Historically, tides of American freedom and then its reversal have flooded and ebbed with crashing force. Lives can be lifted or ruined. For me, this is the foundational story behind Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer.” Why it surfaces now is an apt cautionary tale.
Some see “Oppenheimer” as a character study of the man in charge of the Manhattan Project and the unleashing of the atom bomb – an ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Others see it as the history of the bomb itself, its inception, creation and aftermath.
Christopher Nolan, the director and writer inspired by the Pulitzer-winning book on Oppenheimer, says it’s the study of the man and his internal conflicts. He has stated, “I didn’t want to sit by him and judge him. That seemed a pointless exercise. That’s more the stuff of documentary, or political theory, or history of science. This is a story that you experience with him — you don’t judge him. You are faced with these irreconcilable ethical dilemmas with him.” (SYFY)
But from a most fundamental perspective, I see “Oppenheimer” as the ultimate vehicle to deeply think about and discuss freedom and democracy in America. Almost half of the film revolves around a post-bomb Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) hearing to determine whether Oppenheimer (played by Cillian Murphy) should be allowed to keep his security clearance. He becomes the victim of a vendetta and a misguided government obsessed with who thinks what.
Before I march into analogous current events, let me mention that I am dumbstruck that the AEC hearing in 1954 was concerned with Oppenheimer’s thoughts on communism when this touted American hero had just led a US-ordered, sponsored and embraced military project to build a weapons system that ended WWII that ominously, at the same time, had the capacity to destroy the world.
In the aftermath of the war, a wildly frantic fear of communism epitomized by a government-led red scare was orchestrated by U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy. Was this related to a repressed, subconscious guilt behind the US foray into building a weapon of mass destruction that was detonated not over a military target but a hospital in a densely populated city? And then, two days later, with Japanese in surrender talks and the world shaking in fear, was a second drop over Nagasaki designed to prove US supremacy?
And Lewis Strauss, remarkably portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. as the avenging AEC chairman who went after Oppenheimer’s integrity, wasn’t he a microcosmic vehicle of history serving in the film as a metaphor for the insidious drive for power no matter who/what it ruined?
When the US needed him, Oppenheimer was granted security clearance despite government knowledge of his prior attendance at Communist meetings. Later, perhaps trying to link him to Klaus Fuchs, the Los Alamos physicist and spy for the USSR who confessed in 1950 to giving crucial bomb information, he is interrogated about his thoughts (because there were no actions upon which to deny his security clearance).
And this brings me to current times and Harvard-educated US Representative from New York Elise Stefanek, who now famously asked three college presidents if a call for Jewish genocide would be considered harassment on their campuses. Each president, having been advised by their respective colleges and legal experts, responded that according to the Constitution, it would depend on the context. Constitutionally, if the calls turned into conduct there could then be an actionable response.
Soon, we heard that two of the college presidents were forced to resign by their respective university boards of trustees.
Jake Tapper, interviewing Harvard history professor Alison Frank Johnson, asked for her take on the situation. Johnson responded that “independent universities, independent from outside political influence, are one of the most critical elements of a thriving democracy. And so, for me, the danger here would be to lose our independent universities, to have a second kind of McCarthy-ite attack on universities under scholarship based on political motives of any kind” (CNN).
While Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, was vilified for her answer, she had also been under investigation for plagiarism of her doctoral thesis (which is reviewed by an advisory supervisor and academic committee before acceptance). Johnson explained that faculty plagiarism cases were referred to a committee for review and corrective procedures. In President Gay’s case, she was fired so there seemed to be separate agenda in place for her.
Perhaps there was a Strauss-like vendetta already underway for Dr. Gay as well as for liberal American universities. Like the elephant in the room in Oppenheimer’s case, the unspoken issue in Stefanek’s diversion was the ongoing genocide, paid for by US taxpayers, of a captive people in Gaza.
“Oppenheimer” gives us a lot to ponder and revisit. Hesiod’s Prometheus, the Titan god who gave fire to humankind, is invoked. But it is to be recalled that Prometheus did this out of care for humankind, whom myth attributes he created. He wanted them to be able to cook their food and be warm. His intention was good and his name means forethought or forethinker.
History, ethics and humankind are given nuanced space in Nolan’s masterpiece. Take from it what you will. For me it is a warning about how fragile our freedom and democracy are and how readily, no matter how high the status, an individual can be brought down.
Rating: 10/10
Credits
Director/Screenplay: Christopher Nolan – Based on the Pulitizer Prize-winning “American Prometheus” by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin
Producers: Emma Thomas, Charles Roven and Christopher Nolan
Cast: Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr., Josh Hartnett, Florence Pugh, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek and Kenneth Branagh
Cinematography: Hoyte van Hoytema
Editor: Jennifer Lame
Music: Ludwig Foransson
Release: July 21, 2023
Official Website and how to view: www.oppenheimermovie.com
. . .
Join us on Facebook at
http://www.facebook.com/itsjustmovies!