Oppenheimer

[Alien826]

My SO is recovering from knee replacement surgery, so there's no way she can sit through a three hour movie, even given the reclining seats in our local cinema.

I'm a little odd in that I don't have to rush to see the latest thing, so I'm perfectly happy to wait for it to come out on TV. I will see it then.

Barbie? I've been wondering how much they would have to pay me to see it. Pink, pink, pink!!! Ugh!

 

[Nimos]

My SO is recovering from knee replacement surgery, so there's no way she can sit through a three hour movie, even given the reclining seats in our local cinema.

I'm a little odd in that I don't have to rush to see the latest thing, so I'm perfectly happy to wait for it to come out on TV. I will see it then.

Barbie? I've been wondering how much they would have to pay me to see it. Pink, pink, pink!!! Ugh!

I don't really think it's a movie that requires you to see it in the cinema to get the most out of given that most of the visuals are not really something that requires a big screen and even the sound can be slightly annoying at times I think.

 

[Revoltingest]

I watched it today and found it to be magnificent despite some shortcomings, mainly its length and slightly disjointed pacing. I love how it depicts the US' blind, bellicose pursuit of hegemony, its undiscerningly ardent and fearmongering anti-communist and anti-socialist hyperbole, and its willingness to toss aside all morals and principles in pursuit of its foreign policy. I especially appreciate how timely it is now that the US is trying to pose as a benevolent protector of freedom using recent crises while engaging in a second Cold War.

Not a movie to be used as a source of historical education by any means, but I think it's excellent for what it is.

The way you describe it, it sounds like
anti-Ameristanian propaganda.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The way you describe it, it sounds like
anti-Ameristanian propaganda.

Some have also accused it of being pro-American propaganda. I don't think Christopher Nolan could have satisfied everyone no matter how he presented the movie.

The best way to form your own judgment about it is to watch it. I found it refreshing for not being simplistic or trying to push an "America good, communist bad" narrative. In my opinion, most of it is nuanced and treats the viewers as intelligent people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some have also accused it of being pro-American propaganda.

I addressed only your description of the movie.
It painted that picture with the disclaimer of
not being historically reliable.
I don't judge the movie itself.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I addressed only your description of the movie.
It painted that picture, but with the disclaimer
that it's not historically reliable.

It has multiple historical inaccuracies, yes, but it also gets a lot of things right.

A reasonably accurate depiction of McCarthyism would, in my opinion, lead to the description I gave, so I don't think a movie has to be anti-American to match that description.

 

[Revoltingest]

It has multiple historical inaccuracies, yes, but it also gets a lot of things right.

A reasonably accurate depiction of McCarthyism would, in my opinion, lead to the description I gave, so I don't think a movie has to be anti-American to match that description.

I don't dispute that existence of some accuracies,
nor the problem of McCarthyism. I addressed
your description, glee that it painted such a
negative picture, & then dissing historical
accuracy. That is all.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't dispute that existence of some accuracies,
nor the problem of McCarthyism. I addressed
your description, glee that it painted such a
negative picture, & then dissing historical
accuracy. That is all.

My intent wasn't to diss anything; I was just acknowledging that the movie had some inaccuracies.

Anyway, if you watch it, I'll be interested to know what you think. I'm curious how different people may perceive its plot.

 

[Revoltingest]

My intent wasn't to diss anything;

I dint post about your intent.
Just how the post appeared.

 

[Vinayaka]

So I actually know a person who worked with Oppenheimer, fascinating lady, fascinating story.

Losing Track and Finding Traces of the Institute’s Lesser-Known Histories

The Institute for Advanced Study welcomed its first class of Members (then known as “Workers”) in 1933. In the 90 years since, the Institute has welcomed over 8,000 Members comprising scholars from nearly every part of the globe. For many of these scholars, the Shelby White and Leon Levy...

www.ias.edu

 

[RestlessSoul]

Saw it last night. As always with Christopher Nolan, I was drawn in and pulled along by the narrative.

Some superb acting performances - for my money Gary Oldman stole the show with his cameo as Harry Truman. Not too sure about casting Tom Conti as Einstein, but who’d want that gig anyway tbh? I don’t know enough about Oppenheimer the man to be able to judge the accuracy of the portrayal, but Cillian Murphy was riveting as an ambiguous, morally conflicted character swept along by the tide of history he helped to make, but could never control.

Would definitely recommend - pick a cinema with comfy seats and three hours won’t seem long. Though as always with the movies, this is entertainment not education.

 

[Jedster]

A good documentary on BBC Iplayer

BBC Four - Storyville, The Trials of Oppenheimer

Profile of Robert Oppenheimer, controversial father of the atomic bomb.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Yerda]

Cillian Murphy was riveting...

