My father, an army officer following orders, was forced to witness N-bomb testing in Nevada. He had all kinds of ailments in the years to come including cancer. He died a fairly young man and even though he kept complete medical records (telling my mother that someday the government would do the right thing), the U S government refused to recognize his ailments were nuclear bomb related. My mother received nothing. Nothing!
That sucks. Service members are usually always the 1st lab rats. It's nothing "honorable" about being in the service like movie propaganda always attempts to make it look. My dad was also an Army officer but saw thru all the "following orders" BS & other related BS and gtfo outta there after 10yrs instead of the traditional 20.
Then make a film or wrote a script about it. I’m assuming you are complaining like these asshats are. This film is about Oppenheimer as seen through his lens and point of view during those times. How do you not get that?
My uncle was on a ship in the Pacific and they were forced to watch one of the Pacific Atoll tests. He said they were told not to look, and of course, they all looked. The next day, they had to clean a lot of 'dust' and dirt from the ship's decks and surfaces. He later developed liver cancer.
I live in Japan. I've had the honor to speak with survivors from Hiroshima - who were young children at the time. Their understanding is wise and all of them oppose the existence of nuclear weapons and oppose war. Few remain. But to talk with them is a profound experience.
*Entertainment cannot come at the cost of hatred* Scene with reading the Bagavat Gita in the middle of a sex scene is definitely a cheap tactics to spread hatred towards particular sect of humanity - Hinduism and Hindus. The Gita is more of a philosophical text rather than a religious one but the intent of the maker seems religious. I don't have appreciation or review for any part of the movie be it acting, direction, cinematography, music etc as the intent is a failure. The makers should be ashamed of themselves for their narrowness of their mind.
There's a reason why we see Oppenheimer watching a film showing the devastation of Hiroshima and yet Nolan doesn't let us see it. This is an intensely psychological movie. We experience the movie from Oppenheimer's point of view. And not just his visual point of view but his psychological point of view. There is a meaning behind not seeing the footage. Oppenheimer can't really look at it himself. He doesn't want to acknowledge it. But Nolan acknowledges it. He does this by showing that Oppenheimer can't block out what he knows he's done. Hence the scene were he is in the gymnasium and watching the women's face start to burn and he then steps into a charcoaled corpse, (all in his mind). What would showing the devastation to the audience have achieved? We all know what happened and that tens of thousands of people, (women, children, babies, civilians) were killed by these two bombs. And that the level of suffering was unimaginable. Christopher Nolan's approach was better. It was more effective. He didn't feel the need to spoon feed us his message because he understands that his audience is smarter than that. I also deny the commentators position that the movie defended the common narrative that the US military needed to drop both bombs. It did no such thing. It is very clear how conflicted many of the scientist were. What the movie doesn't do is answer the question for us. And given how morally complicated the subject matter is I'm glad it didn't. Now there are many things that the movie didn't go into but I don't think Nolan could have gone into these things because he committed himself to a first person narrative. The focus was on Oppenheimer and not every facet of the events.
Yes, I think Nolan did a good job of packaging and delivering all the complexity of emotion involved, not to mention the moral dilemma. Few would have done as good a job, and I don't think anyone could have done better.
Jason do enough digging in our governments archives and you'll realize the U.S has no legitimate reason to drop either bomb seeing as Japan had surrendered at least 1 months earlier... Stop blindly accepting narratives they "spoon" feed us big bro and expand your mind. Not the scientists the government made such decision not the Oppenheimers Einsteins or Heisenbergs but our leaders
My great-uncle was a paratrooper in WW II. He was dropped into Japan just after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He died from Leukemia a few year later, leaving a young widow and 2 very young children. He has been the only person in our family to contract Leukemia ( so far ). It's not our genes, in other words. It was the radiation.
@@davidreed6264 The sites which had been devastated: Nagasaki area. Yes, he was exposed to slow-death levels of radiation and nuclear fallout. 10s of thousands of U.S. troops were similarly exposed. And, by the way, Japan is an archipelago of islands. Some bigger than others.
My uncle was also dropped into Hiroshima..he took pictures. He was a a ranking member and asked to go in. He also died. Cancer. We moved into his house and the relics he picked up there. Dad passed first. Then mom .
I’m not calling you a liar, but the story really doesn’t match up with reality. With the amount of time that fallout resides, the veracity of troops being dropped into a city, it really dosent match up.
My father was a chemical engineer who was drafted and sent to Los Alamos to work in the Plutonium lab. He was invited to to attend the Trinity “test” of the Plutonium bomb & declined the invite because he knew how dangerous it would be, and indeed a lot of radiation was dumped on lots of attendees. If he’d gone, likely my dad’s only child, moi, would have had serious defects. So, thank you, Dad!
That's not how radiation works. It's not a teratogen. Children are not affected because the parent was exposed....unless in the mother's womb at the time.
I don’t know how true it is that radiation damages not yet born offspring. They studied this in Japan. Unless you mean the daughter would have gone to the testing too.
While almost nothing is impossible for humans thru science and technology, achieving peace they are not capable of. This is the timeless message of the Bible, which forecasts and details such a once unimaginable horrible end of life on earth. But instead of seeing the terrors people are going to unleash on each other, people imagine they are humanitarian, good-natured, and peace loving. The human heart deceives itself. How long will you decieve yourself that you are honest, kind, and loving and reject the blood of Jesus as truth?
The firebombing of Tokyo is estimated to have killed more than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Why is it any worse to wipe a city off the map with a single large bomb than with thousands of little bombs? The problem is war, not the weapons we use.
Facts. A lot of people don't know what Imperial Japan was like. How ferocious and unyielding their soldiers were. They hear about Kamikaze Fighters and say "wow, that's crazy" without putting it in context. They were absolutely committed to victory or death. Surrender wasn't really a thing, suicide was more likely to happen. The Battle of Okinawa is a good example of this. A prolonged invasion would have resulted in more lives lost for both sides. It was the quickest way to end the war, and "no" they weren't trying to kill as many Japanese as possible. Otherwise the bombs would have been dropped on Tokyo and Osaka which were the two most populous cities at the time.
The emperor was telling civilians to use sharpened bamboo spears and fight to the last person. Millions on both sides would have been killed had we not dropped the bombs.
@@gjsullivan55 On the contrary. If the death of twice as many wouldn't get Hirohito to give in, why would half the destruction do it? Makes no sense. It was instead the loss of their hope for negotiating a somewhat acceptable defeat via diplomatic channels. When their last diplomatic channel vanished, the cabinet agreed within hours of the news to the Defense Minister's pleas to meet. By contrast, only the DM wanted to meet after the atomic bombs were dropped. He was the only one with whom the atomic bombs registered. What the Emperor mentioned in the order to the Army to stand down was not the atomic bombs but instead 1895. The Army knew what this meant. That's when Meiji ordered the Army to surrender to Russia, so that it could come back and kick its ass in 1905. Fighting to the last man out of honor was no longer the policy, but rather to surrender as fast as possible in order to preserve what could be, so as to exact a proper settling of debts once Japan had sufficiently recovered. Hasegawa's book on the subject goes into considerable detail. He refers to a document written by the Secretary of the Navy in which he advised, "We should tell everybody we surrendered because of the bombs." In this document, he encouraged government officials to go along with the US narrative that the atomic bombs were decisive in the surrender, because it was more honorable to surrender to a new force of nature than to surrender to the Russians. So they were playing both sides. Even in defeat they were trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Nuclear weapons are more efficient in there destructive power, but the cost to the environment is much worse. If I am correct they only open trinity site once a year, if at all these days.
There's also the idea that no bombs have been detonated since Japan. Nowhere is it mentioned the hundreds of atomic bomb tests that took place during the cold war in the Pacific, the total disappearance of Bikini Island, leaving Bikini people with no land. Who knows how much radiation is still lingering there, how much destruction was caused to the ocean, and the overall increase of radiation all over the planet.
You can’t expect a film to cover every detail on something as dense as atomic weapons. The movie follows Oppenheimer, not the topic of nuclear weapons per se.
I’m sure this has been said a million times, but the movie’s focus wasn’t intended to be the bomb and it’s effects on society. The movie’s focus was Oppenheimer, his journey, his outlook, and the effect his work had on his life. As such, not covering the radiation, briefly mentioning Nagasaki, and not exploring the lasting effects on the communities affected by the follow up test all makes sense because none of it would have been in service to what the movie was made to explore.
Well at least not in this film. The subject needs continual investigation by writer film makers. I can appreciate this effort from Nolan. Swing Batter! He swung. However, I’ve seen the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki . I’m a Boomer from Chicago from the neighborhood in which the Enrico Fermi Lab is located at the University of Chicago. I was born during a time of lies on various subjects BUT it was my teachers who showed me the footage of the radiation effects. What is happening NOW in k-12 education, the suppression of history, the erasure of the evil outcomes of the TAST which preceded the European Holocaust, the evil effects of imperialism and colonialism, globally - so many failures in education contribute greatly to the decline in more and better investigations and narratives about the nuclear era: the time of lies! Now you have another mountebank running for President who has mandated in his state the erasure of the actual effects of slavery on Black people! In his warped view it was of some benefit to people of African descent. Lesson for today: we ARE what we create and what we communicate about what we ( as a species) have created.
A fair and accurate point, but still an ethical failing of a film - and I say this as one who thought it was quite a good film on the whole, and superb in its treatment of McCarthyism. The evils of the bomb needed to be felt more potently. It was a brilliant idea to have Oppenheimer imagine the effects on those around him, and it was poignantly and harrowingly done, but it was just too brief, and it passed over the most horrific imagery (read John Hersey's Hiroshima).
I think that people with these kinds of concerns about the film's content seem to instead want a different film (not focused on the life of Dr. Oppenheimer) that's called "The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Its Long-Term Legacy."
When I saw the movie the FIRST thought on my mind was “What about the fallout from the nuclear tests?” I can say the movie DID make me aware of it…not in words, but in the message. An artistic triumph.
@trapdoor2714 that is a good idea but a slippery slope to sending troops into battle or paying the families of the victims in Japan. It was war and some bad things happened but we have to remember it was war. Now if they want to compensate the families that were there during subsequent tests after the war I think that would be a great idea but during the war that's just not something that should be considered... if it is it should be dismissed right away
@tessmage_tessera yes but who's to say then that soldiers that die in battle or are wounded should be compensated also as like the people at the test site they were ordered. We are talking they are looking for big payoutsm
@tessmage_tessera no because 99% of the people who were at the testing during the war and post war were in the military be it army, navy or air force. There were very few private citizens that took any part of the testing.
I watched this film last night, and it is rightfully named Oppenheimer. It is a character piece first and foremost that took some creative liberties. It portrayed him clearly as a morally grey character that made mistakes over the span of his life, and without any spoilers ends on a strong anti nuclear message.
Yeah, I also get what this guy is saying, but to you your point. Oppie would have never know these things cause he died at 62. I am sure some of it is known, but it was a very first person film. I agree there should be more content about this and how it impacts our future. But it's very much a character study not a nuclear study. Makes some really good points of the perspective of how we talk about it
I definitely need to see this movie. Ended up watching the Barbie movie first lol last week but this one seems much more up my alley. Glad to know it’s worth it.
Oppenheimer had hopes the massive atomic force would end all wars. I don't fault him for his naivety, he was a physicist, his country asked him to achieve something quickly, he did. But he advocated governance after the Japanese bombings, that made most of the American political body, hate him. The guy did something amazing, and paid a heavy price for the rest of his life for his morality. I just hope enough people do a little more thinking, after seeing this movie.
Mind Begs the Question: Hitler demonized Religious Minority As part of Sinister Plan to Rule Guaranteed Evil Govts don't exist Plan False Flag attack,to test Nukes on Human Subjects?
