OPPENHEIMER Explained: The Biggest Questions Answered
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- The biggest questions of Oppenheimer explained. The Oppenheimer ending and full movie has left fans and viewers with many questions. Why did Lewis Strauss punish Oppenheimer, Jean Tatlock's death, Ernest Lawrence not testifying and Oppenheimer not fighting back are just some of the elements that need further discussion. In this breakdown of Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer, I've explained all of the biggest questions and things you missed. There are heavy spoilers in this video.
Oppenheimer is an upcoming American biographical film written and directed by Christopher Nolan. It is based on American Prometheus, a biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer written by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. The film is a co-production between Syncopy Inc. and Atlas Entertainment; Nolan produced the film alongside Emma Thomas and Charles Roven. Cillian Murphy leads an ensemble cast as Oppenheimer, the theoretical physicist who is among those credited with being the "father of the atomic bomb" for his role in the Manhattan Project-the World War II undertaking that developed the first nuclear weapons. The film stars Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, Robert Downey Jr., Matt Damon, Rami Malek, Benny Safdie, Josh Hartnett, Dane DeHaan, Jack Quaid, Matthew Modine, Dylan Arnold, David Krumholtz, Alden Ehrenreich, David Dastmalchian, Olli Haaskivi, Jason Clarke, James D’Arcy, Michael Angarano, Guy Burnet, Danny Deferrari, Matthias Schweighöfer, Gary Oldman, Harrison Gilbertson, Emma Dumont, Devon Bostick, Trond Fausa, Christopher Denham, Josh Zuckerman, Josh Peck and Olivia Thirlby.
#Oppenheimer #OppenheimerMovie #ChristopherNolan
OPPENHEIMER Ending Explained (Full Movie Breakdown):
• OPPENHEIMER Ending Exp...
Why OPPENHEIMER Is A Masterpiece:
• Why OPPENHEIMER Is A M...
OPPENHEIMER Review - The Best Movie Of The Year (So Far):
• OPPENHEIMER Review - T...
OPPENHEIMER Reviews Call It A MASTERPIECE!:
• OPPENHEIMER Reviews Ca...
OPPENHEIMER - Christopher Nolan Interview, First Reactions & Ending Details:
• OPPENHEIMER - Christop...
OPPENHEIMER Will Change Movies Forever:
bit.ly/3Z4aC2z
Why OPPENHEIMER Will Be Christopher Nolan's Best Movie:
• Why OPPENHEIMER Will B...
OPPENHEIMER - The Right Movie At The Right Time:
• OPPENHEIMER - The Righ...
OPPENHEIMER - Creating The Nuke Scene:
• OPPENHEIMER - Christop...
OPPENHEIMER - Creating The Trial Scenes:
• OPPENHEIMER - Creating...
OPPENHEIMER New Trailer Breakdown & Review:
bit.ly/3HYuezo
OPPENHEIMER Trailer Breakdown & Review:
bit.ly/3CpBwJB
OPPENHEIMER Teaser Trailer Breakdown & Review:
bit.ly/3Yh8B3U
Christopher Nolan's OPPENHEIMER - Why It Can Be The Perfect Nolan Movie:
bit.ly/3nmakn5
Christopher Nolan's OPPENHEIMER - The Full Cast Explained:
bit.ly/3wh1r2a
Christopher Nolan's OPPENHEIMER - The Real Story Of His New Movie:
bit.ly/3MipqV9
OPPENHEIMER | The World Forever Changes:
• OPPENHEIMER | The Worl...
OPPENHEIMER - Teaser Trailer:
bit.ly/3ePZ95i
OPPENHEIMER - Official Trailer:
bit.ly/3v3U26m
OPPENHEIMER - New Trailer:
bit.ly/3NIytTj
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
1:30 Lewis Strauss Motivation Explained
4:11 Did Ernest Lawrence Testify Against Oppenheimer?
6:47 Why Did David Hill Stand Up For Oppenheimer?
8:19 Why Didn't Oppenheimer Fight Back?
10:34 The Timeline Of The Trials Explained
15:50 Jean Tatlock Death Explained
Follow Cortex on Social Media:
/ cortexvideos
/ cortexvideos
/ cortexvideos
/ cortexvideos
OPPENHEIMER Explained: The Biggest Questions Answered - บันเทิง
![MOBYE - มีใจทำไมไม่จีบ (ASAP) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dCOdz92FU18/mqdefault.jpg)
Here's my breakdown discussing the biggest questions from Oppenheimer. I discuss things that I missed out of my breakdown the other day. Here's a link to that video: th-cam.com/video/QyNqsDfRn-w/w-d-xo.html
Strong work, my friend.
Right it be really cool if we stopped trying to provoke everyone into war
The last minute of this movie shook me. Because its the truth
it’s really terrifying and i believe nobody will truly understand it nor believe it
What was it?? Please tell me?
@@jamesbrown6020 they said that the nuke could start a chain reaction and ignite the atmosphere. And in the end Oppenheimer said in a way it already has because the invention of the a bomb changed the world. And it showed some scary scenes of what a nuclear war would look like and how quickly it could destroy the world
Yeah, man. I had to stay back at the theater for 5 more minutes, it froze me so bad. What a way to close!
