"I have read the Greeks; I find the Hindus deeper," J. Robert Oppenheimer reportedly remarked, when his spiritual interests and mystical musings came up in conversations with grandee contemporaries, most notably T.S. Elliot.
The topic of Hinduism is, of course, of great relevance in both the physicist’s own life as well as in the new biopic, “Oppenheimer”, directed by no less than Christopher Nolan. Here was a man who praised the Bhagavad Gita, the 700-verse Hindu scripture written in Sanskrit, as “quite marvelous" and "the most beautiful philosophical song existing in any known tongue.” He named his car “Garuda”, after the Hindu demigod, while presenting friends with copies of the Hindu scripture.
Hinduism’s non-linear conception of time clearly appealed to Oppenheimer, who was steeped in (and often haunted by the literally cosmic implications of) quantum mechanics. So was the philosophical emphasis on the power of fate – and the importance of adherence to Dharma, namely religious duty, as the best expression of human agency.
The first-ever video footage of Oppenheimer I ever saw was one where he quotes a dialogue between warrior-prince Arjuna and charioteer Lord Krishna. And thus, the verse: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” What the physicist had in mind, of course, was the terrifying fruit of the collective genius of the very team of scientists he assiduously assembled in the middle of wilderness against the backdrop of a raging world war against fascism.
“If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one.” That’s how Oppenheimer saw, almost in mystical terms, the power of the atomic bomb, which was ultimately unleashed on the frontlines of Pacific War with horrendously devastating impact.
A few years later, Oppenheimer was clearly grappling with the moral consequences of his own technocratic-scientific genius. Nuclear weapons, he lamented, "dramatized so mercilessly the inhumanity and evil of modern war". Even if the piety of many of his colleagues were suspect, he admitted that "[i]n some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatements can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose."
He recalled how, “[w]e knew the world would not be the same… A few people laughed, a few people cried, [but] most people were silent [in terror].” In a way, he implicitly admitted how Judeo-Christian conceptions of moral sin was always in the background, even among the great men of science.
Here enters Nolan’s latest movie, which should be praised for accomplishing three things, simultaneously. To begin with, “Oppenheimer” vividly captures -- with its ensemble of impeccable actors, magisterial cinematography, and haunting soundtrack -- the existential stakes and sheer human drama driving the “Manhattan Project”.
Second, the biopic masterfully reveals the complexity of the protagonist’s character and psyche. The choice of Cillian Murphy, famed for his cold charm and brooding charisma, was exceptionally befitting. In this sense, Noland was faithful both to his own writing prowess as well as to the Pulitzer-winning biography, “American Prometheus” (2005), which defined “Oppenheimer’s” horizons of narration.
Finally, the movie, more than three-hours-long, was not only a commendable antidote to our era of attention-deficit entertainment, but also a celebration, albeit grimly, of old virtues of full-hearted dedication to a greater cause. After all, Oppenheimer was primarily driven by a desire to save millions of souls, especially folks who shared his religious background, from the horrors of fascism.
Nevertheless, there are three problematic elements to reckon with. To begin with, both the biography “American Prometheus” as well as the movie seemed to have underappreciated the immense spiritual relevance of Gita to Oppenheimer’s ‘life world’. His moral predicament was arguably more Sisyphus than Prometheus, while his mystical outlook was clearly more Indic than Greek.
More importantly, however, “Oppenheimer” had a more fundamental flaw. Just as in Noland’s “Dunkirk” (2017), where ‘colored’ and ‘colonial’ troops among British and French armies were shockingly erased from the scenes, there was hardly a single Japanese shown in “Oppenheimer”.
This is curiously troubling, since it was precisely the death of tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians, which set in motion Oppenheimer’s long quest for moral reckoning. And this is even more troubling in light of growing historiographical consensus on the ‘unnecessary evil’ of A-Bomb droppings on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There is overwhelming reason to believe that Japan’s surrender was more driven by fear of Soviet occupation -- and the pointlessness of fighting a two-front war -- than the horror of new weapons of mass destruction.
In the words of one historian, “From the contemporary Japanese perspective, however, it might not have been so easy to distinguish the Bomb from other events. It is, after all, difficult to distinguish a single drop of rain in the midst of a hurricane…” What seemed crucial amid the mayhem was Stalin’s declaration of war, which “invalidated the [Japanese] military’s decisive battle strategy [of total resistance against an invasion], just as it invalidated the diplomatic strategy [of seeking Moscow’s mediation]. At a single stroke, all of Japan’s options evaporated. The Soviet invasion was strategically decisive—it foreclosed both of Japan’s options—while the bombing of Hiroshima (which foreclosed neither) was not.”
The element of time is crucial: “The Soviet declaration of war also changed the calculation of how much time was left for maneuver. Japanese intelligence was predicting that U.S. forces might not invade for months. Soviet forces, on the other hand, could be in Japan proper in as little as 10 days. The Soviet invasion made a decision on ending the war extremely time sensitive.”
The third major concern with the movie, meanwhile, was how the character of Lewis Strauss, played by Robert Downey Jr.,was simultaneously underdeveloped – hardly any mention of how his lack of formal university training likely influenced the autodidact’s personality and, correspondingly, dynamics with accomplished men of science like Oppenheimer – and, vitally, a de facto scapegoat.
The very idea that the persecution of Oppenheimer was primarily, if not singularly, the upshot of petty personal rivalries seems incredible. After all, we are talking about the “McCarthyism” era of anti-left witch-hunt and anti-Soviet triumphalism. There was simply no way for Oppenheimer to continue his critique of the American military-industrial complex -- particularly the rapid deployment of super-weapons amid an existential arms race against Moscow -- while maintaining his security clearance, especially given his multifarious associations with communist figures and movements at home.
In short, “Oppenheimer” is a brilliant work of art, and another magisterial work by Nolan and his ensemble of inimitable actors; but there are both narrative and moral gaps too obvious to anyone with an inkling of the broader psychological and geopolitical dynamics at play during the physicist’s storied life.
Film is an esitor's medium.
some scenes were monotonous (noticed myself fallen asleep😴) though from the very start the plot of the story was already known the “invention of the atomic bomb” plus the strong feelings the main character had with a russian girl wherein doubts were the big concern and the invention was exclusive. afterall it was proven negatively. the invention proved successful and powerful that ultimately humans were the frontliners victims having been dropped during the war with japan. true the film didn’t tackle the disastrous effect made on japan solely because it concentrated on the success of the invention the effects and results of it and here enters the greediness of a powerful country’s sense of exclusivity wherein no less the private life of the inventor was exposed having strong doubts other countries least to mention Russia might have gotten the trade secret of the invention. artistically presented was the conversation between the inventor and the russian girl (sorry not so attentive with character’s name) both naked which for me was not necessary at first but with further analysis and understanding imparted that intimacy in a relationship “secrets/confidentiality” in one’s job should be respected. hope my simple sharing can support your writeups. again congratulations! as ever i remain (challenges around☺️😉)