He neglects to mention how Oppenheimer was pillaried for years by the US government and their obsession with anyone who had links to the communist party. This is a little known fact about his life and the film does an amazing job revealing this. It is a testimony to what Einstein said : 'They will use you until they don't need you'. There is much more in this film than what is presented here.
He was expendable once he had helped the principle to become practice and after expressing heterodox wayward views was a simple case of we don't need you anymore
That's exactly right - given that he and his fellow University buddies had strong pro communist views, the powers that be were sure to extract from him, the information they required, in order to build the device, and only then castigate him about his so called left leaning tendencies, removing his security clearance etc. The US Military Industrial Complex has never changed in that respect - uses people up and spits them out before moving onto the next expendable.....
While almost nothing is impossible for humans thru science and technology, achieving peace they are not capable of. This is the timeless message of the Bible, which forecasts and details such a once unimaginable horrible end of life on earth. But instead of seeing the terrors people are going to unleash on each other, people imagine they are humanitarian, good-natured, and peace loving. The human heart deceives itself. How long will you decieve yourself that you are honest, kind, and loving and reject the blood of Jesus as truth?
The movie did have scenes where it was briefly discussed that dropping the bombs was unnecessary because Japan was about to surrender. The movie also depicted the callousness of the decision to target some cities and spare Kyoto, and Oppenheimer's involvement. A good movie doesn't tell the audience decisions were wrong or callous, it allows the audience to reach that conclusion through observation. The ending scene of Oppenheimer is unequivocally morally disturbed by the dawning of the nuclear age. (Einstein and Oppenheimer finally reveal their conversation, and the audience realizes the extent of the misconceptions and mistakes made in the pursuit of power.)
I generally agree, especially regarding the showing rather than telling-a very important thing to remember in the arts, that is too often forgotten. I still agree with the criticisms that there needed to be more acknowledgment of the sheer catastrophe of the bombs, which could have been woven in when Oppenheimer's troubled conscience came up. Some acknowledgment of the radiation from the Trinity test certainly should have been included. The decision to have Oppenheimer imagining the effects of the bomb on those around him after hearing the news of Hiroshima was absolutely brilliant and impressive in its empathy, but I think it was too brief; I'd have liked it to have been extended, to recur, and to have included more of the horrific effects. None of this is to condemn the film, which on the whole I still think was excellent and moving. The exchange with Einstein at the end was superb, and it deserves praise for how it handled McCarthyism especially.
Japan was not remotely close to surrender despite its very weakened state. The idea that the Japanese were going to surrender is a complete fable, based on nothing.
@@dmbeasterthey didn't want to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. It wasn't until the second bomb was dropped that they decided to surrender. And even then there were those that opposed surrender
@@Thishandleisntavailableyo Hirohito directed the surrender. The Big 6 that decided war policy were split 3-3, with the Army faction opposing surrender. This was after Nagasaki. The Japanese government had never proposed any surrender terms to anybody, had never formulated any terms, and were explicitly committed to suicidal resistance. The idea that they were ready to surrender has always been an historical lie in service of damning the US use of the bomb to end the war.
I honestly thought most people would watch a movie and know it's not 100% accurate and then go actually research the title to learn the story.. Unfortunately, that's not the case...
in this case nolan is well known for trying to get things right, even with fiction, he had kip thorne, a nobel physicist as consultant to interstellar - thorn won his nobel for work on black holes. nolan is another arty farty director imho, but accurate.
@@HarryNicNicholas Absolutely agree with you. I love his work I really do.. I'm wondering if this was kept out because it was "boring" or wasn't easy to tell..
@@HarryNicNicholas Physicist here, Interstellar try to get the visual right but besides that there is no single Physics fact corret. I won't even touch the fact that Kip Thorne "exotic" matter is just a term put by brute force in the equations to force a wormhole to be stable and traversable...a mathemathical fiction without any Physics reason...put there like the cosmological constant: just because...ooops I touched it...
Well of course, social justice has to be brought into it somehow otherwise what's the point of even bringing it up on "democracy now"?🙄😆 Have to complain about all the horrible people who were vaporized 77 years ago when those same people who were vaporized would easily gut you like a fish simply because you were an American.
They make a good point here saying that the U.S. still justifies the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. There's a good counter-point that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9th followed by their victory over Japanese forces may have had as much or more to do with the surrender on August 15th as those bombings. But a scientific decision was made by the scientists not packing up and going home after Germany's surrender May 8, 1945, but continuing to work on the bomb through the Trinity test of July 16, 1945. The justification was to beat Germany. But then it became about using them against Japan, and showing off to the Soviets.
My grandfather knew Einstein and Oppenheimer they all lived on the same street in Princeton NJ. My mom and her brothers would visit Einstein who liked kids and in the 50s would lecture at Princeton University along with play his fiddle my mom said Einstein was a nice guy but Oppenheimer was not a nice guy and would always yell at the kids if they got on his lawn. Einstein had always wanted nuclear power to be used for clean energy and was more of a humanitarian and disappointed at the continued development of more and more powerful bombs after the war. Also although Einstein was for a Jewish state he was against the tactics used by Menachem Begin which in a letter he wrote to Eisenhower claimed Begin and his group were using the same tactics as the Nazis against Palestinians and urged the president not to meet with Menachem Begin and his group .
Wow, thank you for that information. I knew Einstein refused to be prime minister of the newly created Israel; I did not know he had likened Menachem Begin to the Nazis. Where can someone access that letter you mention?
Always been very interested in Einstein and have read nearly all of the biographies out there and the relevant stories in which he was involved on the periphery - including the book that this movie was developed from. A remarkable person for sure and it would have been great to meet him. With that said - Einstein was a very flawed man. He ran out on his young child when he was younger and really screwed a number of people over who were close to him throughout his life. Like many driven men, he was incredibly selfish. He was also an incredible and unashamed liar and hypocrite when it came to his BS "passivism." He deplored nationalism when it was convenient for him (he was too good for this notion) yet he made an exception for Zionism. Hmm, I wonder why? In truth he wanted others to do the fighting and dying for him. He had the fame and resources to flee Europe and come to the US so he could be protected by those evil US warmongers and live in peace and prosperity - all the while, deploring the systems and sacrifice that provided this to him. While he did some basic work for the Navy in WW2, it was of little value - but I will give him credit for it. The truth is that by this time he had been left behind in terms of physics and technology but his name was still big. Einstein was never the innocent, absent minded professor that he is sometimes described as. He was a hard core leftist hypocrite who was also very naive and was continually talked into signing onto other people's causes or documents - just like the letter to Roosevelt. Like all leftists, he tended to ignore the horrific evils of socialism and communism that must exist in order for the state to survive - absolute tyranny, police states, gov't controlled financial systems, oppression, bread lines, etc, etc, etc- and in the case of Stalin the outright slaughter of millions of his own citizens over the decades. I can never understand why leftists come to the US and want to bring all of these evil and failed concepts here, Why don't they stay in their shithole countries if it is so great - its been such a success in places like the USSR, the Eastern Block, Venezuela, North Korea, etc, etc. Oppenheimer may have been a communist with all of the absurdity and death that this entails, but at least he was an honest one who also sacrificed for his country. Right or wrong, he paid the price for it as well later in life. Einstein was neither honest or willing to sacrifice anything. He lived in freedom and comfort and expected others to die for this for him. I always wondered why people like Einstein and Oppenheimer (and his commie girlfriend and wife) didn't run to Russia when they had the chance at any point in their lives? I would have thought that in their 20's as their careers and political ideals were formative, they would have gone to Russia since they believed so much in the system and the cause? Hmmm......I wonder.
@gkaleta6993 socialism rocks, capitalism is the pure definition of evil. Einstein was a sucker because he said we could get all our nuclear shit in the Congo, which led to even more thousands of deaths and unrest still felt to this day, among other honky devils in the Congo. Keep enjoying those cherry picked statistics about communism and socialism while everyone and everything around us is dying :^) Fuck the IDF, Isreal, and much love to the jews against the racist Israeli govt
My husband’s first wife passed away from a rare brain tumor at 56 years old. She had downwinders syndrome. The syndrome is associated with nuclear testing in Nevada. What a terrible shame.
@@Ren-wd9oc I'm not doubting that, I'm just saying that 65 miles north of Las Vegas they used to test those all the time in the 50s. Stil it's about 20 times more radioactive than Chernobyl even today.
While I think the film is quite amazing, and it does make one think about the larger implications, I will say this: whatever one think about the pros and cons of using the bomb at the end of WWII, I wish everyone in this country could visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Hiroshima. It was as unforgettable an experience as seeing the film, maybe even more so. I don't think I had much understanding of the true horror of the event until I went to that museum years ago. Incredible.
@@victorfernandes83 Some said that then and some still say it but you can't be so rigid when confronting the morality of the issue,, by August of 45 the Japanese population was living in bombed-out cities, their Navy airforce and merchant Marine were all but completely destroyed,, they still had far-flung army forces in various places that were still formidable but when they're cut off from Japan what's the point? The entire Japanese military regime was a completely depraved and sadistic band of ghouls rather than a military force, so I say those bombs should have been dropped on the most handy large concentration of Japanese military forces that were available... A task force in a battle was out of the question since the Japanese didn't have the naval assets to fill a task force anymore,, so if you ask me the 150,000 troops on Rabaul should have been sacrificed instead of civilians in Hiroshima... The shipyards in Yokohama or Osaka could have gotten the Fat Man,, with civilian casualties reduced to maybe a few thousand and the works being probably totally destroyed...
My father was in an Army Air Force B29 squadron and was part of the U S forces which occupied Japan after the war. In the year after the War, he visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki spending a day in each taking numerous photos - all of his film rolls were confiscated. He lived a very healthy life to the age of 83.
Yes, i read Washington kept a tight lid on the effects of the bomb. This is why we should appreciate the work of investigative journalist John Hersey, who was the first to tell the story of the aftermath. He interviewed several survivors. His account was published in the New Yorker August 1946 and made into a book 2 months later titled "Hiroshima" - it has since never gone out of print
My Dad was in the Australian Navy and also was a part of the occupation of Japan. I have seen a letter he wrote to his mother telling her he had visited Hiroshima six months after the bomb was dropped. Like your Dad he had collected many photos of his experiences across China and Japan. On his return to Australia everything he had collected showing Japanese attrocities in China and the destruction of war was confiscated. He lived into his mid eighties and died . He was sixteen when he joined the navy and went to war, I wonder if he and your father ever recovered from the the things they saw. All the best to you and your family .
@@barquerojuancarlos7253 John Herseys poignant retrospective colored my impressions of the bomb when I was a young man. Hiroshima remains an invaluable source for students to acquire the raw information to inform their own opinions. It would not be a far fetched idea to secure a copy before cultural conflicts make it an issue.
If you ever think of moving to Utah, New Mexico, Colorado or Nevada, be sure to understand the remote areas where the nuclear tests were conducted. Amazing that few people talk about how radiation is still a significant issue in some areas today.
Because it isn't. You can freaking TOUR the Trinity nuclear site, goofus. Or are you confusing a few long term radiation storage areas (from nuclear power PLANTS) with nuclear BOMB test sites? Most US testing was done off US soil, and when it wasn't, tested well underground.
@@nmart1n I read an article years ago about how there were high incidences of birth defects, especially in parts of Utah where radioactive dust drifted across the state, and it just made me shake my head. Amazing how all of those tests were carried out and no one thought that it would have far-reaching health consequences (or didn't care) for the populations and wildlife in those areas.
@@postive-vibes Even watching the movie I was thinking about the exposure for the scientists, soldiers and all the people for miles around. Just insane that they never cared about that, it was all about producing the bomb.
"In 1939, German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann made a landmark discovery. Bombarding uranium with neutrons could transform the material into a smaller element, barium." Germans discovered the neutron 235 principle used in the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki. You can be sure that if Germany had beaten Oppenheimer to the bomb, they would have used it on us.