@@herty2299 what a film to watch but also what a film to tell the rest of us that the world is currently on fire. we need to be motivated
That movie was so multi dimensional i felt like i was trying to keep up with the progression of it. This helps a lot clarify my understanding of it. Its a very dense movie that throws you right into the conflict. It’s fast paced even for 3 hours.
It’s even better the second time . Everything makes more sense which makes it even more dramatic and interesting
@@maxrobertson6361 Facts
If there's any issue I had with the film it was the character of David Hill, I feel like he needed a complete scene not just the clipboard incident, as a viewer it felt to me like his whistleblowing confession came out of nowhere. I think that if there was a prior scene with him and Oppenheimer interacting where we learn about Hill's morality or motivations then the hearing scene where he confesses would have been more impactful, especially with an actor like Rami Malek. Maybe Nolan has a director's cut under his sleeve just like Oliver Stone did with JFK.
I somewhat agree, that's the only part I didn't understand, although it is still historically accurate. I think the reason Nolan did it the way he did is so you have that reveal that Hill is actually in support of Oppenheimer, when Nolan sets you up to believe he won't be with the 2 scenes prior where Oppenheimer is unkind towards him
@@krishcharan I’m definitely watching it again, you’re completely right about Nolan’s use of character misdirection with David Hill. But maybe a line or two of dialogue from Hill that could tell us about what his motivation was. For example with Edward Teller, when him and Oppenheimer disagree on the H Bomb, the tension there leads to Teller eventually selling him out. To be fair there might be something in there that I’ve missed, the movie does throw a lot at you in the classic Nolan way, which results in more satisfying experience after multiple views.
I know exactly what you mean. Nolan needed to set up the twist and I don't think that the clipboard moment quite does it. It does stand out in a way that tells the viewer "remember this", but it doesn't connect well enough to the hearings later. Perhaps if there had been an insert shot at some point of Hill watching Strauss with skepticism, or at least with a thoughtful expression on his face. I dunno, maybe that's too on the nose.
Hill was definitely the character that Nolan used to operate his signature twist
This is why Nolan is the director, and we the audience. Hill was a wildcard, an outlier. The only questionmark in the narrative. Had you known his morality or motivations, the scene wouldn’t have been tense & cathartic.
that colonel pash scene was a ride in itself. that is one scary young man.
You should read Pash's book, "The Alsos Mission." It reads like an A-Team movie script. He was fearless and quite unorthodox in accomplishing whatever mission he was assigned. Pash fought in the Russian Revolution and hated Communists. He disliked and did not trust Oppenheimer because of Oppenheimer's association with people that belonged to the American Communist Party. At the time of the Manhattan Project, Pash was in his mid-40's as he was born in 1900.
Thanks for this. I have to go and rewatch it again as my movie brain was going “Hey, I know that person” or “This cast is pretty stacked that I can’t keep up”. This helped out a lot.
Glad it was helpful!
How did David Hill gain information that Strauss was behind the slander of Oppenheimer? Also who was that young advisor to Strauss?
The Bhagvad Gita wasn't translated to English by Bob, but by his tutor at UC Berkeley, Arthur Ryder. The original Sanskrit version says "Kaal". Kaal means Time.
Context: In the battle of Mahabharata, on the battlefield, the prince Arjuna felt helpless on seeing his loved ones on the other side of the battlefield. He knew his battle skills & thought that while fighting his own cousins & teachers, he'd end up killing them or at least severely injuring them. This threw him into a dilemma (much like what Oppenheimer faced after the nuclear tests). His charioteer, Krishna, tried to motivate him, but in vain. In a sort of last ditch attempt, Krishna who is actually the avatar of Lord Vishnu, took the form of his Eternal Self, as Lord Vishnu, and recited the Gita to Arjuna, telling him how he needs to do his duties because He i.e. God, intended it that way. Lord Vishnu's detailed advice is what the Bhagvad Gita basically is.
This dialogue that has now become world famous, appears in Chapter 11, verse 32. In it, Vishnu says he's 'Kaal', or Time... contextually meaning, the Time-Spirit. What he meant to tell Arjuna was He is Time, and Time comes for all. Time is actually the ultimate destroyer. Think about it .. every second we waste, is a second destroyed & never coming back. What Vishnu meant to convey to Arjuna was, whether you do your duties or no, Time finally comes for us all, so keep doing your duties to the best of your abilities & let Time take care of everything else.
This 'Kaal' was wrongly translated by Oppenheimer's tutor Ryder, as 'Death'.
It should actually mean, "I am the Time-Spirit, the destroyer of worlds."
Wonderfully explained 🙏🏼
@monke777 nolan intended nothing. Oppenheimer himself used that quote in real life.
“I am mighty time” “I am the time-spirit” and “I am death” are all common translations of it
@@Freudstherapist kaal means, Time only & when someone says "his Kaal is near", that statement is a shortly being said for "their time of death is near".
This statement is very famous in short form, due to which some people misinterpret "Kaal" mean Death, which is not TRUE at all.
Time doesn't mean death just time.
Cancel
Jean Tatlock was more than a student, she was a physician specializing in psychiatry. I wish that had been made clear in the film.
