Posted on 07/22/2023 8:42:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[Groves chose Oppenheimer because he needed a scientist to be the scientific director, because the science team wouldn’t accept an Army General, as their director. Oppenheimer was chosen because he was amenable to following Grove’s dictates as long as Germany and Hitler were the target. Groves was aware of Oppenheimer’s security problems but felt he could control his movement and actions with Army security personnel. When Germany was defeated before the bombs were ready, Oppenheimer led a group of scientists that petitioned Groves to do a demonstration test somewhere in the Pacific and invite Japanese observers to watch. Groves about lost it, no way he was going to breach security and inform the Japanese about the atomic bomb.
Oppenheimer’s star started to fade at that point, although the public regarded him as a hero for ending the war. It all came to a head when the Soviets developed their own bomb and Teller pushed for an H-bomb as a counter. Oppenheimer actively opposed the H-bomb and his fate was sealed.]
There is lot more to that story and it was brought out in the film
There was absolutely no evidence Oppenheimer was a spy or ever worked for the Soviets, the files in the KGB pretty much proved that. The spy in the midst at Los Alamos was Klaus Fuchs the British scientist who came over to work on the project.
Now who would have been at fault there for that disaster, that would be the Security people and General Groves.
I saw Oppenheimer last night and it was an outstanding movie.
Best drama I have seen in a very long time, even though it was long it moved very well. I am reading the book this film is based on, just started it and it is 1143 pages long but reads very well.
They got this film historically accurate with no revisionist history or political correctness in it.
The story of developing the A Bomb was fascinating to watch, the critical moment came when they tested the bomb and the sight of what they had created caused a number to question whether they should have even done what they did, but they were pushed by the thought that Germany would develop a bomb before they did.
A lot ethical and moral soul searching ensued including for Oppenheimer. So I would highly recommend this film to see.
This is a thinking person’s film and I hazard to guess many in the audience probably could not really understand what they were watching and taking in the deep concerns and problems that many of the scientists had during that era.
While Oppenheimer was a brilliant man and scientist he was also somewhat naive about a number of things and clung to an Idealism that was not very realistic.
Basically many in his circle of friends and fellow scientists tended to be Leftists and were not cognizant of the realties of Communism and the Soviet Union or the horrors that Stalin inflicted upon his own people.
But I could empathize with Oppenheimer and these scientists in trying to reconcile what they had created. Seeing something like they saw would give anyone a great deal of pause for thought to what had been unleashed.
ping
I think Sam Waterson in the 1990s TV series did a better job portraying Oppenheimer. I found the long cinematic pauses for Oppenheimer introspection annoying. Mat Damon did an excellent job portraying Groves. The other movies on Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project also have strong and weak points. Fatman and Little Boy is the only one who showed how dangerous the work was with its composite portrayal of the “Tickling the Dragon’s Tail” incident.
That movie was more about the project then Oppenheimer as was Day One.
My overall assessment of Oppenheimer was good but for me the psychological angst parts over and over was irritating. However that’s my tastes in movies others may see it differently.
I am early in the book American Prometheus, the story of Oppenheimer. So far the movie follow the book fairly well. Oppenheimer was a flawed character of somewhat a lot of that probably due to his early life and the atmosphere in school that he was exposed to. He came from a very wealthy Jewish family and went to a rather progressive school in New York, which probably led to his interest in many leftist causes. Most of these academics and theoretical physicist lived in a fairly insular world of academia. None of these people were ever truly exposed to the horrors and realities of what they thought they believed in.
I need to read that book!
It should be nominated for best picture.
Technically and historically very accurate.
Only a couple flaws.
Biggest was they ignored the 15 people who were actively spying.
Still an amazing film.
As I suspected, Jean was portrayed as a crazy woman and NOT the spy she clearly was.
Nudity was totally unnecessary.
If you can, see it in 70mm iMax.
I really liked the part where Lawerence warns Oppy NOT to be political.
If he had just took that advice, history would have been different.
They show it in the movie. I just watched it. Thought it was incredible.
It’s going to win a ton of awards.
One tidbit that the movie mentioned was Oppenheimer’s paper on Black holes. The original idea dates all the way back to when the speed of light was determined. Germany invaded Poland at the time the paper came out so this paper was essentially forgotten.
Op Ed by Barton Bernstein, a Professor of History at Stanford
Opinion: Nolan’s ‘Oppenheimer’ marred by 5 historical inaccuracies
The first 15 minutes with Edward Teller are revealing...
Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Better a Shield than a Sword, 1987
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erHZBDn0v2M
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.