The main narrative is that USA had to make the bomb, because else the Nazis would make it first. The reality is, Germany wasn´t even close to a nuclear bomb and it wasn´t a big and goverment supported project. The whole Nazis/Nuclear bomb thing is to justify dropping the two bombs on Japan.
Greg Mitchell irresponsibly dismisses the argument that dropping the bombs shortened the war and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on BOTH sides. The Japanese mindset at the time was that they would not accept invasion, even if it meant that women and children, armed only with sharpened bamboo stakes, would be the ones fighting American soldiers. The Japanese were told, over and over, that the Americans were barbarians who would inflict all sorts of horrors on the Japanese people. I've seen film footage of women in Okinawa throwing their babies off of a cliff and into the ocean, then jumping in after them, rather than face the supposed abuse they would suffer from the approaching American troops. Read Major Charles W. Sweeney's book, War's End, for an eyewitness account of the progression of the war, the bombing of Nagasaki (Sweeney was the pilot), and the very real reasons why the bombs needed to be used.
To my knowledge the Japanese were already seeking to surrender on reasonable terms and recently read that the US had been planning to find a reason to attack Japan before Pearl Harbour and of course the West and Germans Nazis were in a race to build a atom bomb. Also didn't the Dutch attack and take over Islands of Indonesia and that's why your family were there?
I don’t understand the criticism of the movie not showing the japanese getting nuked, Oppenheimer wasn’t there to see it, it’s a biopic from his perspective and I think the statement from the general choosing not to nuke kyoto because he honeymooned their showed the absolute horror of the decision, the movie was pretty clearly anti-nuclear and I’m really just confused that people keep making it sound like it was pro war and pro nuclear
Probably because you are a reasonable person who sees this film and thinks further than "Ooo pretty light" but sadly many people will do exactly that. We can't give the kind of psycho-paths who think dropping nukes on hurricanes is a "great idea" any more horrible ideas until we get those people back into the closet of shame.
@@nathanstruble2177 a reasonable person wouldn't have developed nuclear energy as a weapon. People's logic to justify killing people is mindboggling. It was developed to kill people, and that is what they did. Hollywood glamorizes violence too much.
I couldn't have explained it better. The movie is based the book American Prometheus. It's about a complex man and his life, not a documentary. Also as to the scene you pointed out, they discuss civilian casualties.
@@snailcorepistolwhippits9488 exactly and his reaction to the information and data he gets from the 2 bombs. I’m sure their is room for those raw emotions
The decades of nuclear tests had nothing to do with the film. The losses of the Japanese by the bombs are unfortunate, but a U.S. invasion of Japan would have had much, much worse. During the last months of the war 400,000 people a month were dying in the war. The US could expect up to a million deaths and the Japanese 10 million deaths in the battle for Japan.
Perhaps Nolan is a filmmaker, not a documentary maker, and he trusts his audience to be informed accordingly going in, or to be intelligent enough to do the digging to know the truth after the fact. As an introduction to this turning point of history for millions of younger viewers worldwide, we have to consider that all of the consideration of “the event” taking place on account of this movie’s popularity wouldn’t remotely exist otherwise.
That's part of Nolans appeal. Modern Hollywood treats their audience like idiots. Nolan treats the audience like they are intelligent enough to understand it, research it or pick it up half way through... It's like a breath of fresh hair not being handheld all the way through and coming out with views so different to the person next to you that you wonder if they were paying attention
@@matwatson7947 You sure about that? We are talking about the guy here that gave us "gems" of intelligent storytelling and thoroughly consistent plots like "The Dark Knight Rises" and those comic movies with the dude with the red cape...
I agree. Mitchell asks for too much from the movie. I was expecting Hiroshima footage, but I get the decision not to go there. He did convey the horror even though it was on a surreal level with the nightmarish images going through Oppenheimer's mind. Also, the use of sound was important in conveying the horror of an atomic bomb.
I just seen an eye opening documentary that a British investigative journalist did that shocked me to the core. My boyfriend when he was a child lived on an island named Kawjalean,(I never heard of it)so I looked it up. On youtube I came across this documentary. The story to say the least is very involved. The long and short of it all is the American government detonated bombs in the Pacific ocean around a bunch of islands. The military told the inhabitants to these islands that they would be safe. That was the farest thing from the truth. The native people were used as guinea pigs for our government to test the effects of radiation on people. One of the beautiful islands became completely uninhabitable(I think it was bikini island) there is still traces of radiation existing there today. Many of the people died, suffered long term effects, loss of hair, loss of skin and the list goes on, literally dispictable. The island my boyfriend lived on named Kawjalean is now a United States property for military and they do rocket launches off this island. Our government just thought it was okay to uproot these native people and put them on another island, and used these same ppl as guinea pigs.. all in the name of warfare. Why we never hear about this I can speculate. The news is controlled and we only hear what they allow us to hear. Sounds like our democracy is just as bad if not worse than countries ruled by dictators or communist parties. I thinK WE NEED LEADERS THAT ARE FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE!! NOT JUST WEALTHY LAWYERS WHO HAVE BIG FINANCIAL BACKERS.. ITS OUR TIME
US is not perfect, surely has much much freedom for its people than a marxist hellhole. If your uncertain of this I invite you to live in one of those.
The island you refer to is Kwajalein. A number of islands in the Pacific were selected as sites for nuclear testing. The government was well aware of the negative effects of being exposed to certain radiation; that was not new -- Marie Curie developed some radiation poisoning. The government did undertake efforts to relocate people who occupied these islands and the islanders were not given much of a choice. They were treated unfairly; after all, they had no vote on the matter.
Anyone who watches that movie and DOESNT understand the horrors of the aftermath of a nuclear blast, arent very intelligent to begin with. We dont need the movie to show and detail every statistical aspect of what happens during a nuclear explosion.
I understand Greg mitchell's point on what's missing... But those omissions would be a problem if the movie was called "the bomb"... The movie is called Oppenheimer, its about the ambivalence on his words, his relationship with his coworkers... Some aspects of his personal life. The movie is 3 hours long, but yes, there was material for making it last two more hours...
Hardly anyone would take an interest in Oppenheimer's life, if it weren't for his pivotal role in the development and use of the most deadly weapon that has ever been deployed in warfare. It is a complete failure of the movie to focus on some petty power plotting of a politician instead of doing the exploration of the moral dilemma justice.
Okay, but it didn't have to be only about the guy's life. The title could have been different. That's why Greg is saying Hollywood is afraid of the truth about the bomb.
It was based on the book on "Oppenheimer", hence Nolan made the film about him based on the book. So many movies could be made on so many different aspects of nuclear weapons, war, etc.
Well it is a prpblem if you ommit that he defended the bomb. That seems like its a very important aspect to the man to omit. Would be a bit like showing i dunno one of hitlers guys looking on sadly at gas chambers when actually he was a eugenisist till the day he died no?
I disagree with him. Oppenheimer did have an internal struggle and it was shown when he visited Truman saying I have blood on my hands and advocated to shut down the program. He also did publicly defended the bomb and it was shown on the film when he spoke to the public but his struggle couldn’t let him hear the claps etc
I thought the effect of the movie was even stronger when Oppenheimer couldn't hear audience clapping and saw them in a flash. It was absolutely chilling.
I'm not a Nolan Fanboy, however you may have missed the point of the movie. Everyone and their grandson now can google images of the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The implied horror of what Oppenheimer's team had unleashed upon the world hit way harder than showing sensationalized pictures of burnt bodies. The scene where Oppenheimer hallucinates about stepping onto the husk of a burnt body very convincingly conveys what might have been going through his mind thinking about the horrors that were unleashed upon the two Japanese cities. I understand this speaker's concerns about the fallout from the nuclear tests, and the protracted aftermath of the little boy/ Fat man explosions. But it would be foolish to ignore the efficacy of a movie that has inspired so many viewers to actually read about the history behind this era.
I agree, the movie’s a character study on Oppenheimer, so it focuses more on him than the nuclear bombs themselves. At first i thought we should’ve seen the bombing of Japan, but when i thought about it i realised that really would have been out of place and silly. We see the whole movie from Oppenheimer’s perspective, he didn’t see the bombing of Japan so why should we?
@@trento9891 i've been to hiroshima, my in-laws are japanese, the japanese are pretty philosophical about the bombs, most of the people of japan didn't want to the war, hirohito is to blame for all of the atrocities, even the ones the japanese inflicted on numerous others. my son and i watched the movie, he rang the peace bell in hiroshima city, when he 3 years old, it's a great and thriving city.
If you historically track global conflicts starting from the 7 Years War/French & Indian War, the Nuclear Weapon has quelled global conflicts. You should also consider the effects and carnage Industrialization has had starting from the American Civil War. The Nuclear Weapon is ACTUALLY the single greatest deterrent from Mass Slaughter.
It's really easy to judge with the benefit of hindsight the decisions that were made at the end of the second world war, a war that had cost the lives of millions already, I'm pretty sure that Truman and Oppenheimer and all who were involved in the manhatten project to their dying days felt some responsibility for what happened but the reality was after 5+ years of killing they wanted a conclusive end to the war. Millions more dying fighting for every inch of ground in Japan must have been so very unpalatable that any alternatives must have been appealing. Let's not forget that Japan was not the country it is today, it was a militarist ultranationlist xenophobic dictatorship that had rolled across its neighbours, treating those that surrendered combatant and non-combatant alike in the most brutal fashion imaginable. Deaths from Japan's actions alone are estimated to be close to 30 million, that doesn't include the millions of other victims who didn't actually die but had to live with the trauma they experienced.
Completely Accurate ! Millions of Chinese SLAUGHTERED. Japanese Soldiers Beheading people with swords for sadistic enjoyment. . . That's how Karma works, in this instance, Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword. The Japanese "owned it."
@@floridaboomer523 Don't forget the Japanese citizens keeping a "killed score" of their favorite soldier. Japan's citizenry supported their government's aggression and murder.
On the day the Atomic Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, millions of people in Asia remained under the boot of the Japanese Military andnthe Japanese Secret Police, the Kempeitai. The life expectancy of anyone under Kempeitai interrogation was not good. The atomic bombs were a major factor in Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945. Many lives throughout Asia were saved as well. It was not the only factor, but a major factor nonetheless. Emperor Hirohito's rescript ending Japan's war specifically mentioned "a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable ... . Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation"...
This movie is about Oppenheimer and shot from his viewpoint. It's NOT a retrospect, it's NOT about all the facts of the atomic bomb. Mister Mitchell is saying facts but is blind for the fact the movie isn't about all these things he complains about aren't explicit in the movie.
Chill bro, it’s still a good movie. But this dude makes super valid points, Nolan got cold feet and didn’t show the Nagasaki footage, just Murphy looking depressed
"This movie is abou...ying facts but is blind for the fact the movie isn't about all these things he complains about aren't explicit in the movie." But that's kind of the point! It SHOULD be about that!
I just watched the movie today. I Highly recommend to anyone. Timing of this movie is Incredible considering the fact that nato is at war (proxy war) with a nuclear armed russia. Just like in the movie even today, some people are dismissive of the fact that russia could really use a nuclear weapon if they feel threatened. It would be great if we had more nations speaking up to make peace and stop the war in ukraine and russia. Even a small nuke today is much more powerful then the ones US used in Japan!
Any peace that benefits everyone is a failure to Russia's objectives, so no, it won't happen. The attitude Russia has had towards Ukraine has been the same for over 200 years, it's not even the first time Ukraine has tried to break away from Russian influence. So no this isn't a "proxy" war, this would have happened with or without NATO, but Ukraine won't be totally alone this time. It's time for Russia to wake up and finally answer the question of who they are, otherwise they will continue to drag the rest of the world down with them.
I wonder if anyone asked the opinions of the men who were preparing for the invasion of Japan what they thought? Every one of these hippocrates today would willingly press the button if their lives were on the line....and these cowards know it!
