Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, a name which brings chills to those who knows. It is of no doubt that the impacts of his work, for better or for worse, has completely shaped the landscape of international politics, forming the basis of relations between countries of various ideologies. The invention of the atomic bomb, its significance in regards to all aspects of our civilization, could not be understated in any regard. Though however important may these topics be, it shall not be the main point of interest in this article today. In place of the technicalities and repercussions of his work, I would like to, instead, look at him through the lens of man.
Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer is a film layered in its complex characters, its haunting story and its moral dilemmas that no single person should ever have to bear the burden off. Already regarded as one of the most important films of recent times, it is with referencing this that I wish to talk about this man today, as it is this that initially conceived within me the scattered specks of thoughts and opinions which provoked me into ponder. After finishing the movie with a great friend of mine, I was deeply occupied with questions: mostly about the movie itself, though it eventually became more of thinking about the themes used in the movie. This movie is not about the Manhattan Project, nor is it about World War II or the Japanese surrender; instead, it is about one man, and one man only.
Oppenheimer was a walking enigma; an intrinsically flawed man, a tragic man and a man filled with guilt. Flawed because of his initial years of activity and affairs; tragic because of the betrayal and utter abandonment of the country he once pledged loyalty to; guilty because of the gadget he created, which was the catalyst of all his pain. The utter complexity of his character was appalling, his internal struggles undoubtedly immense. This sophistication of character, in my opinion at least, is brilliantly portrayed. I shall split this article into two sections, with the former being my adoration towards the movie and the latter being a personal expression towards the mentioned themes.
Oppenheimer: The Movie
From my personal point of view, I believe that Cilian Murphy is the best candidate who could perfectly portray and articulate the sophistication of the late Oppenheimer. In the movie, there are moments of pure shock, guilt, anguish, grief and sadness; emotions which may be found hard to be shown through vocal or narrative means. It is only with other methods that these emotions could be thoroughly felt and understood by those sitting in theatres, methods which Murphy harnessed to its fullest potential: by using his very own eyes. The eyes are the windows to a person's soul; and to read one's heart, one would merely need to peer into the minute intricacies of one's gaze, and little by little, all which one felt will be felt by all. The dropping of The Gadget, the haunting speech of triumph, the trance of guilt, the dance with death and the stress of man; all of which accompanied emotions, are shown not with words or writings in the script, but merely by the clarity of 70mm film on those deep blue eyes. Those blue eyes, deep in thought, deep in emotion, deep in the passion and love for physics.
Accompanying Murphy's melancholy is none other than the melodies of Ludwig Göransson. In my own headspace, I'd like to think that Nolan approached Göransson with one task, and one task only: to create music showcasing the anxiety, fear, wonder, and most importantly passion inside a physicist's mind. What he created, in response, was a orchestral masterpiece. Can You Hear the Music? The piece starts immediately in dissonance, a string pattern rises and immediately falls, then it repeats again, and falls, again. Each time it rises, more instruments are added, more layers are formed, more chaos ensues. Soon, a pulsating chord could be heard, accompanied by blares of warm-toned horns. This pulse gradually gets faster, and faster, and faster, until it collapses onto itself and slows to oblivion. Accelerando accompanies crescendo, as the piece utterly chokes and forces us to face Oppenheimer's madness.
The bomb consumes him, like how this piece consumes us. Effectively, this piece and the nuclear bomb is one in the same. One atom of U-235 splits and releases 3 neutrons, splitting other U-235 atoms, releasing this overwhelming surge of energy, resulting in a catastrophic explosion. The piece, starts already in non-harmonic tones, signifying the unnatural reaction of U-235 fission, but then it gets louder, and faster, and louder, and faster, until the hammering chords leave enough chaos in our minds to then have the melody burst into oblivion. Just like the atom bomb, whose chaos ends in a ball of fire, the melody ends abruptly after showing us its core; a core of dissonance and wreckage.
Nolan's work involving cinematography is remarkable. The story is not told by successors of Oppenheimer, but told personally by himself. We experience his life as he experiences his own; from his initial passion for physics, to the demise and destruction of his entire life. Pictures of him in utter thought, abruptly cut and showing subatomic particles in a beautiful dance, allows the audience to understand the gravity of his ponder, a shooting decision I personally adore. Of course, the magnificent ball of fire during the Trinity Test, the awe and horror seen on the faces of those present, and the look of Oppenheimer in the bunker; this excerpt of the film is marvelous in its own right. However, there is one scene in particular that captivated me the most. It is the contrast between Oppenheimer and those around him. In a spectacular show of symbolism, Oppenheimer enters the hall to give his speech of triumph. The cheering of the audience is mute, all that could be heard is the stomping of their feet; a steady pulse, a growing pulse, a loudening pulse. This pulse, forces us to hear Oppenheimer's internal voice. He spoke words of glory, but does he feel glorious himself?
