I came to look at this television documentary shortly after seeing Christopher Nolan's OPPENHEIMER (2023). The principal difference in the story is that in Nolan's movie, he tries to mislead the security forces about his sources concerning Russian spying at Alamogordo, and is later surprised to discover that it centered around Haakon Chevalier; in the documentary, he is the source for suspicions about the man.
It's not enough to change the story about Oppenheimer, but with the same set of facts, one can construct many stories. Nolan's movie is much more about Oppenheimer's personal life, and begins much earlier. This offers a viewpoint of his activities after the war, to control and limit the damage caused by his work. Each takes advantage of considerable hindsight to reach very different conclusions, both of which seem impeccable given the facts chosen by each. Based on having seen both within a short period of time, I can only conclude that they are both brilliantly done, and both badly lacking in completeness.
It's not enough to change the story about Oppenheimer, but with the same set of facts, one can construct many stories. Nolan's movie is much more about Oppenheimer's personal life, and begins much earlier. This offers a viewpoint of his activities after the war, to control and limit the damage caused by his work. Each takes advantage of considerable hindsight to reach very different conclusions, both of which seem impeccable given the facts chosen by each. Based on having seen both within a short period of time, I can only conclude that they are both brilliantly done, and both badly lacking in completeness.