The only thing I didn’t like about the movie is that they build up the trinity test the whole time but they don’t show the immense scale of the explosion. The cloud itself was nearly 1.5x taller than Mount Everest. But instead they show a hyper closeup view of the explosion instead. I think showing a man standing before this impossibly massive explosion would’ve been important in showing how insanely horrific it was. I think Oppenheimer had regret almost immediately just looking at how large the explosion was.
ya I can't agree more. The flash was so bright you could see your bones through your hand, but yet that wasn't even shown... they could have carried an important message in this movie, how dangerous these weapons are --- but they didn't... what a missed opportunity.
@@yaynu yeah 💯..a missed opportunity by Hollywood and even worse by Nolan. He chicken out, they all do in the end when they piles of stash and immense wealth is at risk. Wont be watching anymore of Nolan the rat 🐀 movies ever again. What a goddamn sellout
You may be aware of it but if you want a real life, frightening scale look, check out the footage from the Baker Blast from Operation Crossroads. Where they strung out all manner of ships to see what would happen then detonated a hydrogen bomb below the water's surface. Blast wave with water is titantic, visibly sweeping in to destroy those ships.
@@ZZ-ou7gpyou are so stupid you know that? This movie isn't a history lesson. Nolan didn't make this movie to lecture anyone. He simply made a good movie and specifically through the eyes the physicist thats why its literally named Oppenheimer. Nolan was not going on a moral crusade or anything....It was a film through the lens of Oppenheimer not a tribute to the victims.
From the title itself, the movie is about Oppenheimer. You cannot put everything that happened in years of events with its every detail in a 3 hour movie. It's about Oppenheimer, what he felt about his invention and the consequences afterwards, how it was used, how it affected his mental health. It's a biopic. The focus of the story is of course more about Oppenheimer.
There’s no question the story was about Oppenheimer. The issue was what are the most important details of his life story seventy years later. The story focused FAR too much on the vindication of his reputation, and far too little on the existential crisis and consequences of his earth changing work.
@@ranjeeththunga The story definitely does not vindicate Oppenheimer's reputation at all, in fact it shows him to be a coward and a hypocrite. It sounds like you wanted a different film, this was a biopic that actually seemed to spend more time demonstrating how the left were unfairly persecuted than on the bomb itself. We should absolutely use this film as a spring board to talk about, as you said, 'the existential crisis and consequences of his earth changing work'. But this is art at the end of the day, we can judge it to be good or bad, but it has no moral obligation. I think we can use topics like the film's portrayal of the persecution of the left and how unnecessary and cruel the dropping of the bombs were to start wider conversations about these topics. I feel like spending all our time critiquing a film for things you wanted to be in it, rather than using the film as a starting point to discuss those issues covers up the very real and important things the film does discuss.
@@ranjeeththungathat’s not what the movie is about though, that’s what you want it to be about. Its purpose was to explore Oppenheimer’s journey and how it affected him. The focus of the movie was not his work but how is work affected his life. So no, it didn’t focus too little on the consequences of his life changing work since the atom bomb was never meant to be the star of the show
The least they could have done is acknowledge the consequences of the atomic bomb a little better though. Like if we'd actually seen the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on screen then the film would be a much better film than it already is, as well as more honest about what the bomb actually represents. Plus the fact that it's a 3 hour movie shows that Christopher Nolan wasn't concerned about runtime.
It's a very important point you mentioned that the film can be a springboard for further dialog. I guess kinda like what we're having. :) So I do agree from a higher perspective, it still does serve its purpose and where we can go from here. I still believe a different film would give a better platform for discussion... I believe the film we got represents our sociopathic obsession with whose at fault more than the gravity of human tragedy. But we work with what we got.
No one ever ask the opinion of the marines, seabees and sailors that were going to be the lead into an invasion of Japan. Those American servicemen that had just fought at Iwo Jima and Okinawa i am sure were very glad the bomb was used. The bomb saved many lives of both our servicemen and Japanese. Also, it sent a message to Russia to NOT EVEN think about invading and taking parts of East Asia.
(1) The movie has an exceptionally clear and unambiguous anti-nuclear weapon theme, delivered in several very ominous and frightening scenes. I've seen critiques of the movie claiming that because some particular theme the critic feels strongly about seems to have been omitted, this makes the movie supportive of the use of nuclear weaponry. I'm baffled - and not entirely sure what movie the critic saw. You could use exactly the same arguments to claim 'Apocalypse Now' is a pro-Vietnam War move, or that 'The Godfather' is supportive of the Mafia. You could make 20 epic movies all about the creation of the first nuclear weapons, all of them excellent, all of them focusing on a different set of themes in different settings, and still leave something significant out. It's a vast subject. (2) Some of the 'omissions' are deliberate. In horror movies, effective directors sometimes don't show the monster directly on screen and rely on the viewer's imagination to conjure up something far worse than could ever be shown, or for the dread sense of the unknown to make the viewer more tense and frightened. I will make zero spoilers - just that Christopher Nolan tries to use this device fairly often, such as in a scene where scientists are looking in horror, disgust and shock at something we aren’t shown. Our imaginations are cued by their faces. There’s definitely a debate to be had about whether he pulled this off, could he have done it better, or should he have tried something else entirely, given the subject matter. But there are certain things a number of critics seem to demand should have been depicted on screen, and the lack of this is evidence of a harmful bias on the director’s part and lack of understanding of the subject matter. I think that’s unfair. (3) Some of the things people are upset about not being addressed in the movie . . . ARE in the movie. Literally. They’re in it, and addressed and tackled. Characters mention them out loud in dialogue. I’m gobsmacked. I think the problem is that two decades of huge budget franchise blockbusters have dumbed audiences down. The subject matter is present in a complex, nuanced and adult script with a lot of dense dialogue, nuanced acting depicting morally ambiguous characters and sophisticated, multi-layered visual direction. You have to be observant and work to follow what's happening. Also when certain things are presented, the viewer doesn’t seem to be given easy answers. A lot of the greatest art challenges the viewer, reader or listener to come up with their own thoughts and ideas in a response. Instead, some modern audiences seem to be upset with ‘Oppenheimer’ that it didn’t spoon feed them clear, simple didactic messaging that lined up with the personal morality they already held before viewing it. Which is doubly strange because it’s a movie that definitely and harshly critiques the emerging military-industrial complex, the nuclear arms race, McCarthyism and secret lobbying. (4) The film is chiefly a psychological portrait of Robert J Oppenheimer, architect of nuclear weaponry. My opinion is that while there are a few flawed scenes, generally it’s an excellent piece of cinema, and frequently it’s quite brilliant. It’s also far more historically accurate than the average historical blockbuster. Responsibility in tackling important historical subject matter is crucial - there’s always a risk someone may walk away from something like this with a serious misapprehension about real life history. Ironically for me, one of my favourite movies, ‘Amadeus’, based on Peter Shaffer’s play, while a brilliant piece of fictional drama, put completely incorrect ideas in millions of people’s heads. In real life, Mozart and Salieri were nothing like the versions in the movie. Obviously, that’s music and the lives of musicians. The stakes are far higher when dealing with subject matter involving, say, racism or war. But at the same time, when someone wants to make a creative piece of art, I don’t think starting out by handing them a long checklist of things they have a ‘duty’ to include in their creative piece to ensure its validity is a positive way of approaching human creativity. My feeling on this comes from decades of teaching creative art. 5) Everyone, however, has the absolute right to communicate whatever criticism they like about this film. Criticism is not to be feared - it is to be embraced. If you disagree with my take, and think ‘Oppenheimer’ failed because some element, especially one you may have expertise in, was not in the movie - you may well be correct, and I may be wrong. I will make a suggestion. This is not glib mockery, or snide - I am absolutely sincere and encouraging. Write your own screenplay about the subject matter. I’m serious. Maybe you’ve never written a line of scripted dialogue in your life. Maybe you’ve never even read or seen a movie script. Maybe you have never even thought for a millisecond of your existence up until now of birthing a single syllable of creative writing. Maybe you’re convinced you can’t do it. So? Research how scripts are written. Rewatch your favourite movies to see if you can understand why they are your favourites. Research the subject matter deeply and immersively. Summon up your disappointment at ‘Oppenheimer’, and all your emotion, your political conviction, your ideals, your energy, your creativity - and see what happens. Will you write a brilliant screenplay, make that movie and have it a success? I have absolutely no idea. Probably not, because life is twisty, chaotic, unpredictable and very unfair. You WILL fail several times, write a lot of utter rubbish, get frustrated and upset, and curse that idiot with his TH-cam comment and why the hell did you ever pay attention to it. But you may also start an important journey that will teach you and people around you important things, and maybe a true criticism of ‘Oppenheimer’ will emerge - your vision. Not mine, not Christopher Nolan’s, not anyone else’s - your vision. Maybe it will be just an essay - or maybe a fully fledged script. Perhaps even with a storyboard. Maybe you’ll even shoot a full production. Maybe it will be a documentary. Maybe a stage play. Who knows? The best answer to art that fails is art that succeeds.
Im not sure what Greg Michell is getting at here when he claims that a Japanese surrender was possible before the bombs were dropped. To be clear, the Japanese were not willing to surrender even after the first bomb was dropped. Is he implying that the Americans did not in fact intercept communications from the Japanese between August 7-9 ( the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on the 6th) confirming that a nuclear attack of Hiroshima had occurred and that they were willing to move forward with the war in the face of more destruction? The second bomb was then dropped on the 9th. Is he claiming that didn’t happen? He says Hiroshima was a civilian target, but Hiroshima was the headquarters of an Army division and for the Field Marshal in command of the defence of Southern Japan. Hiroshima was also an industrial target as it manufactured a lot of items needed for war. I’ve not read this man’s books, but can anyone with possibly a better understanding of his work and of history illuminate my confusion here please?
It amazes me how people are treating this whole thing as if it's never been discussed before. Every bit of what was in the film has been covered--perhaps not in one place--in past documentaries, etc. I would highly recommend a visit to the Bradbury Museum at Los Alamos, NM. I learned a number of things there which I'd not seen covered in ANY of the many films, etc. that have been produced to date.
Yes, the young don't know, and they don't even suspect. Therefore, they don't even know how to form a real discussion about WW2, much less the bomb. People that are geriatric Boomers with good jobs don't even know their own World History.
American history regardless of the claims of museums and the like, is built on lies. If you choose to believe this garbage, then you are underscoring these lies and we deserve what we get
Yup. Bewildering wasn't it? Italy non cinematic experience - men talking talking in poorly lit? rooms. About communism of all things. Again. Totally missing the point if a Summer Entertainment all about atomic bang bang kids, get your Popcorn! And fizzle. Way more on utub clips. Zero scroll at end credits to at least patch up the fallout, locals, Conquistador cast/crew, statistics re: Japan if not even 1 image shown??? 1 character? Anti NUkraine message ? All just ignored. Can only imagine Alphabet agency financed. Zzzzz
There is a tendency in looking at history to argue "what if things went differently?" and to get so downright absorbed in that cloud of speculation to lose sight of the needs of the present. The atomic bombs were dropped. It happened, there is no going back and changing things... We can argue endlessly about whether or not it was necessary but that will not bring about any productive changes... It is exactly the same thing with the Ukraine war. This and that, what if this or that? People lose sight of the real enemy, the real issues in the endless pursuit to speculate a different series of events potentially occurring. It is said that those who do not look at history are doomed to repeat it... I think the same can be true in the sense that those who look too much into history are doomed to become obsessed with it and take on the wrong lessons, or become paralysed by indecision. Know your history but understand how to use that knowledge for the right reasons.