It seemed from watching the movie that she was of some highly educated profession, just not a scientist. I took it to mean they were on the same intellectual level just different fields.
Still recovering from watching movie in IMAX!! Wow
Selenskyj is Jesus?
@@why_so_seriouswhat?
@@evanBryan1 What what?
@@why_so_seriousin the butt?
Great video. I actually thought that the hand on the back of Jean tatlocks head pushing her into the bathtub was suppose to represent Oppenheimers hand and how he felt that he was guilty of her death in his mind
I feel like it's intentionally ambiguous, meant to convey both the possibility that she was murdered AND Oppenheimer's guilt at the same time.
@@AWSVidssame thoughts.
I thought it was OJ Simpson
Oh damn good point. I thought it was left ambiguous because there are theories that she was murdered because of her Communist sympathies...
Its not ambiguous at all. The dude who got out of the car and followed oppie into the hotel did it. He was working for colonel pash.
I would love to hear your thoughts about the big flower arrangement in the center of the table. In the first shot, people are bobbing their heads to see across the table. Next one of them moves it to the side to see the man across from them. And finally someone just removes it from the table. Seems it must symbolize something, but I can't figure it out! Appreciate you breaking things down about this amazing film.
I think it symbolises a nuclear explosion
@@nallekarhu7994 Good theory! It sure looked like one!
The plants ALREADY on the table, they gotta work AROUND the plant to communicate. They view the map on the table to find bombing sites. Thinking being “well now that we have it, we’re gonna have to deal with it and use it.” They decide not to nuke all their major enemies and take the flowers off the table. That’s probably not the real reason but there’s a guess^
Maybe I'm way off with my interpretation here but I just thought that was a difference of perspective playing out - Strauss moves the "annoying" plant pot to be able to speak to someone in the black and white scene, but in the colour scene later on it's simply just removed. I saw it as a nod to Strauss ego, he made out to others that he was the one to move the plant pot, showing his dominance of the situation - whereas in reality someone had already moved it.
@@Rybo4 this works but the b+w scenes are meant to be reality while the in color scenes are meant to be subjective to Oppenheimer
I think that final moment/message the film sets leaves you deeply thinking on how true it is. I found it interesting when he goes into deep thought and we see a flash of todays nuclear weapons and how it can all turn to what he sees.
I have been conditioned to the stuff that Disney puts out there that I nearly forgot how to keep up with a movie with depth and complexity that Oppenheimer gave
Read a book my friend. Broaden your horizon.
Strauss did not turn the trial into a personal vendeta. He turned a conformation hearing INTO a trial BECAUSE of a vendeta
Wrong bud
It's not a trial tho
Correction he turned a beaurocratic procedure (the renewal of a security clearance) into a trial
@@imperiumgrim4717 did you watch the movie? It’s not officially a trial but Oppenheimer is being prosecuted. Just not sentenced
@@Mallemartinnn There's a huge difference. Trials have legal procedures that have to be followed, including disclosure requirements. Hearings only have the rules established by the people holding the hearing. What isn't told in the movie is that Strauss could have had Oppenheimer's security clearance become inactive by simply not renewing Oppenheimer's consulting contract. However, in that scenario, Strauss doesn't get to embarrass Oppenheimer publicly as Oppenheimer did to Strauss. The deactivation of Oppenheimer's security clearance by not renewing the contract would have happened by the time the hearing ended, so Strauss got exactly what he wanted - public humiliation of Oppenheimer.
having Oppie say “im a destroyer of worlds” as he entered is so lord
The move needs a companion movie series to explain. It is a lot to digest. Primarily because there is such a sprawling cast and leaves you wanting more context on all the key players.
Looks like you need to read the book that inspired it. I feel like I need to do same.
You could always read a couple of books and find out without watching a movie...try "Robert Oppenheimer: A Life Inside the Center," by Ray Monk. It contains information not found in "American Prometheus," the book used as the basis of the movie.
I think another thing that can be addressed is William Borden’s character. Yes we know that Strauss gave him the file along with Nichols to tare down Oppenheimer. But in one of the discussion scenes earlier in the film, Borden approaches Oppenheimer and tells him about rockets he saw fly over him when he was a pilot during the war. Oppenheimer gives him a snarky response and Borden doesn’t seem to like it. We then see that flashback during the final scene of Oppenheimer in the plane, watching the missiles fly over. What do you think Cortex?
I thought he said he saw a meteor shower talking about how nukes are like the destructions caused by space.
His comment wasn't snarky. He was just saying "Let's hope it's not us (that causes that scenario of warfare to happen, but with nuclear missiles instead)"
@@TF2ReplayMaker I could see this response being interepreted as “Lets hope its not us” [who creates the bomb] but the russians instead. Obviously this is an uncharitable interpretation but if you suspect him as a soviet spy it could reinforce suspicions
@@blackberry596 I see... But then again it's not like they were genuine in their suspicions, no? Seemed to be grabbing at straws and reaching wildly during his security hearing, plus the fact none of that would've held up in actual court 🤔
@@nicobenji0248He said he saw a V2 rocket flying towards London, “like a meteor”.