Here is where we see the battle of Oppenheimer's conscious, where what he says is barely audible; it is overlapped by the constant pulsating stomp. Is he happy? Is he truly proud? No. He is in anxiety and shock, in pain and guilt, in utter dissonance after the tragedy he caused. Murphy's eyes tells us everything, the loud background stomps tells us everything, and the inaudibility of any coherent words tells us everything. Oppenheimer sees tragic scenes of people crying, dying of radiation poisoning, and the charred corpse of those unfortunate to stand in Death's wrath, for now Death, is Oppenheimer himself. In his quote of the Bhagavad Gita:
Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
It is this scene that truly shows how Oppenheimer truly felt about himself after the bombs fell. He never got over his guilt, and the world he knew did not forgive him as well. He lived to regret what he did, not because he invented a weapon of mass destruction, but because the world that he was in was not mature enough for this new age of death. This, and the final scene with Dr. Einstein, is the pinnacle of film for me. I shall mention Einstein and the political hogwash that came after his fame in the next section.
Oppenheimer: The Themes
I would always like to believe that this movie is about the chronicles of a physicist, but indeed that is not the case anymore. In contrast, this is not about a physicist. These are the chronicles of a flawed man. Oppenheimer was superb in his own right, but his misjudgment in how he approaches other aspects of his life was what made his downfall. Though I believe that there is no wrong in supporting what you believe, as such seen in Oppenheimer supporting the Communist Party of the United States, I do think that there should be a clear divide between personal ideologies and the sanctity of Science. Moreover, his actions as a womaniser, should be regarded as vile at best, though of course that is not the main theme of the movie. What should be known is that Dr. Oppenheimer is not a perfect man. He is flawed, just like all of us; flawed in his ways of handling intimate relationships, flawed in his dealings with the communists. But he is never forgiven, not by himself, not by those around him, and certainly not by his government.
A quote from the movie, Kitty Oppenheimer:
You don't get to commit to sin, and then ask for all of us to feel sorry for you when there are consequences.
The main thing I'd like to mention is the politics behind the film. The pain Oppenheimer went through just because of pure political nonsense. Essentially, the film starts and ends in a closed hearing setting, as we hear Oppenheimer and contemporaries talk about his history, all for the sake of renewing his security clearance. Ultimately, this fails, and Oppenheimer is sacked and abandoned by the government he swore allegiance to. Science is a sanctuary for all of man; it is a sanctuary free from all forms of discrimination, with only the pursuit of truth being at the centre of it all. Though in reality, this said sanctity is polluted by various other factors. Race, religion, gender, and geography. In the movie, the source of the pollution comes from politics.
This begs the question, should politics have an influence in science? Yes, Oppenheimer was fairly questionable in his political ideologies, but should that be a reason of his relinquishment? Oppenheimer was against hiding technologies of such potent destructiveness from other international contemporaries, not because it allowed him to gain political traction, but because such weapons must be carefully understood and embraced by all to create a world of peace. Nevertheless, in the movie, and by proxy in reality, this did not happen. Conversely the end of World War II paved the way for soured relations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, starting the nuclear arms race, plunging the world into further risk of total Armageddon. Due to his support for peace through sharing information, he was ousted by the government he supported, sacked by the commission which dearly needed the Father of the Atomic Bomb, gagged and tortured as he watches in horror, the creation of bigger and deadlier hydrogen bombs.
Oppenheimer created the atomic bomb in the pursuit of peace, but the atomic bomb was succeeded in the pursuit of destruction. His morals were questioned, but ultimately, there were no other choice but to sacrifice something for the greater good.
Oppenheimer was mentally tortured, by those who were envious of his achievements; and this cruelty had to be endured until all is said and done, and he is freed from hell, and he is served posh food, and he is congratulated for his works. "When they've punished you enough, they'll serve you salmon and potato salad, make speeches, give you a medal, and pat you on the back telling you all is forgiven. Just remember, it won't be for you. It would be for them."
After everything, after the deep analysis and story-telling into Oppenheimer's tragic life, we are given this final moment between Einstein and Oppenheimer. I believe this is the main takeaway of the entire movie, one which I believe should be thought upon by all. The nuclear bomb was the start of international calamity, but it also forged peace. It forged peace, but at what cost? Now, as we enter a new era of globalisation and trade, it will serve us well in understanding the true nature of our world. What are the fragile morality of creating weapons of mass destruction, were it for intimidation, how long could this hold? Therefore, where does this all end?
And it is with this final excerpt, that I end this article.
"Albert, when I came to you with those calculations, we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world."
"I remember it well. What of it?"
"I believe we did."
Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
~Cheerful
Comments