Watched the movie last Friday on opening night. I think the movie absolutely challenges the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. It makes a crystal clear condemnation of it in fact and I think there are multiple scenes that do this. First of all they make it clear in the scene before the Trinity test that Germany had already surrendered and that Oppenheimer’s intention was to defeat the N*zis, they state that they’re using the weapon on an already defeated enemy. They state again and again that Oppenheimer never expected it to be used at all. Only that they demonstrated it’s power to enemies as a deterrent. “This weapon would make war unthinkable” “weapon to end all wars” Harry Truman is portrayed as a villain in his scene where Oppenheimer tells him he feels he has blood on his hands and Truman calls him a crybaby scientist. The entire last hour is explores his guilt and inner conflict over what happened. It wasn’t just a concern for the future use. There is even a line where Oppenheimer says he regretted building the bomb as soon as he realised they’d use it. I’m not sure where this guy got the idea that this film in any way supports the usage of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
His critique of the movie feels somewhat hollow. I think they wanted to discuss the history of Oppenheimer and the bombs regardless of the movie’s audience reception.
LOL, unbeknowst to most, they are simply watching yet another U$ propaganxx. THAT is the beauty of hollywood, it "appears" to show you the h0rrors of nukes but so what, there has been many debates, public enquiry, senate enquiry, congressional hearings of all sorts in the U$....what is the outcome? JFk enquiry, debates, faked illlegal Irak war, Nam, Libya, and so on....what does it matter, everybody knows the true story, U$ is a terr0r state...NOTHING and NO ONE will be held to acct....just another holllywood productions. Welcome to U$ propaganda, it makes you feel good you can talk and discuss about U$ atrocities, but it's just another dog and pony show. LOL
The movie never shows him as clearly opposing the bombings themselves, only that he was "conflicted", which is itself just an exaggeration. He was opposed only to the subsequent arms race, not the dropping of the bombs themselves, in fact he seems to buy the excuses that the military made up for their use at the time and even helped choose the targets. Now regarding the movie, yes it may be read as having a vague anti nuclear message if it all. But I'd say the problematic aspect of the movie isn't its message but its whitewashing and valorization of Oppenheimer as some kind of tragic martyr, deeply troubled by his deeds...etc. It's only a movie of course, and its a fun watch, but we should valorize characters like that, there's nothing to admire there other than scientific and managerial competence.
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.
This weapon was going to be made. Whether by us in the U.S. or Russia after the war. A lot like A.I. (or any revolutionary new tech today), humanity has this fundamental relationship with the laws of physics and the universe: "If it is impossible, there is no problem." "If it is possible, it is inevitable."
Actually there was a scene of Oppenheimer watching footage from Hiroshima, in which he intentionally looks away from the screen, which is why we as viewers don't see the footage. A powerful scene as it shows how he did not have the guts to look the horror he partook in creating into the face. The film depicts him as flawed individual, and while it celebrates him to an extent, it also shows the damage such a celebration of individual genius can lead to. Also, the film does not shy away from the fact that the bomb was used against the rightful doubts of many whether it was necessary, and has an explicit scene in which Oppenheimer, believing the lies his superiors have told him (and hell-bent on continuing what he has begun), opposes people who are holding a meeting at Los Alamos jn in which they discuss that it is not necessary to use the bomb as the Japanese are loosing in military strengh day by day. Mitchell makes many good and important points, but some of the allegedly omitted facts are actually in the film, albeit perhaps drowned by the pace and onslaught of dense imgagery, and perhaps brushed over too quickly
There is no scene in the movie where Oppenheimer watched footage of the aftermath of the bomb! My God, did you people even WATCH the movie? Oppenheimer heard the news on the radio, like everyone else at that time. The film is a snapshot of the time of the bombing! The only aftermath covered were the attempts to label him a communist and discredit him later because of his opposition to nuclear proliferation!
Thank you-excellent points. The people hell-bent on labeling everything about the dropping of the bomb “evil” have lost context and you are right to point that out. Not everything needs to be an opportunity to reinforce their own oversimplified views.
No one knew exactly which way the Japanese military was going. We did know that their soldiers would fight to the death, and that the Japanese civilians were willing to do the same, by the 10s of thousands.
@@emitindustries8304 Agreed. As well as the fact that the Allies were 'running out' of adult-aged males to send to war after at least 4 years of hard fighting (by the USA at least). We also didn't trust the Soviets and could not turn our backs on them in Europe. It was a very,very difficult decision, all decisions on using deadly weapons against an opponent always are.
The idea that Japan was close to surrendering is silly in nature. If The Japanese were close, they would've surrendered after the first bomb. I'll include a story from my father. He was a baby boomer and while he was in school, two Japanese foreign exchange students came to his school. They talked about how their dad, a child, and their grandmother were training to fight Americans to the death. They said if the bombs had not been dropped, they never would've been born. That came from two Japanese teenage brothers.
The Japan omissions were on purpose. This movie is a biopic made mainly from Oppenheimer's perspective. When those bombs left on a truck from Los Alamos, Oppenheimer lost control of them and therefore anything that happens after that. You can see it in his eyes that he has apprehension about what he has just created and lost control of. Hence his whole meeting with Truman. This still weighed on Oppenheimer greatly. Also, the movie does a great job about illustrating the conflicting nature of the whole situation. The imperfection of man and the decisions we make. Its by no means a war movie, so I absolutely wouldn't expect to see the Japanese bombings
Once our works leave us and have an ultimate impact, we also lose control of the evil they may accomplish. While almost nothing is impossible for humans thru science and technology, achieving peace they are not capable of. This is the timeless message of the Bible, which forecasts and details such a once unimaginable horrible end of life on earth. But instead of seeing the terrors people are going to unleash on each other, people imagine they are humanitarian, good-natured, and peace loving. The human heart deceives itself. How long will you decieve yourself that you are honest, kind, and loving and reject the blood of Jesus as truth?
Fantastic movie but he makes very valid points. Nolan should have shown some of the Nagasaki footage Oppenheimer saw. Americans still really don’t understand the absolute horror we put those poor people through.
I think the charred body that Oppenheimer stepped on and the face he saw that was melting in his hallucination state did a good job of showing the awful circumstances of dropping the bomb while keeping the focus on him. The movie is supposed to be from his perspective.
Not seen the film but there was a huge discussion between the scientists about its future use. Nils Bohr was a strong advocate of giving away the scientific results so that everyone would have access to it as he thought M.A.D would prevail (he was proved right). Can't recommend enough the book "the making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes.
There was a lot of talk about sharing lately, some suggest quite a few prominent scientists who worked on the project shared the results with Russians to assure MAD. It made sense after seeing what could happen if only one country had nuclear bombs.
While almost nothing is impossible for humans thru science and technology, achieving peace they are not capable of. This is the timeless message of the Bible, which forecasts and details such a once unimaginable horrible end of life on earth. But instead of seeing the terrors people are going to unleash on each other, people imagine they are humanitarian, good-natured, and peace loving. The human heart deceives itself. How long will you decieve yourself that you are honest, kind, and loving and reject the blood of Jesus as truth?
@barneyrubble9309 You are right, "The making of the atomic bomb" is excellent and so is his other big work, "Dark sun" about the making of the hydrogen bomb.
The film is not a documentary, it's not about what happens to humans exposed to radiation or nuclear bomb explosions. Greg Mitchell has directed his own film, I presume he included everything he wanted at the time. I'm not sure why talking heads are rolled in to tell us what is not in the film but at least the subject is being discussed again and the people who died are never forgotten.
It doesn't show footage on the ground of Hiroshima or Nagasaki but it does show a charred corpse and how affected the Oppenheimer character is by what he helped to do. You see burning flesh briefly and hear screams in the sound design and I think the idea was to be more effecting by being subtle rather than showing the destruction on a larger scale.
I like this part because it's relatable in the sense that viewer and most people actually didn't see the actual bombing footage. That makes us feel disconnected but his expression bought us back to reality that it happened and it actually something devastating when we took time to think about it and the aftermath.
The film was a biography not a history lesson. There are errors in history including the bomb prompting the Japanese surrender. The Russian invasion had much to do with it.
A huge factor is dropping the bomb was preventing Soviet advances into Japan. Okinawa showed the tenacity of Japanese resistence. Had the bombs not been dropped, the Japanese would have continued to resist, and many more American and Japanese lives would have been futily lost. The truth is that the civilians of of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where sacrificed for future American and JAPANESE lives. Had they not been dropped, much of Japan would have lived in an Orwellian world like North Korea.
“I’m/was only doing my job.” Is the lesson/excuse I took away from the movie. Presently and historically the most dangerous justification humans use. More dangerous than atomic bombs or any other weapon man has or will create.
@@richardvernon317 that's what I've heard too, though I haven't seen The Day After yet. I also have When the Wind Blows on my to-watch list....but I need a little while to recover from Threads
I mean from my perspective and opinion the actual bombings were not included because it was heavily not oppenheimer's decision. He did pick them as example locations only because of their military size but ultimately he as a scientist did his job to create an atomic bomb before the Nazis and our president chose to drop them. Just imagine what life would be like if the US wasn't the first to drop a nuke..
So basically this guy is saying the problem with a movie called Oppenheimer is that it was about Oppenheimer instead of the entire philosophical debate about nukes?
I think the movie touches on the philosophical debate about nukes, but you're probably right, it is called Oppenheimer, it should be more about his life, too.
I saw the movie last week and felt *maybe* there was something missing from the film. This video does a good job of pointing that out. But I feel that knowledge is to be discovered in another place. "The film IS about Oppenheimer the man and his life**. I don't think it was meant to be all inclusive about the effects of radiation and the aftermath of the bombs being dropped in Japan. It is already almost a three hour film. There are other resources for learning more about the Manhattan Project. The movie has caused me and many other people to be more aware and interested in seeking more knowledge on what happened.
Yes, but there were some script flaws concerning Oppenheimer, as indicated at 4:49. Not considering additional details about radiation poisoning and the emphasis on civilian casualties caused by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. These aspects needed consideration to ensure a truly accurate depiction of Oppenheimer in the movie.
Greg Mitchel's view that there are omissions in the Oppenheimer movie sounds whinny to me. The Manhattan Project was a huge enterprise and could hardly be covered completely in a 3 hour movie. Historians still argue over the justifications to use the bomb on Japan and certainly there are only guesses as to how the war with Japan might have proceeded otherwise. This movie will encourage further thought and discussion of that point. Obviously Greg has his views and should make movies or discuss the issues, but to cloak those in his criticism of the movie is self serving in my view. I think the movie will engage a whole new generation of young people in recognizing the dangers of nuclear weapons, and that is not a bad thing. The movie correctly showed that once the bombs were built the scientists no longer had control, which went to Truman and the Army Air Core (later the Air Force.)
Its named OPPENHEIMER not Nagazaki or Hiroshima Bombing…. Of course they were not showing details of any of that. People always love to complain over other people’s work who they know nothing about. This is a character study from Nolan about Oppenheimer not a dissection into what the Bomb did to the people of Japan. Why even write about a film if you can’t understand the angle or purpose behind it. 🤦🏻♂️ This is why critics reviews are never worth taking serious and why there is so much discrepancy with the general audience score.
I would recommend a recent book by Barrett Tillman entitled "When the Shooting Stopped, August 1945". Were the Japanese ready to Surender in August 1945? Despite what revisionist historians may say, the answer is, no. Tillman's book reveals a great deal of detail about what was actually going on in Japan, both among the military and the government, as well as about the negotiations being initiated by the Allies to persuade Japan to surrender before the islands hd to be invaded. In spite of the damage being inflicted upon Japan by American bombing, and the rapid collapse of the Japanese Kwangtung Army as a result of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, all such overtures were rejected out of hand. It was not until after Nagasaki that the Emperor finally went on the radio and announced the surrender to the Japanese people, and the end of the war. In fact, that was the very first time he had ever gone on the air at all and, in fact, was the very first time his people had ever even heard his voice at all. Even after that, some Japanese units still refused to accept that the war was over for some time. The fanaticism of the Japanese is difficult for people today to comprehend. However,, long before we began to read stories in the press about fanatical Islamic "suicide bombers", the Japanese were doing exactly the same thing, and on a regular, daily basis.
