Christopher Nolan’s hit Biopic Examines Visionary who Built Atomic bomb but Feared Aftermath
As the largest undertaking by the U.S. government up to that point, the Manhattan Project offered scientists a double-edged sword.
It allowed them to pursue the mysteries of the atomic world. The curiosity that motivates their research compelled them to test their knowledge and enhance their understanding of this aspect of physics. At Los Alamos National Laboratory near Sante Fe, New Mexico, they could access substantial resources to bring their ideas to fruition.
But this initiative also presented participants with a moral quandary. Once they resolved the technical challenges they confronted, they knew very well how the government would use what they referred to as “the gadget.”
Developing an explosive device based on atomic physics could destroy entire cities, and many of the brains behind the Manhattan Project dreaded the worst. They saw these fears realized when U.S. planes dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
Director Christopher Nolan explores this dilemma in Oppenheimer, which premiered July 21 to rave reviews and packed theaters. As of Aug. 13, the film has grossed more than $649 million worldwide.
The movie chronicles the life of theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (portrayed by Cillian Murphy), known as the “father of the atomic bomb.” It focuses primarily on his time as director of Los Alamos and the troubles he faced in the years following World War II.
The public’s ongoing fascination with Oppenheimer is understandable, and this film does an excellent job on its subject matter. He was a brilliant scientist and engaging professor, conducting research into astrophysics, nuclear physics, spectroscopy and quantum field theory.
In 1938 and 1939, Oppenheimer co-authored three papers examining the nature of what many years later came to be known as black holes. He made use of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity in his arguments.
This was ironic as the papers supported the field of quantum mechanics, the study of the perplexing behavior of subatomic particles. Einstein never accepted the uncertainty principles involved with quantum theory — and along comes some young upstart using Einstein’s own landmark research to prove him wrong!
Oppenheimer’s third paper on this topic likely would have made a bigger impression on the scientific community had it not been for the timing of its publication: Sept. 1, 1939. New discoveries were no doubt of great interest, but Germany’s invasion of Poland thrust the world’s attention on another pending global conflict.
This made research into atomic physics even more vital. German scientists split the atom in 1938 by bombarding various elements with neutrons.
Theoretical physicists understood that this process could release an enormous amount of energy. If Nazi Germany came up with a device to exploit this offensive technology first, other nations would be its mercy. And members of the Third Reich weren’t necessarily known for their merciful qualities.
Oppenheimer emphasizes this sense of urgency. The Manhattan Project established ambitious goals on a massive scale, making use of several sites across the country to test the science, create the fuel and put everything together in a deliverable bomb.
Scientists such as Oppenheimer were already involved to some extent in this endeavor. Ensuring the government’s effort produced a workable device fell to U.S. Army Col. Leslie Groves (Matt Damon), who was appointed to the rank of brigadier general shortly after accepting this role in September 1942.
Groves studied engineering at both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the U.S. Academy at West Point. Joining the Army Corps of Engineers upon his commission as an officer in 1918, he oversaw the construction of the Pentagon in 1941 and 1942.
Government authorities saw Groves as the most qualified individual to head the Manhattan Project. And Groves saw Oppenheimer as the most qualified individual to lead Los Alamos.
This was an odd pairing.
Groves embraced the military lifestyle with its emphasis on discipline and secrecy. He was an ardent anti-communist. He insisted on compartmentalizing work on the bomb, which frustrated scientists used to the free exchange of ideas to advance their research.
Oppenheimer championed different left wing causes and periodically associated with known communists. While sympathetic to some ideas promoted by communism, he never officially joined the party.
Like other gifted people, Oppenheimer was plagued with insecurities and contradictions. The movie portrays these characteristics well, using visual effects to dramatize moments of Oppenheimer’s intellectual breakthroughs as well as emotional distresses.
Scientists initially viewed Oppenheimer as ill-suited to head Los Alamos. He lacked the organizational skills and experience for such a project.
However, Groves overcame his distaste for Oppenheimer’s politics and tapped him for the job. He recognized the charisma that Oppenheimer possessed and believed this was what he needed to get this job done.
And he was right. Oppenheimer turned into an effective administrator, keeping his colleagues focused on their work and helping to resolve problems as they cropped up.
But Oppenheimer’s charm was not unlimited. The film details the rocky relationships he had with his wife, Kitty (Emily Blunt); his mistress, Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh); U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.); and scientist Edward Teller (Benny Safdie).