I've never seen him do a bad job.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I saw it a few weeks ago in IMAX. I enjoyed it and thought the acting was wonderful, as well as the cinematography. Murphy and Blunt deserve Oscar nods, at least. It's one of Nolan's better films. I've never really been a fan of his (I find him overrated) but he has made a few good ones and this is one of them.

 

[exchemist]

Saw it last night. As always with Christopher Nolan, I was drawn in and pulled along by the narrative.

Some superb acting performances - for my money Gary Oldman stole the show with his cameo as Harry Truman. Not too sure about casting Tom Conti as Einstein, but who’d want that gig anyway tbh? I don’t know enough about Oppenheimer the man to be able to judge the accuracy of the portrayal, but Cillian Murphy was riveting as an ambiguous, morally conflicted character swept along by the tide of history he helped to make, but could never control.

Would definitely recommend - pick a cinema with comfy seats and three hours won’t seem long. Though as always with the movies, this is entertainment not education.

I saw it yesterday. Very interesting. I found myself name-checking all the scientists* (the actor they got to do Edward Teller is a dead ringer for the real man). I didn't know Hans Bethe worked on the project. I have found myself looking up the various characters and the actual history. But I have the slight feeling that this is partly because Nolan intercuts so many different scenes from different times that one is bamboozled by the sequencing and needs to read the history afterwards to sort it all out.

The chief new thing I learned was that this character Lewis Strauss seems to have methodically set about wrecking Oppenheimer's career after the war. Oppenheimer seems to have made enemies of Strauss, and to some extent Teller, and they got their revenge on him later.

It's all about men: the women have hardly any presence in the film. By the way, the sex stuff seemed entirely gratuitous. I found myself thinking why should poor Florence Pugh have to get her kit off, to no narrative purpose. But I suppose the relative absence of female characters is a reflection of the story.

I did find the constant hammering of the background music a bit annoying. And I would have liked more on Oppenheimer's time at Cambridge with Blackett and at Göttingen with Max Born. But it was a thought-provoking film, nonetheless.

One final thought: so many of them had Jewish ancestry. This must have been a great motivator for them. One also has to wonder what a spur to American pre-eminence (scientific and cultural) the exodus of Jews from Europe, as a result of Hitler, must have been.


* In those days these guys could range across different fields. I recall from chemistry the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and the Jahn-Teller theorem, neither of which is nuclear physics.

P.S. Nothing in the film on the British contribution to the Manhattan project. I suppose it might have been a distraction, but in fact Britain was ahead of the US on the science at the start. It was the British** who first calculated that a quantity (critical mass) of the order of kilograms of uranium 235 would explode. Churchill decided that as Britain did not have the resources to make a bomb, the science should be freely shared with the Americans - under the code name Tube Alloys.


** In fact 2 Jewish (again!!) emigrés who had taken British citizenship, Rudolf Peierls and Otto Robert Frisch.

 

[YmirGF]

I saw it yesterday. Very interesting. I found myself name-checking all the scientists* (the actor they got to do Edward Teller is a dead ringer for the real man)

This leapt out at me, as Teller is quite a character in his own right. I'm intrigued. On this alone, I'll check it out.

Agree on the bit at university with Max Born, another fascinating genius.

Great review. Thanks.

 

[Rival]

I saw it yesterday. Very interesting. I found myself name-checking all the scientists* (the actor they got to do Edward Teller is a dead ringer for the real man). I didn't know Hans Bethe worked on the project. I have found myself looking up the various characters and the actual history. But I have the slight feeling that this is partly because Nolan intercuts so many different scenes from different times that one is bamboozled by the sequencing and needs to read the history afterwards to sort it all out.

The chief new thing I learned was that this character Lewis Strauss seems to have methodically set about wrecking Oppenheimer's career after the war. Oppenheimer seems to have made enemies of Strauss, and to some extent Teller, and they got their revenge on him later.

It's all about men: the women have hardly any presence in the film. By the way, the sex stuff seemed entirely gratuitous. I found myself thinking why should poor Florence Pugh have to get her kit off, to no narrative purpose. But I suppose the relative absence of female characters is a reflection of the story.

I did find the constant hammering of the background music a bit annoying. And I would have liked more on Oppenheimer's time at Cambridge with Blackett and at Göttingen with Max Born. But it was a thought-provoking film, nonetheless.

One final thought: so many of them had Jewish ancestry. This must have been a great motivator for them. One also has to wonder what a spur to American pre-eminence (scientific and cultural) the exodus of Jews from Europe, as a result of Hitler, must have been.