People seemed to have forgot about the "kyuju incident" where a military unit lead by Major Kenji Hatanaka tried to overthrow the imperial guards and capture the emperor in order to stop him from broadcasting the surrender. Or how Hiroshima was to be a staging ground for the invasion of the western portion of the main island Honshu. And how ground zero was the Imperial Japanese Army Headquarters. Or how Nagasaki was home to major japanese industries such as the Mitsubishi Heavy Steel Ind. and the Mitsubishi shipyard. And the biggest lie of them all, how we just didn't want the soviets to invade." And to that I say "witch what!? Paddle boards??? They didn't have anything? No troop transports, no landing ships, no supply vessels, no strategic bombing force, no dry docks to build anything (The germans destroyed them earlier in the war), zero experience conducting an actual amphibious assault (They try to claim river crossing as amphibious assaults as well as ferrying 90 guys on a torpedo boat). Russia's entire surface fleet was 72 ships. We lost over 30 ships in Okinawa alone and they were protected by over 1,600 ships. That argument falls flat on its face when met with even a sliver of questioning and 2 minutes of research.
The film highlights the assembly of world class physicists who developed the first atomic bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t come into it, as soon as the bomb was made the military took over from that point. Los Alamos had no input into future use of the bomb…
I think that focusing on how this is a different kind of weapon distracts, or even diminishes how people suffer from conventional weapons. The firebombing of Tokyo killed over 90 thousand, most of them civilians. They were crushed and burned to death, their pain was just as horrific as those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Germans firebombed Rotterdam. The Allies firebombed Dresden. The Soviets firebombed Helsinki. Did those victims suffer less because the bombs were not nuclear?
While I am sure there was great suffering in those cities during and after the firebombings, I don’t think it quite compares to the agony of the atomic bombings and their long lasting impact. Radiation illnesses are particularly debilitating. But basically, I think whataboutism is really not an appropriate argument to make here.
I'll say war is horrific. Period. An m-16, a fire bomb, a hydrogen bomb....all appropriately horrific you know you wouldn't wanna get fire bombed OR shot OR get leukemia.
@@gatesurfer I am not sure why you think the agony of being burned alive is less. That's some twisted thinking. And yes, the "whataboutism" is exactly the argument, and I think it is very appropriate because when your flesh is burning, when your loved ones are killed, and when your life is destroyed, the last thing you'll be thinking about is how different is the bomb that fell on you.
Japan only surrendered after the SECOND atomic bomb was dropped. In the two battles that preceded the bombing, Japanese soldiers fought to the last man. Casualties in an invasion of Japan, would have superseded all the casualties of the previous 4 years combined.
It's almost as if Mr Mitchell didn't see the film. They didn't show the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because Doctor Oppenheimer didn't see them. But the powerful images of him talking to the team when after those bombs were dropped did allude to the horrific effects of the bomb and the incongruity of what he was saying to reality.
One other thing, the tests were carried out on Native Reservations also, not concerned at all about the effects on the land and its inhabitants. Just because something is possible, does not mean it should be done. Our lack of moral development exceeds our capabilities.
Stephen Hawking, may he rest in peace, was asked what he thought would be the most likely way we will become extinct and answered it would eventually be nuclear annihilation because we are not mature enough not to destroy ourselves with them.
Did the movie even mention Lise Meitner? The mother of atomic fission? When the report first came back of her findings, Oppenheimer first proclaimed "impossible!" But he quickly realized her calculations were correct, that fission would produce tremendous energy. within a few weeks on his blackboard he had a crude drawing of a bomb.
The nation was at war. The world was at war. My father was an eighteen-year-old private on rotation in the South Pacific headed into battle where hundreds of thousands of American soldiers already died when the bombs were dropped. War IS hell and it was us or them.
No, actually Japan was no threat to the US whatsoever at that point of war. Even Pearl Harbor did not produce as many civilian casualties as any other cities that were bombed during WW2. The US, however, did bomb the shit out of Japan as in thousands of civilians got burned to death even before the atomic bombs. Perhaps it was necessary or perhaps not since Japan had refused to surrender until they’ve seen the atomic bombs drop. But it’s an overstatement to say that “it was either us or them” when Japan was like a little kid and the US was the strongest guy in the world. The decision by the US to send in young American soldiers into sure death was a mistake on the US’s part. Japan had no capability to attack the US. The US could have bombed the hell out of Japan until there is nothing left. But the US still sent in young patriotic soldiers into a field of machine gunfire. It’s a fucking tragic that the leaders at the time did that.
did it show the mutilated bodies of US soldiers from Guadalcanal to Okinawa? the lack of any moral code the Japanese had? or the Japanese civilians versus mercilessly butchered by their own soldiers ?
I have always felt that the use of the bomb against Japan and targeting cities has probably saved the world, so far, from a nuclear conflict because a real explosion occurred and the world does not have to imagine the effects of a nuclear bomb. We humans are very bad when we have to anticipate the effects of something that has not actually happened. Now that we are faced with an even deadlier situation, the collapse of the environment, we are showing again that we are unwilling to take the consequences of our societal model into account. If only there was a way to demonstrate what is happening …
Thank you for your comment. I’m a history teacher and this is the main point I teach my students. It is so easy to get caught up in the event that we forget the effects. I personally feel that the effect of seeing not only the destructive power of the bomb, but also the total devastation of the whole war itself has had a profound impact on keeping the world from going to war again.
I take issue with Greg Mitchell’s take. The film is a character study of the man & how he experienced the creation & the aftermath of bomb. Oppenheimer learnt about the use of the bomb from the radio like the rest of America. He wasn’t at Hiroshima or Nagasaki & nor did he have a say about the use of the weapon. It’s a film about Oppenheimer & his experiences. It’s not about the bomb.
@@MaidaseuGuilty? What are you on? War is war. We have even more terrible weapons now than what was dropped on Japan in 1945. Power is power. Sorry it sucks that you feel like you’re not in power. Are the majority of Chinese civilians going to feel bad if China nukes Taiwan? No, no they won’t because they don’t really have a say in that decision. Just like the majority of Americans didn’t have a say in the decision for ending the war in the pacific during WWII.
@@Maidaseu portrayed as the villains ? I don’t think so. If we didn’t build a Nuclear bomb first, someone else would of. Maybe the Nazis, maybe communist Russia. Once someone started building it (in this case, the Nazis) the genie is out of the bottle and you can’t put it back & it wasn’t us who started letting the Genie out. It was a nuclear RACE & I’m glad we got their first because I promise you, if we didn’t, the damage would of been far greater & we might not be here right now. Things aren’t black and white. Especially subjects like these.
Anti-nuclear, I think we should truly mean anti-weaponized nuclear arm. We shouldn't be afraid of potential nuclear energy, this movie should stand a great example standing against weaponized energy. But to bring realize how it's energy can save the Earth's climate nightmare how clean nuclear power is. The waste is already solved decades ago thanks to Kyle Hill's Half Life series.
This is a Hollywood movie!! Since when has that ever been a replacement for the “normal” educational tracks. In other words .. ITS NOT A DOCUMENTARY…is an movie made for entertainment. Geez .. there are many avenues to get educated .. mostly books, university classes, etc. if you only use Hollywood movies .. no wonder we are in the political situation we are in today .. people are just too lazy to educate themselves.. instead like to sit two hours on their butts and think that’s it!!
There were alternatives that could've and should've been explored rather than dropping the two bombs. Many myths about the necessity of their usage have been historically debunked over the years.
What's to talk about? It was them or us 🇺🇸. On top of that we had to tell them twice! War isn't pleasant & we did not start it. We even built their country back up. No sympathy, no regrets.
I wonder when people will get tired of complaining about movies. It’s a movie. Not a documentary. And it’s a psychological drama about Oppenheimer not about the bomb itself.
Ain't gonna lie, I was blown away by the movie. Christopher Nolan did one hell of a job with this. I did do a quick Google search on Oppenheimer before watching it but I don't claim to know the true historical context of the movie but the movie was spectacular! Now I gotta read on him and Einstein and how he came uo with that.
Hate to tell you but ONLY the last Scene was real with Einstein. Einstein was not friends with Oppenheimer. Nor did Oppie ever go to Einstein for advice. Except perhaps far later on.
It was war. You do what you have to do, to win. The Japanese, who were brutal and suicidal, were refusing to surrender even after the SECOND a-bomb was dropped!
@@ExecutiveChefLance The only thing Einstein knew anything about was math. He would never have built his first and third homes with his own two hands, like I did. His IQ was high. But his knowledge of anything other than math was limited. He was no fan of Capitalism or Free Enterprise.
The film is historical fiction and it works in that genre. It has stimulated discussion, moral re evaluation and intense discussion. I’m n that it has a service. The film could not deal with issues that still, 60 years after the event, still being analyed and argued over. It’s a good film.
It may be historical fiction BUT IT WAS BASED ON FACT. THEY DID DENTONATE 2 HORRIFIC BOMBS. AND THEY'RE STILL DETONATING THEM FOR PRACTICE. SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHATS WRONG WITH THE CLIMATE.
I wouldn't classify it as fictional, as it is historical, as you said. Though, it is classified as a drama, and as such certain aspects were dramatized. However, I'll also say that the film isn't strictly antinuclear rhetoric/propaganda. There's a lot to be said for humanities fear of the unknown. "People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer." ~ Andrew Smith "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” ~ Arthur C. Clark Science can be used for the greater good, and adversely for great atrocities. This doesn't mean we should not advance science, but be more limited in our application of it. Nuclear energy for instance is an amazing accomplishment of society. However, it has its drawbacks, but without it however we wouldn't be where we are today. A good portion of the nation's energy comes from nuclear power. Nuclear energy is as much a detriment to society as it is a blessing.
My grandfather is an Atomic War Veteran he is one of 1000s of Veterns that have been erased from history as well as denied any reparation for the victims and their families!!
thats why i say I would rather shoot myself than join an army and partake in killing other mindless drones sent to die for the benefits of the people in charge. in other words, grandpa is just a pawn. As were the millions he helped kill. Good job.
I've seen people argue that "Nolan is a filmmaker, not a documentarian", and I have to say, for those who fail to understand, a biopic is literally an interpretation of history. One which many people will take at face value. This movie will influence public opinion whether you like it or not. I've overheard far too many conversations in the past two weeks to think otherwise. I find that the only difference between a biopic and a documentary is narrative style, that's it. They both are attempting to speak to true events, and that is understood by the audience. Documentaries don't get a free pass, they can be wildly biased and even straight up lie, but at least there the documentarian stands to lose credibility. Nolan, on the other hand, gets a free pass it seems. So long as the film is entertaining, who cares if he's spreading misinformation? Except I really think this exposes Nolan's own biases. This weird inability to reckon with our country's crimes. In making this film, he adds himself to the list of those who feel they must sugar coat unpalatable truths.
Because whether it was right or not isn't cut and dry. There is no answer as to whether the bombs were justified or not. Consequentially, it may have saved more lives than it destroyed. From a humanitarian position, maybe the fallout and the way people's lives were ruined by that was crime enough to condemn it. Nolan isn't wrong for not presenting your personal view of the events. Of course this film shows Nolan's biases around the topic. How could it not? It would show the biases of whoever made the film. Just like anything you say or do about it would show yours. You're literally pointing nothing out by saying this. Nolan seems to have been principally interested in Oppenheimer as an interesting and deeply flawed human being. And not trying to litigate moral absolutism about incredibly fucking hard choices that were made during a morally murky point in history. The film is incredibly effective at doing what it wants to do. And I wouldn't have wanted him to change anything just so we could say he paid lip service to whatever moral indignation you hold about this particular period in history.