The movie answered this question pretty clearly, darn good movie. I didn't even fall asleep, that's saying a lot because I fell asleep during many of the super hero movies, and I used to love those movies. This was one of the best movies I have ever seen in a theater
I was worried about falling asleep too as I work night shift and always tired. Nope, wide awake thru the whole thing. Tense the entire time. Beautiful movie
Way too intense to sleep through lol
I don't know if it's been mentioned in the comments, but there is a brief featuring of Kurt Gödel in the movie. As Enstein paranoid friend who is scared someone is poisoning his food.
These were exactly the questions I was wondering about, thanks!
Thank youuu and I’ve watched both part’s of your explanation cause my mind was all over the place. That IMAX experience did something to my brain 😂 glad I got the answers to my questions
Glad it was helpful!
Another very useful and important break down of the movie. Having read the book I think also helps. I go back to it now after the movie to understand the many complexities showed in the movie and in Oppenheimer’s character. Thank you again.
The thing is about both the book and the movie is that they assume Oppenheimer was a "regular smart dude" with good intentions who, rather inadvertantly, and due to panic, happened to make something he ... Must have regretted making at some point despite never coming out and outright expressing it.
What if he wasn't, what if he truly didn't regret it. What if he wasn't someone with good intentions that did something bad. What if he was a bad person with no regrets but just ... Fear!
It would do us well to remember this is still fiction. It's a biopic, but it's fiction.
I mean, don't get me wrong, the best part about this film is that it portrays him as unlucky, and someone you pity. He, again, rather inadvertantly became responsible for the very thing he thought he was working to stop.
Remorse and sorrow all the way....
Especially the end, yeesh!
It's the version of the story that I prefer gets told because it's a cautionary tale. As a scientist, you can truly become the thing you were trying to stop because ultimately bad people will have access to all your work, they'd be able to recreate it, and use it as they see fit. There's a moral dilemma here, do you not make something because you know that some seriously sociopathic and psychopathic narcissists will have access to it? Do you halt humanity's scientific progress because of that? Sure, if you don't make it, someone else will, but how will you be able to sleep at night when you're the one who did it... would you be selfish to refuse, or to comply with the request to make it?
The movie goes there...
What should have been a "success" is depicted the way it was processed by the person "responsible" for it. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents were responsible for what seemed to be a persistent and lifelong anxiety disorder.
The question remains, was he really that way though? Or are we just giving the gentleman the benefit of the doubt due to his stance on the hydrogen bomb, his liberal ideas, and his rather impressive scientific background.
Scientists will be doubted for their intentions when they're responsible for something terrible. It will happen.
@samf.s.7731 All excellent points. Time is the greatest judge but ultimately his mind will forever remain a mystery.
Thanks. Good art should generate good conversation , and prompt genuine and relevant questions - that is a search for the truth.
finally someone who explains things properly
Great video! Im going to watch Oppenheimer for a second time but in IMAX.
Hope you enjoy it!
Excellent Review of Q n A !
Great Job, Thanks so much for this video and the previous one. Aside from the powerful messages and great intellect involved with the Manhattan Project, it is especially emotional for me because my dad was stationed as Oak Ridge separating U235 from U238, using what was essentially molecular sieves in a long series of filtrations. I will forever regret not becoming more interested in this topic until it was too late to hear more about it from him (he died in 2018).
That said, I have one really dumb observation from the movie. When Oppenheimer was shown giving lectures at Cal-Berkely the movie
shows him lecturing to a class that included many females. Given the time period, that would seem somewhat historically inaccurate....no??
The idea of removing a security clearance impacts the truth of what is said is hilarious. It strengthened his objective looking appearance. Especially as suspicions about the vietnam war increased.
The security clearance issue is secondary to Strauss's motivation to publically humiliate Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's consulting contract was coming up for renewal and the hearing was associated with that contract. If Strauss had simply not renewed Oppenhimer's contract the clearance would be automatically deactivated. However, Strauss would not get his revenge of humiliating Oppenheimer by simply not renewing the contract.
Well done ! ! 2 cheers from Canada + thanks !
How times change . The most shocking scenes in the film . The amount of smoking Oppie
did . No wonder he died of throat Cancer .
Yes, he was a lifelong chain smoker. There are photographs of him lecturing at Berkeley with a piece of chalk in one hand and a cigarette in his other hand.
Nice!Thanks!
Welcome!
Good piece on the story . I read the book American Prometheus and it is a must read if you want to get real insight into Oppenheimers life.
A thing I didn't like was how they dealt with David Hill. Obviously he is a minor character but every time he appeared before the hearing I thought he was the secretary of the group, lol, because he never spoke and only presented papers to Oppenheimer.
I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that he is a doctor.
excellent. thank you.
You are welcome!
Good job!
Thank you! Cheers!
Love these videos
Is it a good thing that films like Oppenheimer open modern day audiences to historic events of injustice...or is it sad that no-one cares about these events until Hollywood decides to make a film about it?
Maybe both are true?
It is both sad that most don’t care about a lot of history, and alao good for films to reintroduce history to many.
There is so much history and not everyone has the time nor motivation to research. If a movie comes a long and summarizes the whole thing in a live reenactment then many would be interested.