* In those days these guys could range across different fields. I recall from chemistry the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and the Jahn-Teller theorem, neither of which is nuclear physics.

P.S. Nothing in the film on the British contribution to the Manhattan project. I suppose it might have been a distraction, but in fact Britain was ahead of the US on the science at the start. It was the British** who first calculated that a quantity (critical mass) of the order of kilograms of uranium 235 would explode. Churchill decided that as Britain did not have the resources to make a bomb, the science should be freely shared with the Americans - under the code name Tube Alloys.


** In fact 2 Jewish (again!!) emigrés who had taken British citizenship, Rudolf Peierls and Otto Robert Frisch.

I didn't like the idea of sex scenes at first, then it became worse with adultery, so I'd rather watch the censored Arab version.

Barbie is completely off the list.

The Whale looks good.

 

[Glaurung]

I enjoyed the film. It was the first movie in a long time to have gotten me to go to the cinemas. The sex scenes were gratuitous, but they didn't kill the overall experience for me.

 

[exchemist]

I enjoyed the film. It was the first movie in a long time to have gotten me to go to the cinemas. The sex scenes were gratuitous, but they didn't kill the overall experience for me.

Agreed - it was just a slighly jarring - and as always slightly embarrassing - moment to be confronted with bonking and tits for no good reason, in the midst of a serious film. I honestly don't know why directors feel they have to do it. I'm sure that most in the audience don't really like it much and it can't be fun for the actors and especially perhaps the actresses.

But overall it was thought-provoking which I suppose is the sign of a good film. I've been looking up Blackett. Seems he got the Nobel Prize for some very clever experimental physics involving cloud chambers to track subatomic particles. So he was an experimentalist rather than a theoretician, whereas Oppenheimer wanted to learnt the theory of the new quantum mechanics. Blackett seems to have been very demanding as a supervisor, too, so it's not surprising they didn't get on. Blackett's politics were very left wing, though he seems to have been a socialist and not a communist. In the circumstances, though, I doubt he would have influenced Oppenheimer's politics.

Another interesting point in the film was that quantum mechanics was an entirely European achievement. I'd never really thought about that, but indeed the big names: Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, de Broglie, Born, Wigner, Pauli.......are all European and mostly German-speaking. (They gave Bohr the wrong accent in the film, though: he was a Dane). Oppenheimer was thus the evangelist who brought QM to the US.

In a way, the film is the story of the US catching up and then overtaking Europe in physics - largely thanks to one A Hitler!

 

[RestlessSoul]

Agreed - it was just a slighly jarring - and as always slightly embarrassing - moment to be confronted with bonking and tits for no good reason, in the midst of a serious film. I honestly don't know why directors feel they have to do it. I'm sure that most in the audience don't really like it much and it can't be fun for the actors and especially perhaps the actresses.

But overall it was thought-provoking which I suppose is the sign of a good film. I've been looking up Blackett. Seems he got the Nobel Prize for some very clever experimental physics involving cloud chambers to track subatomic particles. So he was an experimentalist rather than a theoretician, whereas Oppenheimer wanted to learnt the theory of the new quantum mechanics. Blackett seems to have been very demanding as a supervisor, too, so it's not surprising they didn't get on. Blackett's politics were very left wing, though he seems to have been a socialist and not a communist. In the circumstances, though, I doubt he would have influenced Oppenheimer's politics.

Another interesting point in the film was that quantum mechanics was an entirely European achievement. I'd never really thought about that, but indeed the big names: Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, de Broglie, Born, Wigner, Pauli.......are all European and mostly German-speaking. (They gave Bohr the wrong accent in the film, though: he was a Dane). Oppenheimer was thus the evangelist who brought QM to the US.

In a way, the film is the story of the US catching up and then overtaking Europe in physics - largely thanks to one A Hitler!

There’s one moment in the film where Oppenheimer says (can’t remember to who) that anti-Semitism could be America’s trump card in the race for the bomb - Hitler having referred to quantum physics as “Jewish science”. It’s just a brief moment in the movie, by it’s interesting to think that in debarring any Jew from holding a professorship in a German university, the Nazis cost Berlin (and later, Vienna) a place at the forefront of theoretical physics, arguably setting them back a decade.

In 1933, Hitler apparently ranted at Max Planck that “If the dismissal of Jewish scientists means the annihilation of contemporary German science, then we shall do without science for a few years!” *
There’s a dark irony there, maybe even a touch of Karma (which Oppenheimer would surely have recognised).

* Adam Becker, Copenhagen in Manhattan. (What is Real?)