclear power
Great review ❤️
I’ve only seen it once so far but felt it was a masterpiece instantly. Your breakdown of it showed why in a beautiful, in-depth way. Well done.
Great video!
Great video aside from the stereotype “America bad” tone. Probably unpopular to say on RUclips, but the US has been the greatest beacon of hope and inspiration the world has ever seen.
The fact of the matter, the A. bomb would have been invented anyway. It was just a matter of time. So, Op took this opportunity to make himself famous. It was a big vanity project for him. Then he played having a moral guilt.
Good analysis, and I also dislike his moral ambiguity, but from the opposite perspective. He should have been proud.
here before it blows up lol
I was going to dislike because of the title, I thought it was a hate vid, but your video seems to agree with the movie? Actually it’s a great analysis, so I wonder, what did u mean with the title?
I meant Oppenheimer the man is lying, not the movie
Does he really feel any guilt though after the bomb? Sure he looks older and lost in thought a lot, but that’s similar to his he was when he was younger.
When the audience are stamping their feet, he has visions of the human suffering, but what then, he shrugs it off and continues.
He seemed driven to power and relevance when young, and his feeling sad could just be him wanting more power and a new kind of relevance.
Does he say he feels ashamed, and regrets making the bomb? Does he say he is guilty?
Yeah I mean, that's more or less the point I end up making in the video.
He doesn't shrug off the feelings of immense guilt and death in that vision. It continues to haunt him for the entire last act of the film. When he was young man he was an ambitious physicist who was lost in physics and atoms. When he was older post WW2 and the bombs he seems paralyzed with feelings of torment which fits the theme of Prometheus(Ancient Greek God of Fire) that film states. In the Truman scene tried to open up about feelings of guilt but was shut down. In the final interrogation scene when Roger Robb exposes Oppenheimer as a flip flopping hypocrite Oppenheimer still does openly admit about feelings of regret for innocents dying in the bombings and does start visibly showing signs of emotionally cracking. The final scene of the film he openly states that he destroyed the world and envisions nuclear annihilation in his head.
Question; had those cities been carpet bombed like Dresden or Berlin…would that have been more acceptable because it would have taken a bit longer and had less visual spectacle? Japan was still 100% fighting before the second bomb was dropped. We were gearing up for a full scale land invasion, and the Soviets were about to do the same from Hokkaido in the North. Do you think the civilians of Japan would have been ANY better off dealing with a two front ground invasion while down to their last resources?
Do you know what ground invasions into countries who are losing the ability to defend themselves looks like?? Check Nanking and what Japan did to them not long before this moment in history…it’s not pretty.
In fact, I’d rather get 2 bombs on small cities even if I was in one of them, compared to the alternative. Look at what happened to the Germans when the Soviets came into Berlin!
I won’t lie, I spent many years opposed to the bombing. Like vehemently opposed. But once I really learned about different generations of warfare and the specific details of each gen’s capabilities in a realistic and accurate sense, and a very detailed History of the events of the Pacific Theatre of ww2, it finally became clear that the bomb wasn’t foolish at all. There were a million factors at play and that was a very complex call since the ramifications would clearly go farrrrrrrr beyond the lives lost in those bombings.
I personally believe it was the right thing to do. Not that all involved wanted it done for the right reasons, but in a humanitarian sense, it was the right move. The land invasion would have turned Japan into Afghanistan.
_Nolan_ Is Lying To You
Care to explain?
He portrays our world as way more grey and colorless than it actually is.@@vaultsuit
@@punchforpound2808 oh, that's a curious view on it, care to write more on it?
I thought large portions of the film were too "on the nose" for me. Especially the scenes involving Lewis Strauss interacting with the senate aide. It felt like the aide was playing the role of what the scriptwriter wanted his audience to be. It felt unnatural and forced.
The aide would ask questions that audience should be asking themselves. There seems to be little left to subtext in this regard.
In addition, just about every scene in the first act was incessantly pertinent to the plot. There was very little breathing room that might add realism to the viewer.