I think it's not that people don't care. Most people from younger generations like me know Oppenheimer for his contribution to the atomic bomb and the Manhattan project but the details like the hearings, etc. aren't talked about as much. Making films like this gets people interested and more accessible sources information like this video and many more that popped up in the last week begin to exist
So much more true interesting stuff when reading about history that has not been made into a Hollywood movie.
I researched more about Oppenheimer before this movie came out because I was curious about him and what happened I’ve only been told bits and piece of the story of the Manhattan Project but never about oppie, so it was really fun and interesting to learn about him and what he did and how he felt about all of this
I’m convinced the gov or cia murdered tadlock cause it’s so sus and they knew she was a commie, and that Oppenheimer was visiting her and then knew who she associated with as well so it makes a lot of sense
In the book i remember it saying the fbi were outside the apartment when oppenheimer went to see her too
@@CortexVideos oh I’d believe that seeing how Hoover was trailing him all the time
They addressed this in the movie too. For about second you can see a hand in black gloves pushing Tadlocks head underwater.
From what I've read about Tatlock it seems possible she was bipolar. So suicide would not be unlikely.
The tadlock suicide scene may be nod to the JFK scene where they imply that David Ferrie might have been murdered by the US government, you see hands on her head for a split second.
another reason oppenheimer didn’t fight back (in this adaptation at least) is because he knew (or suspected) that Lewis was behind the trial responsible for removing his security clearance and tarnishing his credibility. he doesn’t explicitly say this but he states that he “has his reasons”, implying more than one reason why he’s suffering through all of that.
Additionally, Lewis seems to confirm this during his breakdown at the end of the movie when he tells his associates that he “gave [Oppenheimer] exactly what he wanted” when going through with that plot. Oppenheimer chose to suffer in order to martyr himself and hoped that later on someone would expose the depths of Lewis’ vengeance, permanently barring him from any position in politics
Thanks
One question is how Dave Hill ended up as the guitarist in 70s glam rock band Slade.
Robert Nolan is a genius producer... brilliant.
I didn’t even notice it was Robert Downey Jr, from Ironman! Wooooow
In the movie I didn’t catch what the context was with the jfk name drop. What was the context of it? Strauss seemed concerned with it
JFK was one of the senators that voted against appointing Strauss. That’s how I understood it.
Foreshadowed that Kennedy was not establishment.
@@mdarey13 yep that's it.
@@Cryptosifunot yet 🇺🇸💪
I felt like they were sequel baiting by dropping his name somehow.
Where/how do you get HD images to use for your thumbnails? I'm trying to find some HD images of the quantum mechanics/explosions that oppenheimer envisions that are in the trailers.
I used 4k downloads of the trailers. I got the 4k trailers from a site called 'TheDigitalCinema'. But it varies. Theres some good 4k images of shots that arent in the trailers around too
I swear i thought i saw a black gloved hand above Jean Tatlocks head in the bath
You did see that. As explained above (in the last timestamp), it was viewed as a suicide AND as someone pushing her head into the water, because no one really knows what happened.
The brilliance of the movie is that it underscores the roots of the political divide we have today. The telling line is by Lawrence "We already had our revolution (1775)". Academics are naturally drawn to the left while the American public in the '50s are religious and conservative. However the World War and subsequent foreign policy naturally draw us into world economics and out of isolation.
Oh dear. I've watched "Oppenheimer" twice already and now that I've seen your further breakdown I'm going to have to watch the film again to fill in the finer details.
Nah. Read two books. "American Prometheus," which the movie is based on, and "Robert Oppenheimer: A Life Inside the Center," which contains information either overlooked or purposely left out of American Prometheus.
When Oppie started his first class in Berkley he had only one student. All the way through the movie Oppie was saying to this gentleman “don’t worry, it will be ok” or something to that effect. Can anyone enlighten me on what this was about or the back story?
I don’t know the real back story but here’s how I read into it:
This guy was Oppenheimer very first student. Back in the day when his only passion was science. You can see how, despite only having a single pupil, he is so excited about teaching and diving into the science. He doesn’t care that he only has one person listening to his theories.
He tells him "don’t worry, it‘ll be alright" simply because he can tell he‘s nervous.
As the story progresses, Oppenheimer gets increasingly caught up in politics and power and is instrumentalized by the US government. Now he is the leader of this important project , has a huge team working for him, and I think the student, still by his side, serves as a connection to his true love for theoretical physics, a reminder of a simpler time when he had a true passion for his work. Oppenheimer sees what is becoming of his work and when he tell‘s his former student that "it‘ll all be alright", I get the feeling that he is more so talking to himself at this point, trying to reassure himself.
I read that Oppenheimer was a poor teacher and talked fast. So students had trouble comprehending the material and sometimes had to take the class twice. Or have teams of note takers.
At that point (18:30 mark in the movie) Oppenheimer is returning graded papers completed by his students. Oppenheimer hands the graded paper to him stating, “Mr. Lomanitz…. you’re going to be okay.” This comment and Lomanitz’s reaction suggests that Lomanitz had not done well, but Oppenheimer was giving encouragement, that Lomanitz was a capable student and would persevere.
