"OPPENHEIMER"

       

   

INTRODUCTION 

The much-awaited, “Oppenheimer” is an epic biographical drama film based on the life and work of the “father of the atomic bomb”, Julius Robert Oppenheimer, the American theoretical physicist, and his role in the Manhattan Project during World War II. Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, the film is intelligently yet poetically crafted. It left its audiences in awe when it was released on the 21st of July, 2023. Its big cast involves Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, Robert Downey Jr., Matt Damon, Rami Malek, and Gary Oldman. The film uncovers the controversial legacy of Oppenheimer, the intricacies of his creation, the moral complexities, and the remorse it left behind. Robert Oppenheimer’s pivotal role in the development of the atomic bomb during the world war was a crucial turning point in not only his life but also our history. Scientists were already fearful of the consequences of a nuclear weapon. It was Oppenheimer who paved the way for atomic wars with his creation. Although out of scientific curiosity, it led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. 

In this report, the psychological and social themes revolving around Oppenheimer are discovered and his role in the Manhattan Project is analyzed: group dynamics, groupthink, narratives of heroism and villainy, prejudice, moral dilemma, and cognitive dissonance. The analysis is significant, as it throws light on the current climate of the world and how the selfishness and naivety of our world leaders or decision-makers, can cause massive destruction in the world. Fortunately, the same weapon hasn’t been used by any other country since the Cold War, but we cannot underestimate the availability and possibility of it. The recent Russia-Ukraine war has warned us of how close we might be to a nuclear holocaust. 

source

CHARACTER STUDY 

Oppenheimer’s character is best described by the man who hired him for the project (Gen. Leslie Groves), as “a dilettante, a womanizer, a suspected communist, unstable, theatrical and romantic”. 

He was a curious figure and would spend many hours at the library reading, and attending classes more than it was necessary. He would shift from introversion to extraversion as the occasions demanded, though was mostly socially awkward growing up. People who knew him recalled him to be a person of sharp intelligence yet striking naivety at times, often making poor judgments and decisions and being prone to exaggeration. He was considered a prodigy, though grew up spoilt. As years went by, he developed an arrogant streak and many recalled him to have certain narcissistic tendencies. He also suffered frequently from bouts of depression and identity crisis. All of this was apparent in the unstable and erratic side of his behavior. One time, he tried to physically hurt a friend when he announced his engagement, only because Robert couldn’t digest the fact that things were going well for his friend. In 1926, he allegedly doused an apple with some illness-inducing chemicals and left it in the office of his tutor, Patrick Blackett, with whom he had a difficult relationship. 

Oppenheimer is arguably liberal, but not woke. He is not thoroughly aware of the outside world. He is a man of many contradictions. He fears the reverberations of an atomic bomb but agrees to lead the Manhattan Project. He rejected the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima but guided the generals on how to do it. He fears the loss of his relationships, but cannot faithfully commit to them. He mentioned the duality of the consequences of the nuclear weapon. He believed that if handled rightly, it could be a means to end all war. If not handled rightly, it could lead to the entire civilization going under. 

Oppenheimer’s emotional reaction to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was as if he had no knowledge of this occurrence and that the intention was not the same. But, he was leading the US government’s ultra-secret project for the development of an atom bomb and was intelligent enough to be aware of what they were doing. There were some very heavy questions about the bomb before the testing of it, which theory alone couldn’t simply answer. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer chose to put it to the test when the chances of it destroying the whole atmosphere were “near-zero”. At the detonation of the bomb, Oppenheimer was a hero and he certainly felt like one. The test was a success and his scientific brilliance was highly appreciated. Not long after he heard of the news about Hiroshima, he became powerless as he was no longer the only one in control of what he created.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

 “Oppenheimer” has been a spectacular cinematic experience for the audiences. The grand film was shot on IMAX's black-and-white photography film for the first time ever, combined with 65mm large-format film. Christopher Nolan shot the film in non-linear timelines. While the colored scenes were subjective and shot from Oppenheimer’s point of view, the black and white scenes were objective and from the point of view of his downfall at the hands of Red Scare politicians and jealous colleagues. The three-hour-long film is an attempt to encompass all the effective events of the time and the conflicted psyche of Oppenheimer in a way that keeps the audience entirely glued to the screen. 

Although Oppenheimer was rarely out of the frame, the film managed to put every character and their roles into light, as the project was a result of more than just one person’s contribution. The movie at various points is poetic and there are many symbolisms to site the unconscious of Oppenheimer. For instance, the victory speech scene was a perfect depiction of the many internal conflicts of J. Robert Oppenheimer and the weight of his guilt. There were scenes of flesh melting off of people’s skin, a burnt corpse on the floor, and a man puking his guts out.