The second act successfully brought me back into the movie. I thought it was good. But the third act lost me again. I think mostly because I didn't see Oppenheimer as a moral character, so I didn't feel the interest in watching him attempt to justify his position. I had no investment in the character.
The film looked fantastic though, and the acting was excellent.
1:52 Enjoy your demonetization
Video couldn't be monetised anyway because I'm using the Oppenheimer soundtrack, so thought I'd have fun with it.
I actually didn't enjoy Oppenheimer at all but I watched Memento yesterday so I felt compelled to comment
McCarthyism good
McCarthyism bad
31:14 ugly cinematography too. Almost every scene.
Nolan just magically forgot how to make films suddenly? I dont get it.
Decent analysis of the movie and film techniques but the thick layer of SJWs commentary ruins the experience
Garbage film. Nolan is a garbage director.
That's it? Over 30 minutes of analysis and you just write garbage without any arguments, come on...
@@vaultsuit I don't know what else to add to what this excellent RUclipsr has already said about the film.
@@ConanDuke so it's "let's agree to disagree"
@@vaultsuit Agreed.
In the film's defense: The casting, cinematography, costuming, set-design, and overall look/feel were perfect. I just think Nolan lazily phones-in the story-telling, and I've never liked any of his films.
Where's the lie?
I watched this entire video waiting for you to validate your clickbait title and you never did!
I didn't even like this movie, I found it boring, overlong and messy BUT WHERE'S THE LIE!?!
Maybe the real lie is the friends we made along the way.
Ugh another Brit film critique on RUclips. Folks please change careers this is redundant.
What's being brit have to do with anything though?
FIlm school Brits (not all Brits obviously) are usually athiestic, narcissistic, skinny or shlubby, balding or bearded wannabee filmmakers, and love dark and depraved cinema. They constantly cry about how films are not like Kubrick, Scorsese, or Tarantino. They know nothing of making films about humility, levity, and hope. They just want more "real" cynical and depressing movies made.@@somelikeithoth
Are these 'film school brits' in the room with us right now? @@VFXforfilm
@@VFXforfilmwhat a bunch of crap... Maybe you should switch careers?
I have career, and I enjoy it. One can enjoy VFX but have a distain for the terrible hack filmmakers who make the crap films we labor VFX into@@vaultsuit
Stop reading so much into this film; it was lame!
Likely story, that’s crap… boo 👎🏼
Huh? 😂
amazeballs
This was the breakdown I was looking for! Many people I talked to criticized Nolan for "picking a side." Sure, Nolan likes to film science porn, but I think he was able to maintain a more neutral stand in this movie than his other ones. I loved that many things that we expected to happen did not, because Oppenheimer did not experience them or didn't care too much about them, like the actual trinity explosion being visible only a few frames because of its intense brightness. Painting Strauss as the bad guy but also stressing how correct he was in certain places worked really well. Even if Oppenheimer had moral issues after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again which adds a lot to his character. It also makes us question ourselves; would we build such a bomb to feed our own personal ego? Keep up the good work!
Brilliant analysis
Truly great analysis. Particularly about Lewis Strauss & that summation. These points really nagged me ever since I've watched the film. I always felt agreeing with many of Strauss's assessments of Oppenheimer just as I found many of Oppenheimer's justification of his own action pathetic & self-serving.
hands down the best analysis ive seen
I loved this. As a scientist myself I think you captured what I felt while watching the movie.
Great analysis. Appreciate it. For some, they felt everything you explained in the movie itself, but I keep unraveling more and more layers of this movie. Thanks you
Incredible analysis, very well argued. I always saw the sensory scenes of this film more as a result of the progress of Nolan's intentions that he has been seeking, since many of his films behind, to daze the viewer with stimulating images and thunderous sound. Also as a tool of immersion and anguish borrowed from Oliver Stone's film JFK. Don't get me wrong, Nolan wants us to see the world in the same "physical" way as Oppenheimer sees it, but because the film focuses on so many other aspects most of the time, I saw it as something secondary and not thematically linked to the film.
Great Video