@@marthar6491 I can’t even imagine, I have taken physics classes in college and that stuff was OUT there. I barely made it thru those classes. Took my C and got the heck outta there.
Make some noise …🙌🏽
Downey is the Perfect Snake .
I didn’t pick up on half of this I feel like I need to watch the movie again lol
Stop sleeping on it lol
Can someone explain the significance of Oppenheimer's testimony about isotopes that ticked Strauss off? I still don't understand why what he said undermined Strauss position? Strauss said he's not an expert when they first met when he offered Oppenheimer the position at Princeton in the beginning...
Agreed. So much of the film centred on this, yet I didn't feel it was well explained. Why was Strauss pissed off to that degree???
lawrence had colitis and died from it, but at least in the movie lawrence was saying it was all shit, and wouldn't testify against his friend.
there are so many layers to this film. It was so much more than a movie, it was a whole history lesson.
After watching the movie which had many items covered via Oppenheimer being his personal, political, science and of course the craziness of Big Military Complex that Eisenhower warned us against which was completely ignored and controls this country to this day.
At that time, the military did not control or fund the development of the atomic bomb. The development of the atomic bomb was controlled and financed by the Office of Scientific Research and Development headed by Vannevar Bush and Henry Stimson the Secretary of War. . Bush appears briefly as a character in the movie and is portrayed by Matthew Modine. So, there was no "military-industrial complex" backing the atomic bomb. Tennessee Eastman (division of Eastman Kodak) was the operating contractor at Oakridge, and DuPont was the designer, builder, and operating contractor at Hanford. Interestingly, the DuPont contract had a profit of $1.00 of which, DuPont had to give up sixty-six cents as they asked for the contract to be terminated at the end of the war and only qualified to earn thirty-three cents.
Thank you. However it was a kick starter for BMC which exists today and cost us trillions of tax dollars.
Can you imagine what we have now and the public has no idea ? TR3b, X-37B and force fields
The biggest question is - why Einstein is always with hat?
Where did dr hill get his information from? Strauss' assistant/whatever his role is, the one who last speaks to strauss in the film
out of fucking nowhere cuz the movie needed to end i legit think they had no idea what to do with this fcuking film
I bought the movie because of the somewhat confused divergence of several things at the end. I have watched it 3 times. I am also reading the book. I think Oppie was a complex man with a deep sense of caring about people individually and humanity generally. This was derived from his Jewish background after feeling the hate and prejudice from people who he did not even know. He was a victim and didn't want the world to be that way. By inventing the bomb, Nazis could be defeated. By inventing the bomb, the power to destroy that prejudice was there also, but only if Mankind had the sense to change. The real question is: DOES IT?
What was Oppenheimer’s security clearance and why was it being revoked so destructive for his reputation?
Oppenheimer had a "Q" clearance which is the highest level for the atomic bomb project. Oppenheimer embarrassed Strauss twice in front of Congress. Strauss was a petty and vindictive bureaucrat who was appointed the head of the Atomic Energy Commission. Oppenheimer's consulting contract was coming up for renewal. Strauss could have simply not renewed the contract and that would have deactivated Oppenheimer's clearance. However, if he used that method, he would not get a chance of publicly embarrassing Oppenheimer by revealing all of the background information associated with Oppenheimer (ties to individuals in the Communist Party, lying to the FBI, etc.). At that time, Oppenheimer was quite famous and known worldwide. He had appeared on magazine covers, was the subject of newspaper stories, consulted with Congress etc. Defaming him was Strauss's revenge for Oppenheimer humiliating him in front of Congress.
@@buckhorncorteznice explanation
I didn't know Einstein was so important to the movie while watching it because he had like 5-10 minutes of screen time. But it all made sense at the end
There was no CIA at that point. I would be curious as to other agencies or agents at the time.
At that time it was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) that later became the CIA. The OSS had field offices and agents worldwide during WW 2. The actor Sterling Hayden was in the OSS.
The decision to horrifically destroy two Japanese cities came after all of the horrific images of "fire bombs" FAILED to dissuade further combat in Japan. The Japanese Government NEEDED to see how horrific the A Bomb is IN ORDER to convince them to end the war.
The US was certain, through the evidence of how determined the Japanese Military was, that there would have been much more blood shed and suffering had the A Bomb NOT been used. Oppenheimer AGREED with this assessment.
Oppenheimer knew, better than anyone else, how horrific the effects of the A Bomb would be on a populated city. In other words, the intent of the bombs would likely be LOST if dropped in a desolate area. For this reason, Oppenheimer's contribution was critical in the decision to drop the bombs on populated cities.
Except that Japan was on the brink of surrendering. So the bombs were unnecessary. It was to show the USSR that they had these kinds of weapons and the had multiple.
@@cesardejeronimo8184they still didn’t surrender right away. When they finally did it was because they finally ensured their emperor wouldn’t be charged with war crimes and because Russia was invading them as well. There’s a great TH-cam video that puts it all into context. They didn’t even surrender after the 2nd bomb, they somehow pushed for a “conditional” unconditional surrender. The US and Japan went back and forth several times on the surrender agreement. The bombs probably weren’t necessary but they also didn’t make them immediately surrender like you seem to think. Their main concern was not losing the office/power of the imperial government system.