“Oppenheimer” was a loud film. Its haunting background score is not only to make people anxious about what is to come but also to show a glimpse of Oppenheimer’s flawed and complex psychology. The film’s soundtrack rarely goes quiet, constantly building up apprehension and fear among the viewers. 

source

THE VARIOUS SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL THEMES 

Leadership and Authority 

Even though Oppenheimer had no big achievements before the Manhattan Project, he managed to show remarkable leadership skills, bridging gaps between scientists and different disciplines, while also handling egos and defusing conflicts. Despite the high-stress conditions and immense pressure, he maintained a persistent focus on the scientific community. He ensured the welfare of those working under his charge and even created a school for them. His role went beyond the scientific realm as he managed to navigate the political intricacies of the government program, while also grappling with the ethical implications of his work; implications that carried the heaviest of the burdens. There was also a need for him to manage the resources and materials for the nuclear fission reaction. 

Group dynamics and conformity 

The Manhattan Project was run by many scientists and engineers including Ernest Lawrence, Enrico Fermi, Isidor Rabi, Leo Szilard, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, and many more. These many scientists followed a certain set of procedures, methods, or values even though there might have been moral implications to it, such as the fear of the uncertainty of the consequence of the nuclear reaction that the bomb would cause. As Oppenheimer quotes himself, “A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent”. The concept of groupthink also comes into play as people being a part of the same community prioritize consensus and avoid counterarguments. This tendency leads to complications in ethical decision-making. 

Moral dilemma and cognitive dissonance 

The making of the atomic bomb presented profound moral dilemmas and ethical dilemmas for scientists. Even though it is said, that before the bombings of Hiroshima, scientists and engineers working on the project were not aware of its possible future intricacies, most people were aware of what they were doing. The concept of Cognitive Dissonance comes into play here, as because of the contradiction in people’s values and behavior, there remains a great level of mental discomfort. In the film, General Leslie Groves is shown to be questioning the chances of the bomb leading to the destruction of the whole world. To which, Oppenheimer says, near zero. 

Prejudice and discrimination 

As part of the film is set in New Mexico, there seems to be no representation of Mexican people or people of color. All members of the scientific community were white and male. 11% of the workforce of the Manhattan Project was women. Many were assigned administrative roles but half of them were scientists. There was a battle for acceptance among the women of Los Alamos. Furthermore, the two women shown in Oppenheimer’s life, Jean and Kitty were both quite competent and smart women on their own but their roles in the film are quite limited to them being Oppenheimer’s relationships.

Heroism and Villainy 

Scientists are often held on high moral grounds solely because of their above-average intelligence. They carry a certain understanding of the universe that other people don’t, which is why scientists are expected to have a responsibility to use their knowledge only for good and not evil. Both Oppenheimer and Einstein made contributions to the study of energy and the relations between atoms. And while Einstein received a Nobel Prize for his contributions to Physics, Oppenheimer was criticized for creating a world-altering weapon. This was because while Einstein chose to explore his theories and knowledge, Oppenheimer chose to explain his theories through the application of knowledge. It becomes important to understand that history is black and white. In the context of scientific innovation, Oppenheimer has been portrayed as a hero, but in a much larger context, because the concept of creating a nuclear weapon was so villainized, Oppenheimer has been viewed as a villain. 

PERSONAL REFLECTION AND CONCLUSION 

The subject matter of the film is complicated yet delicate. The makers of the film, as a result, hold the responsibility of telling the story with care. It is understandable that the film is made from the protagonist’s point of view and cannot possibly study every aspect of the film thoroughly in the span of three hours. However, the perspective of the film would have been affected if it had also talked about the trauma inflicted on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though the film did a good job of exploring Oppenheimer’s motivations, it could have further explored the literal danger of nuclear weapons by displaying the consequences faced by the Japanese people because of the bombings. 

The film’s ending was especially devastating to watch. It was impactful and managed the link both the subject and objective timelines. In the scene, Oppenheimer tells Einstein, “When I came to you with those calculations, we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world; I believe we did”. Just like anyone else in the audience, Einstein leaves the scene speechless with darkness on his face. They realize their self-centered pursuit that led to such a huge loss. The aftermath of the A-bomb could be very well experienced after the movie ends, which reminds us of the sheer possibilities of a nuclear war even today. The last scene of the film shows Oppenheimer’s late realization of the loss, at a point where there is no going back. Nobody can ever know what would’ve happened if the US chose not to drop those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This holds stark relevance in today’s world as it becomes a reminder for those who resort to war as the last option.

source

REFERENCES

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_(film)
  
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/movies/christopher-nolan-oppenheimer.html
  

***