Oppenheimer’s disagreements with Strauss and Teller are featured prominently in the movie, and for good reason. They led to the renowned scientist’s public downfall.
The film opens with Oppenheimer’s 1954 hearing before a panel assembled by the AEC. He became chairman of the General Advisory Committee to the AEC following the war, making him the leading scientific adviser to government officials on atomic issues. But the AEC suspended his security clearance, and members of the panel held a hearing to determine if it should be renewed or revoked permanently.
With Oppenheimer telling his story during the hearing, the movie flashed back to key moments in his life. It also interspersed scenes from Strauss’s 1959 hearing before a U.S. Senate committee to join President Dwight Eisenhower’s cabinet as secretary of commerce — which turned problematic for the nominee due to assertions that he rigged the system against Oppenheimer a few years earlier.
Oppenheimer opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb after World War II, a weapon that Teller strongly promoted. Oppenheimer’s resistance also irked Strauss, who decided to make an example of the beloved scientist.
Oppenheimer believed the atomic bomb would help end the war but advocated for international cooperation on nuclear matters once the conflict ended. Of course, he had misgivings about the atomic bomb — although he defended its use against Japan for the remainder of his life. But with its increased destructive power, the hydrogen bomb was not in any way a practical weapon for anyone to possess or consider using.
Under cross-examination during his 1954 hearing, Oppenheimer revealed why he supported creating the atomic bomb but not the hydrogen bomb. Asked by career prosecutor Roger Robb (Jason Clarke) what accounted for this distinction, Oppenheimer said: “[I]t became clear to me that we would use any weapon we had.”
The mark of an excellent film is the lasting impression it leaves on viewers about its central theme. After seeing Oppenheimer the first time, I had wrongly concluded that the title character said something about there being no line that the U.S. government wouldn’t cross when it came to using offensive weapons. It took a second viewing to correct my error.
However, this seemed to me to have been the movie’s purpose — to suggest that we wouldn’t place any limits on ourselves regarding the development and usage of such weapons. The film focuses our attention on the concerns that scientists had over the technology they were perfecting and the grim prospects this held for the world’s future.
Like all other biopics, Oppenheimer at times takes creative license with the truth. Scientists and historians have been busy over the past few weeks documenting what the film got right and what it got wrong.
One important point in need of clarification was the concern expressed over whether testing the bomb would set off an uncontrollable chain reaction and set the Earth’s atmosphere on fire. Teller first raises this issue in the movie, and representatives of Los Alamos calculated the probabilities of such a catastrophe.
Oppenheimer is told that the chances of that happening are “near zero” — these are the best odds they have. So while they’re reasonably sure they won’t destroy all life on the planet, some uncertainty remains.
As scientists prepare to detonate the first atomic bomb during the Trinity test in July 1945, physicist Enrico Fermi jokingly invites anyone to place a bet on whether the explosion will blow up the whole world. Groves asks Oppenheimer about this, and he tells Groves that the chances of this happening are “near zero.”
Just as this phrase worried Oppenheimer, it distresses Groves. But with the gadget all set to go off, there’s nothing anybody can do about it now. They’ll just have to hope for the best.
In reality, Teller had discussed his concern over this possibility during the Manhattan Project. However, the scientists who ran the calculations determined it simply wasn’t possible for this to occur.
The odds of this happening weren’t “near zero”; they were zero — full stop. By the time the Trinity test was held, no one harbored any worries about the atmosphere becoming ignited. While Fermi made a humorous quip about this just prior to the detonation, there’s no evidence that any conversation about it took place between Groves and Oppenheimer.
Nolan was moved by the notion that scientists were in effect playing with fire when they detonated the bomb during the Trinity test, so he dramatized this aspect of the story. He should have known that researchers had long before dismissed such a threat as non-existent.
Even at three hours, Oppenheimer is well worth viewing. It highlights the public career or one of our nation’s leading scientific minds in all its complexity. The casting is excellent, and the storytelling is superb.
The film once again forces us to reflect on the conflict between national security and global humanity. Debates over whether we were right to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki continue — but there’s no denying that one issue has long been settled.
The overwhelming fear at the heart of Oppenheimer is that an arms race with the Soviet Union as well as other countries would lurch out of control. Our ongoing reliance upon a weapon that could destroy all civilization on Earth is proof that this is exactly what occurred.