@@cesardejeronimo8184 those holdouts kept fighting, because they lost communications with the imperial government. Had they been in contact, they would have surrendered.
@@broomfielderic7458 Then you'll have to explain why the Japanese did not surrender when given the chance. They were sent the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945 and did not respond to it. Prime Minister Suzuki is the one who gave an interview to a newspaper after receiving the Potsdam Declaration and used the term "mokusatsu" (ignore or treat with silent contempt) in reference to the Potsdam Declaration terms. The claim that Japan was "ready to surrender" is revisionist drivel and cannot be supported or proven with any facts. There are multiple ULTRA (decoded military messages) and MAGIC (decoded diplomatic messages) proving they were not going to surrender. If you'd like proof from a Japanese perspective, read "The Cause of Japan," by Togo Shigenori. Togo was the Japanese Foreign Minister at that time and nothing in his book supports the claim of "ready to surrender." I also suggest reading "140 Days to Hiroshima" for a narrative of Japanese decisions leading up to the use of the atomic bomb.
@@buckhorncortez It’s a pleasure to read solid history with references instead of someone’s wishful thinking.
There is no way anyone with Oppenheimer's mentality should have ever had a security clearance. The only reason he had one is because he was a brilliant scientist and the country needed his expertise.
Is there a big difference of watching this in 70mm IMAX and laser IMAX? I am planning to travel 2 hours by flight to see this in 70mm but if it’s not worth it I’ll just drive 45 minutes to watch it in laser IMAX locally
70 mm is the most organic version of this film you can see, definitely worth it
70 mm Film is displayed in almost 18k resolution with the best sound system. Its looking at the movie as Nolan saw it through his cameras.
70mm imax doesn’t feel like a screen, it feels more like the side of a building, it is the ultimate form to experience Nolan’s films.
I think the biggest misconception of this is HAVING to see it in imax 70MM Film. I saw it in imax laser and it was great. I think the most important thing is that imax sound. The musical score, and mixing is a must. Save your money and time, I wouldn’t go the plane route
I saw it twice. Once in imax 70mm and once at my local cinema. While I do think I had a better experience seeing it in a higher resolution/ better sound system, I personally don’t think it’s worth a plane journey. The movie has some stunning moments that are worth seeing on a big screen, but most of it is very much dialogue driven. Imax laser should do the job imo.
Why did Arthur Ryder translate the famous Gita verse as the ungrammatical “I am become..” as opposed to what was just “I am..” in the original Sanskrit?
I am become is grammatically correct. Just dated. To be is used here as an auxiliary verb instead if to have. Just old usage
one question
What was the colonel pash scene about?
I spoke a little bit about pash in the last timestamp about Jean Tatlock. it's right towards the end.
OSS then/ CIA now do wet-work (like 007). Oppie's reticence about Chevallier could have gotten him well earned "suicide" too.
Pash is an extremely interesting individual who was born in San Francisco and was raised in Russia as his father was a Russian Orthodox minister who was recalled to Russia. Pash fought in the Bolshevik Revolution and returned to America when the Bolsheviks came into power in Russia. Pash enlisted in the Army Reserves and was eventually called up for full-time duty as an intelligence officer stationed in San Francisco. He was assigned to investigate Oppenheimer and resisted giving Groves a clear background for Oppenheimer's clearance for Director of Los Alamos. Finally, Groves had to order that a clearance be given to Oppenheimer as Groves claimed Oppenheimer was indispensable to the Project.
Pash was later assigned by Leslie Groves to head the Alsos Mission counterintelligence group that closely followed the invasion forces into Italy and then into France and Germany to find out how near the Germans had come in making an atomic bomb. Pash's exploits in Alsos read like an A-Team movie script, and I am mystified why no scriptwriter or director has not told this story. The only movie that alludes to the Alsos Mission is, "The Catcher Was a Spy" which is the story of Moe Berg (assigned to Pash) who was given the mission to find out the level of participation of Heisenberg in the German atomic program. Berg was given the authorization to kill Heisenberg if needed to cripple the German program.
@@buckhorncortez Correct. That is just the guy you hire for that job. Pash like an ex-smoker.
Dumb question here what was purpose of him dropping marbles in bowl meaning?
The amount of plutonium and uranium needed to build the bomb
16:33 What is that supposed to mean?
Great Movie,
how can you call me a paranoiac, when everyone is plotting against me?
The guilt- then Truman calls him a cry baby
How can there be spoilers in a biographical movie? There can only be "fictitious events" that you don't know they put in the movie
Not everyone knows all about Oppenheimer's life or the events that are featured in the movie.
Hiroshima and nagasaki choosen by government itself. Why oppie agreed that he is the one who suggested the japan as target?
Is there historical knowledge of why he was so thin? Before he had cancer? It seems as if he had some disordered eating, or maybe he just drank his calories.
I find it weirdly morbid with the saying "it may contain spoilers for Oppenheimer"
Thanks I needed this because there was so much dialogue to catch
My pleasure. Hope there was stuff that helped! Did a whole breakdown the other day and that covers the full plot
We need to prevent the powers that be from ever using these types of weapons.
This movie made me want more to prevent war.
Strowss. As in Levi Strauss.