@@Cernunnnosyou’re proof of everything this guy is saying. You are absolutely unable to see out of the bubble created for you and attack those that do as having some weird outside perspective. You are a minion
@@M_SC I don't even know how to respond to that amount of stupidity. How you could even possibly read what I just said as an attack against people who think different is frankly astounding. My comment is explicitly about there not being an objective truth to the morality of the topic and it all being put through our individual lenses. Did you not read what I was saying? Or are you just monumentally stupid? Because you took away the exact opposite of what I was saying. That's actually damn impressive.
its a fucking film, not everything has to be intended to promote an agenda of some sort. Your attitude is what ruined movies and hollywood. No one wants to pay money to be preached at when they go to a show.
Go back and read the entire history of the conflict with Japan. The horror that was the atomic bomb blasts is continually taken out of context with the enormity of the horrors of war that preceded it.
My father, an army officer following orders, was forced to witness N-bomb testing in Nevada. He had all kinds of ailments in the years to come including cancer. He died a fairly young man and even though he kept complete medical records (telling my mother that someday the government would do the right thing), the U S government refused to recognize his ailments were nuclear bomb related. My mother received nothing. Nothing!
That sucks. Service members are usually always the 1st lab rats. It's nothing "honorable" about being in the service like movie propaganda always attempts to make it look. My dad was also an Army officer but saw thru all the "following orders" BS & other related BS and gtfo outta there after 10yrs instead of the traditional 20.
Then make a film or wrote a script about it. I’m assuming you are complaining like these asshats are. This film is about Oppenheimer as seen through his lens and point of view during those times. How do you not get that?
My uncle was on a ship in the Pacific and they were forced to watch one of the Pacific Atoll tests. He said they were told not to look, and of course, they all looked. The next day, they had to clean a lot of 'dust' and dirt from the ship's decks and surfaces. He later developed liver cancer.
@@teresaharris-travelbybooks5564
They were testing it on humans to see what the effects would be.
I wouldn't call it "our ' Gov, ' ..."those who choose to irradiate and pollute American Citizens.
I live in Japan. I've had the honor to speak with survivors from Hiroshima - who were young children at the time. Their understanding is wise and all of them oppose the existence of nuclear weapons and oppose war. Few remain. But to talk with them is a profound experience.
Don't we all. But that's all a bit simplistic.
I would much rather have a film made about the people you met then Oppenheimer.
*Entertainment cannot come at the cost of hatred*
Scene with reading the Bagavat Gita in the middle of a sex scene is definitely a cheap tactics to spread hatred towards particular sect of humanity - Hinduism and Hindus.
The Gita is more of a philosophical text rather than a religious one but the intent of the maker seems religious. I don't have appreciation or review for any part of the movie be it acting, direction, cinematography, music etc as the intent is a failure.
The makers should be ashamed of themselves for their narrowness of their mind.
@@sheebaradhakrishnangr no, it's all in your imagination. Let it go.
@@sheebaradhakrishnangr they were deliberately making a connection with creation and destruction. Life and death in one instance
There's a reason why we see Oppenheimer watching a film showing the devastation of Hiroshima and yet Nolan doesn't let us see it. This is an intensely psychological movie. We experience the movie from Oppenheimer's point of view. And not just his visual point of view but his psychological point of view. There is a meaning behind not seeing the footage. Oppenheimer can't really look at it himself. He doesn't want to acknowledge it. But Nolan acknowledges it. He does this by showing that Oppenheimer can't block out what he knows he's done. Hence the scene were he is in the gymnasium and watching the women's face start to burn and he then steps into a charcoaled corpse, (all in his mind). What would showing the devastation to the audience have achieved? We all know what happened and that tens of thousands of people, (women, children, babies, civilians) were killed by these two bombs. And that the level of suffering was unimaginable. Christopher Nolan's approach was better. It was more effective. He didn't feel the need to spoon feed us his message because he understands that his audience is smarter than that. I also deny the commentators position that the movie defended the common narrative that the US military needed to drop both bombs. It did no such thing. It is very clear how conflicted many of the scientist were. What the movie doesn't do is answer the question for us. And given how morally complicated the subject matter is I'm glad it didn't. Now there are many things that the movie didn't go into but I don't think Nolan could have gone into these things because he committed himself to a first person narrative. The focus was on Oppenheimer and not every facet of the events.
Yes, I think Nolan did a good job of packaging and delivering all the complexity of emotion involved, not to mention the moral dilemma. Few would have done as good a job, and I don't think anyone could have done better.
God, you've said it all so well! I agree, and I salute your thoughtful comment!
Well Said! 👍
Jason do enough digging in our governments archives and you'll realize the U.S has no legitimate reason to drop either bomb seeing as Japan had surrendered at least 1 months earlier... Stop blindly accepting narratives they "spoon" feed us big bro and expand your mind. Not the scientists the government made such decision not the Oppenheimers Einsteins or Heisenbergs but our leaders
People walked out the cinema it was that boring
My great-uncle was a paratrooper in WW II. He was dropped into Japan just after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He died from Leukemia a few year later, leaving a young widow and 2 very young children. He has been the only person in our family to contract Leukemia ( so far ). It's not our genes, in other words. It was the radiation.
Where in Japan did he drop that doesn't mean he got radiated it's a big Island
@@davidreed6264 The sites which had been devastated: Nagasaki area. Yes, he was exposed to slow-death levels of radiation and nuclear fallout. 10s of thousands of U.S. troops were similarly exposed. And, by the way, Japan is an archipelago of islands. Some bigger than others.
My uncle was also dropped into Hiroshima..he took pictures. He was a a ranking member and asked to go in. He also died. Cancer. We moved into his house and the relics he picked up there. Dad passed first. Then mom .
I’m not calling you a liar, but the story really doesn’t match up with reality. With the amount of time that fallout resides, the veracity of troops being dropped into a city, it really dosent match up.
I did not know that Leukemia has a genetic incidence of occurrence.
My father was a chemical engineer who was drafted and sent to Los Alamos to work in the Plutonium lab. He was invited to to attend the Trinity “test” of the Plutonium bomb & declined the invite because he knew how dangerous it would be, and indeed a lot of radiation was dumped on lots of attendees. If he’d gone, likely my dad’s only child, moi, would have had serious defects. So, thank you, Dad!
That's not how radiation works. It's not a teratogen. Children are not affected because the parent was exposed....unless in the mother's womb at the time.
I don’t know how true it is that radiation damages not yet born offspring. They studied this in Japan. Unless you mean the daughter would have gone to the testing too.
@@middy774 Very true, scientists know this for a long time.
Nuclear war has not ever happened since that time, so I believe that Oppenheimer "becoming death" has to be credited.
While almost nothing is impossible for humans thru science and technology, achieving peace they are not capable of. This is the timeless message of the Bible, which forecasts and details such a once unimaginable horrible end of life on earth. But instead of seeing the terrors people are going to unleash on each other, people imagine they are humanitarian, good-natured, and peace loving. The human heart deceives itself. How long will you decieve yourself that you are honest, kind, and loving and reject the blood of Jesus as truth?
The firebombing of Tokyo is estimated to have killed more than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Why is it any worse to wipe a city off the map with a single large bomb than with thousands of little bombs?
The problem is war, not the weapons we use.
Hearts of men is the problem. Evil!
Facts. A lot of people don't know what Imperial Japan was like. How ferocious and unyielding their soldiers were.
They hear about Kamikaze Fighters and say "wow, that's crazy" without putting it in context. They were absolutely committed to victory or death. Surrender wasn't really a thing, suicide was more likely to happen. The Battle of Okinawa is a good example of this.
A prolonged invasion would have resulted in more lives lost for both sides. It was the quickest way to end the war, and "no" they weren't trying to kill as many Japanese as possible. Otherwise the bombs would have been dropped on Tokyo and Osaka which were the two most populous cities at the time.
The emperor was telling civilians to use sharpened bamboo spears and fight to the last person. Millions on both sides would have been killed had we not dropped the bombs.
@@gjsullivan55 On the contrary. If the death of twice as many wouldn't get Hirohito to give in, why would half the destruction do it? Makes no sense. It was instead the loss of their hope for negotiating a somewhat acceptable defeat via diplomatic channels. When their last diplomatic channel vanished, the cabinet agreed within hours of the news to the Defense Minister's pleas to meet. By contrast, only the DM wanted to meet after the atomic bombs were dropped. He was the only one with whom the atomic bombs registered.
What the Emperor mentioned in the order to the Army to stand down was not the atomic bombs but instead 1895. The Army knew what this meant. That's when Meiji ordered the Army to surrender to Russia, so that it could come back and kick its ass in 1905. Fighting to the last man out of honor was no longer the policy, but rather to surrender as fast as possible in order to preserve what could be, so as to exact a proper settling of debts once Japan had sufficiently recovered. Hasegawa's book on the subject goes into considerable detail. He refers to a document written by the Secretary of the Navy in which he advised, "We should tell everybody we surrendered because of the bombs." In this document, he encouraged government officials to go along with the US narrative that the atomic bombs were decisive in the surrender, because it was more honorable to surrender to a new force of nature than to surrender to the Russians. So they were playing both sides. Even in defeat they were trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Nuclear weapons are more efficient in there destructive power, but the cost to the environment is much worse. If I am correct they only open trinity site once a year, if at all these days.
There's also the idea that no bombs have been detonated since Japan. Nowhere is it mentioned the hundreds of atomic bomb tests that took place during the cold war in the Pacific, the total disappearance of Bikini Island, leaving Bikini people with no land. Who knows how much radiation is still lingering there, how much destruction was caused to the ocean, and the overall increase of radiation all over the planet.
thousands of nuclear tests were performed before the test ban treaties
Correction. Hydrogen bomb tests at Bikini atoll. Not atomic.
You can’t expect a film to cover every detail on something as dense as atomic weapons. The movie follows Oppenheimer, not the topic of nuclear weapons per se.
which is the true cause of global warming, not carbon footprint
what an evil man to bomb innocent civilians.
I’m sure this has been said a million times, but the movie’s focus wasn’t intended to be the bomb and it’s effects on society. The movie’s focus was Oppenheimer, his journey, his outlook, and the effect his work had on his life. As such, not covering the radiation, briefly mentioning Nagasaki, and not exploring the lasting effects on the communities affected by the follow up test all makes sense because none of it would have been in service to what the movie was made to explore.
Well at least not in this film. The subject needs continual investigation by writer film makers. I can appreciate this effort from Nolan. Swing Batter! He swung. However, I’ve seen the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki . I’m a Boomer from Chicago from the neighborhood in which the Enrico Fermi Lab is located at the University of Chicago. I was born during a time of lies on various subjects BUT it was my teachers who showed me the footage of the radiation effects. What is happening NOW in k-12 education, the suppression of history, the erasure of the evil outcomes of the TAST which preceded the European Holocaust, the evil effects of imperialism and colonialism, globally - so many failures in education contribute greatly to the decline in more and better investigations and narratives about the nuclear era: the time of lies! Now you have another mountebank running for President who has mandated in his state the erasure of the actual effects of slavery on Black people! In his warped view it was of some benefit to people of African descent. Lesson for today: we ARE what we create and what we communicate about what we ( as a species) have created.
Remember Nolan somehow managed to turn Dunqirque into a boring movie
A fair and accurate point, but still an ethical failing of a film - and I say this as one who thought it was quite a good film on the whole, and superb in its treatment of McCarthyism. The evils of the bomb needed to be felt more potently. It was a brilliant idea to have Oppenheimer imagine the effects on those around him, and it was poignantly and harrowingly done, but it was just too brief, and it passed over the most horrific imagery (read John Hersey's Hiroshima).
I think that people with these kinds of concerns about the film's content seem to instead want a different film (not focused on the life of Dr. Oppenheimer) that's called "The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Its Long-Term Legacy."
@@david.kouch21 as I've said in another post it's like doing a film about Hitler but ignoring the holocaust
When I saw the movie the FIRST thought on my mind was “What about the fallout from the nuclear tests?” I can say the movie DID make me aware of it…not in words, but in the message. An artistic triumph.
