I found the movie difficult to follow at first. I've seen "Fat Man and Little Boy" and "In The Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" so I knew pretty much the parameters of the story.
"Fat Man and Little Boy" (with Paul Newman as General Leslie Groves) is a fairly straightforward narration of the development of the atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert. "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" a 1968 stage play by Heinar Kipphardt about the security clearance taken away from J. Robert Oppenheimer, for his sympathies for the Communist Party, by Lewis Straus; I believe it became a PBS production. So, I had a fairly good background in the story. I thought to myself, as the movie unfolded with numerous flashbacks, how confusing this film would be without that background information and how easily lost the audience could be.
What is the subject matter of the movie is a more challenging question: is it simply about the development of a destructive bomb or is it about the moral implications of scientists developing a bomb, and their regret for being involved in development of weapons of mass destruction?
The movie starts out with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." And Oppenheimer quotes the line with the first explosion of the atomic bomb, July 16, 1945. But there is a refrain from the get-go of the film of scientists creating such a destructive weapon. And the response that quiets the argument, "If Hitler had such a weapon, he would not hesitate to use it." And there is something disquieting about a background chant that to me sounded like jackboots of marching Nazis, as if to reinforce the question. Jackboots of any totalitarian state. (And what seemed unthinkable in 1945, now in 2023 so many nations own nuclear weapons, that any flash incident can end in nuclear holocaust. And North Korea insists on developing nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of destroying America.)
Peace comes to Europe in May before the Atom Bomb is finalized, but war continues in Japan. Truman orders the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring a final and forceful end to what could be a projected battle to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Oppenheimer goes to Truman to bemoan the loss of life, that he feels personally responsible for; Truman is less than thrilled and never wants to see the "crybaby" (his words) Oppenheimer ever again.
Subsequent to the war, Lewis Straus, who in reality was indeed a very vindictive, mean spirited, petty person, wants Oppenheimer's security clearance taken away for his sympathies with the American Communist Party, of which his brother Frank is also an active member.
I saw the movie at San Francesco Balboa Theatre (35mm print) and they allowed for two breaks at the hour and 2-hour point of the three-hour movie. (I wouldn't detect the difference between IMax & 35 mm, ...)
It is not so terribly confusing a movie, it soon follows a straightforward narrative, but it is something of a challenge to follow.
"Fat Man and Little Boy" (with Paul Newman as General Leslie Groves) is a fairly straightforward narration of the development of the atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert. "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" a 1968 stage play by Heinar Kipphardt about the security clearance taken away from J. Robert Oppenheimer, for his sympathies for the Communist Party, by Lewis Straus; I believe it became a PBS production. So, I had a fairly good background in the story. I thought to myself, as the movie unfolded with numerous flashbacks, how confusing this film would be without that background information and how easily lost the audience could be.
What is the subject matter of the movie is a more challenging question: is it simply about the development of a destructive bomb or is it about the moral implications of scientists developing a bomb, and their regret for being involved in development of weapons of mass destruction?
The movie starts out with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." And Oppenheimer quotes the line with the first explosion of the atomic bomb, July 16, 1945. But there is a refrain from the get-go of the film of scientists creating such a destructive weapon. And the response that quiets the argument, "If Hitler had such a weapon, he would not hesitate to use it." And there is something disquieting about a background chant that to me sounded like jackboots of marching Nazis, as if to reinforce the question. Jackboots of any totalitarian state. (And what seemed unthinkable in 1945, now in 2023 so many nations own nuclear weapons, that any flash incident can end in nuclear holocaust. And North Korea insists on developing nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of destroying America.)
Peace comes to Europe in May before the Atom Bomb is finalized, but war continues in Japan. Truman orders the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring a final and forceful end to what could be a projected battle to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Oppenheimer goes to Truman to bemoan the loss of life, that he feels personally responsible for; Truman is less than thrilled and never wants to see the "crybaby" (his words) Oppenheimer ever again.
Subsequent to the war, Lewis Straus, who in reality was indeed a very vindictive, mean spirited, petty person, wants Oppenheimer's security clearance taken away for his sympathies with the American Communist Party, of which his brother Frank is also an active member.
I saw the movie at San Francesco Balboa Theatre (35mm print) and they allowed for two breaks at the hour and 2-hour point of the three-hour movie. (I wouldn't detect the difference between IMax & 35 mm, ...)
It is not so terribly confusing a movie, it soon follows a straightforward narrative, but it is something of a challenge to follow.
Tell Your Friends