In the movie, he himself explained his name was to be pronounced Stawss
I expected this movie focus on how it effects to the war and humanity. Why the US used against Japan? Is it a real notion to stop the war or else? But the whole movie focus at the trail.
movie was ass dont stress it, all these ppl praising it are repeating what they read on their fave media
Bruh… the title of the film is OPPENHEIMER
I really wanna know abt the namedrop of JFK in the movie.
JFK was one of the Senators who at the last minute voted against the conformation of Strauss to become Secretary of Commerce. At the graduation ceremony at the American University in 1963, JFK announced that the US and Soviet Union were about to sign a nuclear test ban treaty. I’m assuming that JFK was already suspicious of rhetoric machinations of the scientific community rushing head long into a nuclear future.
What was the Chicago meeting about? When oppenheimer dropped the pen in some guys pocket? I didn't get that part. Seemed like it was suggesting oppenheimer was giving away secrets.
just a correction special relativity didnt lead to quantum mechnics
If you can read a book called bishwasghatak by Narayan Sanyal. He wrote this event as a novel in 1974. At that age where in India there was low knowledge media and sources. He explained it and nailed it. But now everyone saying about christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer. But I read that novel in 2009. But in the movie they didn't show us that one of the scientist named Klaus Fuchs who supplied the atomic information to Soviet union from USA. And it is hilarious that he send the information which contains more than 100 pages into the packet of a cigarette in 1/2 folded page.
Everything here is fabulous - thank you (except do you really mean "Strorss" ?? Strauss rhymes with 'house' )
The pronunciation is even addressed in the movie
10:00 Einsteins theory of relativity did not lead to quantum mechanics
Why do you call him Oppy?
Hes nicknamed that in the book and the film. Its easier than saying oppenheimer on repeat every odd sentence too lol
@@CortexVideos Sounds a bit odd to call this great man such a cutesy name.
Yea you don't know him like that
you need to talk about that kennedy mention near the end of the movie no one is talking about it
I mention kennedy in the video
Ive known a lot about Oppie. Film does a wonderful job of putting it out on the silver screen.
But even as someone with above average intelligence myself, I would _not_ want to be someone of his intelligence. Not at all. Its clear Oppie had a hard time with certain relationships as evidence of his childhood. But even as an adult, while a charismatic leader, his brain was a really difficult place to be. I wouldnt want to deal with that.
He led an incredible life, albeit, a difficult one.
Excellent film 🎥 I'll need to watch it again 😀
As Granny said, being too smart is no smart. Being super intelligent makes for a difficult life alright.
dude, your vocal fry is killing the video.
A lot of superhero casts in this movie. Black Widow, Scarecrow and Ironman
and jason bourne, remember that, lmao
@@randomizeskillz5643 thats not superhero lol
@@Chavanun555Black Widow is not a superhero. No superhero powers. Just a good fighter.
@@finned958 i guess i have to rephrase to cast from superhero movies then
Strauss is the one that was not advertising his jewishness. I think it's because you're English that you didn't notice this specific trait of American Jewish people. Strauss purposely mispronounced his name so that his name sounded more German than it did Jewish.Oppenheimer was always open about his jewishness and being connected to Jewish people. This is why context is important when analyzing a film and understanding that your geographic location may hinder your understanding.
Isn’t it just the opposite? Didn’t Strauss actually support a number of Jewish organizations and Oppenheimer was both non religious nor had anything with being Jewish. Yes Strauss southern pronunciation of his name was meant to elide his Jewish roots as up until almost the 60s America was pretty antisemitic.
“I had a continuing, smoldering fury about the treatment of Jews in Germany,” he said in his testimony. “I had relatives there, and was later to help in extricating them and bringing them to this country. I saw what the Depression was doing to my students… And through them, l began to understand how deeply political and economic events could affect men’s lives.” -Oppenheimer.
Spoilers! Only read if you haven't watched the movie!
1.The trinity test ist a success
2.The atmosphere does not undergo fusion
3.Hiroshima and Nagasaki are decided as targets for the bomb
4.The Allies win the war.
5.Oppenheimer loses his security clearance
6.Reading a history book every now and then does not cause blindess :)
I probably got the timeline mixed up...But what was confusing to me was Oppenheimer and Einsteins talk in the end while Strauss was standing watching - was before Oppenheimer got/took the job. But the paper they were discussing was something Oppenheimer showed to Einstein later in the timeline after Teller reported the findings in the institute - which was after Oppenheimer got the job. So they were talking about something that had not happened yet?
The job Strauss offered was already after the war. The one who recruited him to the Manhattan Project was Matt Damon's character. This was an offer to be a director for another Institute.
@@SherPaification Oh, thanks, I found that very confusing. Seemed to me the job Strauss offered him is what led to the job from Matt Damons character inside the institute.
Come someone please explain: why did Strauss want to export isotopes?
And what did Oppenheimer say before the board that embarrassed Strauss?
Isotopes are more than sandwich💀
Please feel free to sign the petiton : "PASH DID IT!!" :-)
This annoyed me in the movie, Einstein theory of relativity is a classical theory, it is not a quantum theory. The Energy mass equivalence is important, but it is not a quantum theory