Oppenheimer: The Book vs. the Movie
Because I read American Prometheus: the triumph and tragedy of Oppenheimer before it received a film adaptation, I was unduly optimistic going into the movie, mostly because it was Christopher Nolan behind the wheel.
But now that I’ve watched it in theaters and stewed on it for a bit, my feelings are more in the gray.
Full disclosure, American Prometheus is one of my favorite books so I’m heavily biased already.
The thing about Oppenheimer is that he’s not a two dimensional character. When examined, past surface level, he’s morally conflicted, human like the rest of us. While the film tries to portray this, especially in his communist sympathies during his college years and late twenties, it’s muddled because Christopher Nolan introduces this aspect through Oppenheimer’s love affair with Jean Tatlock.
Side note, one of my major criticisms of the movie is that Jean Tatlock is a relatively small part of Oppenheimer's vast life. Yet she received almost as much screen time as his wife, Kitty, who was a much larger influence on Oppenheimer’s life. There was also a perverse amount of nudity involved with Jean Tatlock. Ironic that none of Oppenheimer's sexual life with his wife was filmed but all of his encounters with his mistress were. I think this was a choice Christopher Nolan made to appeal to a more mature audience. I’m not sure it worked.
I also recall that later in the movie, near the end, Oppenheimer’s second love affair is briefly mentioned in passing with no elaboration provided. This was more than disjoined because of the fallout on his marriage when Kitty found out about his first affair. Nolan portrayed it almost like Kitty was aware and accepting of his second affair where clearly that was not the case in the novel. In this respect, the film felt like something of a documentary or rather, treaded on the edge of what would be considered a documentary.
I honestly felt like I was watching season 1 of Dark sitting through the… three? Different timelines that take place. Look, I get it. The movie started off with Oppenheimer reading the testimony of his life in his 1954 security clearance which led to a flashback of his work on the Manhattan Project. Despite having read the book, what threw me off was when the far-future timeline of 1959 was thrown into the mix: the confirmation hearings of Lewis Strauss, the man who had discredited Oppenheimer in 1954. Worse, the far-future timeline was in black and white! To someone who hasn’t read American Prometheus beforehand, I don’t doubt the movie went a little like Back to the Future.
Most important of what was left out was Oppenheimer’s childhood, even his college years. This was where he formed some of the most meaningful relationships of his life including, notably, the physicist Niels Bohr who was his mentor, friend, and conscience. Funny enough, for someone so important in Oppenheimer’s life, he is only shown twice in the movie, once when he gives a lecture that Oppenheimer attends and twice when he lands at Los Alamos during the war for no apparent reason. But Bohr had a much larger influence on Oppenheimer’s life that is left out. During his college years, Bohr was Oppie’s revered teacher who recognized his brilliance. The two collaborated together on research and made great leaps in quantum mechanics. After Oppenheimer was recruited to the Manhattan project, and Bohr arrived there much later, Bohr became Oppie’s confidant and counselor. He warned his former student of the disastrous repercussions of an arms race with the Soviets. He urged that, just like British scientists were included in the Manhattan project, Soviet scientists be allowed to join. Barring that, he urged that the Soviets be allowed to witness the Trinity test first hand. Oppenheimer would later adopt many of Bohr’s views especially when he served on the AEC and elsewhere. Consider the significant role Bohr played in Oppie’s life and weigh that with that of Jean Tatlock. It’s clear which way Christopher Nolan should have gone.
The lack of mention of Oppenheimer's formative years, especially the lack of any mention of his parents, leads to little mention of Oppenheimer’s own children. When they are mentioned, it’s in passing. This goes back to what I was saying earlier. Oppenheimer is portrayed as a two dimensional character–solely focused on his duty to the country and martyred towards the end of the film. But he’s more than that, and a close examination of his family life will show that he was never too comfortable spending time with his kids. This goes to color in more of his life outside his career. Omitting this is similar to talking about Abraham Lincoln and the civil war without explaining how his upbringing led him there.
Oppenheimer’s 1954 security hearing is worth talking about as well because in the movie, it’s barely given the light of day whereas in the book, the hearing is nearly as long as the time spent delving into the Manhattan project. The more I think about it, the more the movie feels like a loosely tied together string of events that resembles but does not represent Oppenheimer’s life
A major emphasis in the movie is Oppenheimer’s political views, namely the borderline communist ones. But this is a misrepresentation of his overall views. While he initially opposed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at one point, Oppenheimer leaned into the military industrial complex. He actually supported president Truman despite his decision not to take Oppenheimer’s advice. To that end, Oppenheimer was like a lone willow all alone. He leaned whichever way the wind blew the strongest. This is why his formative years were so important. One example was Harvard’s admissions policy limiting the number of Jewish students that could be accepted when Oppenheimer was a student there. As a result, he naturally leaned liberal, against this policy. Another important fact ignored by the movie is that Oppenheimer came from wealth. He did not want for much in his childhood which contributed heavily to his early political leanings. In his later years, due to the strong McCarthy era push, Oppie leaned more conservative, hoping to preserve his political status amongst the Washington elite. All this to say that he wasn’t the black-and-white martyr that the movie makes him out to be, he was a ten-dimensional man that cannot be understood in a three-hour film.
This leads me to my last point. Other than the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss, nothing of Oppenheimer's life after his own 1954 trial is revealed. This is especially important because it goes to show the effects of his great tragedy. Before he died of lung cancer, the Oppenheimer’s went into self-exile in the Virgin Islands where Robert spent the rest of his life. Following his public humiliation, his son’s promising physics career fell apart, and following his death, his daughter took her own life. This is where the great tragedy of his life unveils itself.
To give credit where it is due however, the animations and filming are excellent. Christopher Nolan put out all the stops to make this one of the best filmed movies out there. I also understand that explaining the complexity of Oppenheimer’s life to a layman audience is a little unreasonable to expect. The truth is that the curse of reading the book and having the film adaptation pale in comparison wasn’t broken by Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer. And likely, it never will.
Out of 10, Oppenheimer is a 7.5
