Like last week’s viewing of Lincoln, we view Oppenheimer knowing that this story could have been told (in fact, has already been told!) in many different ways. While others have critiqued what screenwriter and director Christopher Nolan included and excluded, we each as active viewers can also answer this question for ourselves: what do I think after watching this movie?
Anyway, hello, welcome, and thank you for stopping by. For new visitors, here’s what this situation is all about:
With Savor the View, we’ll watch, think, and talk about movies and the things that matter. A special welcome and thanks to our regular crew!
Each Monday, I share brief, spoiler-free remarks and questions to frame viewing a movie on our own.
Each Thursday, I share post-viewing questions to poke at the issues, ideas, quandaries, inspirations...whatever...that movie might have summoned (spoilers, ahoy!).
Paid subscribers can talk it all out in a weekly Discussion Thread.
General thoughts?
The universal/general
Just think about the apple. At the beginning of the movie, there’s a bit about an apple. Certainly, this episode says something about Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy). But, also, apples, as Western cultural traditions would have us believe, are the forbidden fruit. Plus, Oppenheimer uses the term “wormhole” to describe it, taking us in a very different direction. Exactly how much work is this one apple doing for this movie?
Should there be any limits between what can be theorized and what can be put into practice? If so, what are they – how do you know (to paraphrase the film) when not to lift the stone where a snake lies in wait?
The specific/unique
What are the competing concerns suggested in this film – for Oppenheimer, for other scientists, for the U.S. military, for U.S. civilian leaders, and for the American people?
Did Oppenheimer strike you as naïve in any way? If so, why would this matter?
President Truman (Gary Oldman) was known to have a sign on his desk that read, “The buck stops here.” In other words, final responsibility rests with him. And, I would add, accountability comes to presidents when they must answer to the voters they represent, who get to say who does or does not get elected to office. Physicists like Oppenheimer, no matter their role in consequential events, face no such clear and direct accountability to the people affected or invoked by their choices. The buck stops with Truman; his choices subject him to the judgment of those who can hold him accountable. Which is my elaborately long way of saying…what do you make of the exchange between Truman and Oppenheimer?
The viewer is always present
What do you make of the ethical quandaries raised in this film? If you were to have an objective that was critical to achieve, what do you understand to be your limits on achieving that objective? That is, when do the ends justify the means, and when do they not?
Also, just a very pragmatic side-note: remember how Oppenheimer consults Albert Einstein (Tom Conti) on a question precisely because he knows they don’t agree on anything? Smart move.
Worthwhile Reads
https://www.vulture.com/article/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-cillian-murphy-behind-the-scenes.html
Next Week’s Movie?
For April – the month of “History and Its Alternatives” – Vice (2018)
Why subscribe?
Paid subscribers can gather round their screens and share their thoughts on each week's Discussion Thread and get full access to the publication archives.
Subscribe any which way to get full access to the newsletter.