Hollywood movies are intended to mislead
@trapdoor2714 that is a good idea but a slippery slope to sending troops into battle or paying the families of the victims in Japan. It was war and some bad things happened but we have to remember it was war. Now if they want to compensate the families that were there during subsequent tests after the war I think that would be a great idea but during the war that's just not something that should be considered... if it is it should be dismissed right away
Genocides take place during “wars,” "@@syndicateleader6396".
@tessmage_tessera yes but who's to say then that soldiers that die in battle or are wounded should be compensated also as like the people at the test site they were ordered. We are talking they are looking for big payoutsm
@tessmage_tessera no because 99% of the people who were at the testing during the war and post war were in the military be it army, navy or air force. There were very few private citizens that took any part of the testing.
I watched this film last night, and it is rightfully named Oppenheimer. It is a character piece first and foremost that took some creative liberties. It portrayed him clearly as a morally grey character that made mistakes over the span of his life, and without any spoilers ends on a strong anti nuclear message.
Yeah, I also get what this guy is saying, but to you your point. Oppie would have never know these things cause he died at 62. I am sure some of it is known, but it was a very first person film. I agree there should be more content about this and how it impacts our future. But it's very much a character study not a nuclear study.
Makes some really good points of the perspective of how we talk about it
I definitely need to see this movie. Ended up watching the Barbie movie first lol last week but this one seems much more up my alley. Glad to know it’s worth it.
@@domshyra He died in 1967.
Oppenheimer had hopes the massive atomic force would end all wars. I don't fault him for his naivety, he was a physicist, his country asked him to achieve something quickly, he did. But he advocated governance after the Japanese bombings, that made most of the American political body, hate him. The guy did something amazing, and paid a heavy price for the rest of his life for his morality. I just hope enough people do a little more thinking, after seeing this movie.
Mind Begs the Question:
Hitler demonized Religious Minority
As part of Sinister Plan to Rule
Guaranteed Evil Govts don't exist
Plan False Flag attack,to test Nukes on Human Subjects?
He neglects to mention how Oppenheimer was pillaried for years by the US government and their obsession with anyone who had links to the communist party. This is a little known fact about his life and the film does an amazing job revealing this. It is a testimony to what Einstein said : 'They will use you until they don't need you'. There is much more in this film than what is presented here.
This is just a youtube clip. They do talk about that in the full interview, it's in the website.
AGREED
The whole damn movie about how the US TURNED on him, once he gave them what he wanted!
He was expendable once he had helped the principle to become practice and after expressing heterodox wayward views was a simple case of we don't need you anymore
That's exactly right - given that he and his fellow University buddies had strong pro communist views, the powers that be were sure to extract from him, the information they required, in order to build the device, and only then castigate him about his so called left leaning tendencies, removing his security clearance etc.
The US Military Industrial Complex has never changed in that respect - uses people up and spits them out before moving onto the next expendable.....
While almost nothing is impossible for humans thru science and technology, achieving peace they are not capable of. This is the timeless message of the Bible, which forecasts and details such a once unimaginable horrible end of life on earth. But instead of seeing the terrors people are going to unleash on each other, people imagine they are humanitarian, good-natured, and peace loving. The human heart deceives itself. How long will you decieve yourself that you are honest, kind, and loving and reject the blood of Jesus as truth?
The movie did have scenes where it was briefly discussed that dropping the bombs was unnecessary because Japan was about to surrender. The movie also depicted the callousness of the decision to target some cities and spare Kyoto, and Oppenheimer's involvement. A good movie doesn't tell the audience decisions were wrong or callous, it allows the audience to reach that conclusion through observation. The ending scene of Oppenheimer is unequivocally morally disturbed by the dawning of the nuclear age. (Einstein and Oppenheimer finally reveal their conversation, and the audience realizes the extent of the misconceptions and mistakes made in the pursuit of power.)
I generally agree, especially regarding the showing rather than telling-a very important thing to remember in the arts, that is too often forgotten. I still agree with the criticisms that there needed to be more acknowledgment of the sheer catastrophe of the bombs, which could have been woven in when Oppenheimer's troubled conscience came up. Some acknowledgment of the radiation from the Trinity test certainly should have been included. The decision to have Oppenheimer imagining the effects of the bomb on those around him after hearing the news of Hiroshima was absolutely brilliant and impressive in its empathy, but I think it was too brief; I'd have liked it to have been extended, to recur, and to have included more of the horrific effects.
None of this is to condemn the film, which on the whole I still think was excellent and moving. The exchange with Einstein at the end was superb, and it deserves praise for how it handled McCarthyism especially.
Japan was not remotely close to surrender despite its very weakened state. The idea that the Japanese were going to surrender is a complete fable, based on nothing.
@@dmbeasterthey didn't want to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. It wasn't until the second bomb was dropped that they decided to surrender. And even then there were those that opposed surrender
@@Thishandleisntavailableyo Hirohito directed the surrender. The Big 6 that decided war policy were split 3-3, with the Army faction opposing surrender. This was after Nagasaki. The Japanese government had never proposed any surrender terms to anybody, had never formulated any terms, and were explicitly committed to suicidal resistance. The idea that they were ready to surrender has always been an historical lie in service of damning the US use of the bomb to end the war.
That Kyoto bit was historically inaccurate btw
I’ve learnt that you can’t rely on just a Hollywood movie to tell you the full facts of a real life event/biopic.
They are infested with CIA agents and rewriting history.
I honestly thought most people would watch a movie and know it's not 100% accurate and then go actually research the title to learn the story.. Unfortunately, that's not the case...
in this case nolan is well known for trying to get things right, even with fiction, he had kip thorne, a nobel physicist as consultant to interstellar - thorn won his nobel for work on black holes. nolan is another arty farty director imho, but accurate.
@@HarryNicNicholas Absolutely agree with you. I love his work I really do.. I'm wondering if this was kept out because it was "boring" or wasn't easy to tell..
@@HarryNicNicholas Physicist here, Interstellar try to get the visual right but besides that there is no single Physics fact corret. I won't even touch the fact that Kip Thorne "exotic" matter is just a term put by brute force in the equations to force a wormhole to be stable and traversable...a mathemathical fiction without any Physics reason...put there like the cosmological constant: just because...ooops I touched it...
The movie isn't about the atomic bomb, it's about Oppenheimer's life. The film stays in his POV throughout.
Yeah but what was his life about? Lol
@@TheJonnyEnglish his life was science the bomb was just a part of it
Exactly. It just goes to show how fascinated the general public still is with the atomic bomb.
@paulstephenson2872 :: the most dangerous part of his life !
Well of course, social justice has to be brought into it somehow otherwise what's the point of even bringing it up on "democracy now"?🙄😆
Have to complain about all the horrible people who were vaporized 77 years ago when those same people who were vaporized would easily gut you like a fish simply because you were an American.
Using the bomb was a political decision, not a scientific decision.
Truman used it.
Usa oligarquía very dangerous for Earth
They make a good point here saying that the U.S. still justifies the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. There's a good counter-point that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9th followed by their victory over Japanese forces may have had as much or more to do with the surrender on August 15th as those bombings.
But a scientific decision was made by the scientists not packing up and going home after Germany's surrender May 8, 1945, but continuing to work on the bomb through the Trinity test of July 16, 1945. The justification was to beat Germany. But then it became about using them against Japan, and showing off to the Soviets.
Hahahaha, who made the bomb itself?
@@werty00 his bosses
My grandfather knew Einstein and Oppenheimer they all lived on the same street in Princeton NJ. My mom and her brothers would visit Einstein who liked kids and in the 50s would lecture at Princeton University along with play his fiddle my mom said Einstein was a nice guy but Oppenheimer was not a nice guy and would always yell at the kids if they got on his lawn. Einstein had always wanted nuclear power to be used for clean energy and was more of a humanitarian and disappointed at the continued development of more and more powerful bombs after the war.
Also although Einstein was for a Jewish state he was against the tactics used by Menachem Begin which in a letter he wrote to Eisenhower claimed Begin and his group were using the same tactics as the Nazis against Palestinians and urged the president not to meet with Menachem Begin and his group .
Wow, thank you for that information. I knew Einstein refused to be prime minister of the newly created Israel; I did not know he had likened Menachem Begin to the Nazis. Where can someone access that letter you mention?
@@edbenti5007 I'm pretty sure you can Google the letter but it won't be the first to come up.
Always been very interested in Einstein and have read nearly all of the biographies out there and the relevant stories in which he was involved on the periphery - including the book that this movie was developed from. A remarkable person for sure and it would have been great to meet him. With that said - Einstein was a very flawed man. He ran out on his young child when he was younger and really screwed a number of people over who were close to him throughout his life. Like many driven men, he was incredibly selfish. He was also an incredible and unashamed liar and hypocrite when it came to his BS "passivism." He deplored nationalism when it was convenient for him (he was too good for this notion) yet he made an exception for Zionism. Hmm, I wonder why? In truth he wanted others to do the fighting and dying for him. He had the fame and resources to flee Europe and come to the US so he could be protected by those evil US warmongers and live in peace and prosperity - all the while, deploring the systems and sacrifice that provided this to him. While he did some basic work for the Navy in WW2, it was of little value - but I will give him credit for it. The truth is that by this time he had been left behind in terms of physics and technology but his name was still big. Einstein was never the innocent, absent minded professor that he is sometimes described as. He was a hard core leftist hypocrite who was also very naive and was continually talked into signing onto other people's causes or documents - just like the letter to Roosevelt. Like all leftists, he tended to ignore the horrific evils of socialism and communism that must exist in order for the state to survive - absolute tyranny, police states, gov't controlled financial systems, oppression, bread lines, etc, etc, etc- and in the case of Stalin the outright slaughter of millions of his own citizens over the decades. I can never understand why leftists come to the US and want to bring all of these evil and failed concepts here, Why don't they stay in their shithole countries if it is so great - its been such a success in places like the USSR, the Eastern Block, Venezuela, North Korea, etc, etc. Oppenheimer may have been a communist with all of the absurdity and death that this entails, but at least he was an honest one who also sacrificed for his country. Right or wrong, he paid the price for it as well later in life. Einstein was neither honest or willing to sacrifice anything. He lived in freedom and comfort and expected others to die for this for him. I always wondered why people like Einstein and Oppenheimer (and his commie girlfriend and wife) didn't run to Russia when they had the chance at any point in their lives? I would have thought that in their 20's as their careers and political ideals were formative, they would have gone to Russia since they believed so much in the system and the cause? Hmmm......I wonder.
@gkaleta6993 socialism rocks, capitalism is the pure definition of evil. Einstein was a sucker because he said we could get all our nuclear shit in the Congo, which led to even more thousands of deaths and unrest still felt to this day, among other honky devils in the Congo. Keep enjoying those cherry picked statistics about communism and socialism while everyone and everything around us is dying :^)
Fuck the IDF, Isreal, and much love to the jews against the racist Israeli govt
"Hey, kids! Get off my lawn! You never know what I'll do!"
My husband’s first wife passed away from a rare brain tumor at 56 years old. She had downwinders syndrome. The syndrome is associated with nuclear testing in Nevada. What a terrible shame.
Wasn't it in New Mexico not Nevada
Yes you are correct, thank you for the clarification.
Wasn't there also testing done outside of Las Vegas?
@@rba5567 it was in New Mexico. At least in the case I was referring.
@@Ren-wd9oc I'm not doubting that, I'm just saying that 65 miles north of Las Vegas they used to test those all the time in the 50s. Stil it's about 20 times more radioactive than Chernobyl even today.
While I think the film is quite amazing, and it does make one think about the larger implications, I will say this: whatever one think about the pros and cons of using the bomb at the end of WWII, I wish everyone in this country could visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Hiroshima. It was as unforgettable an experience as seeing the film, maybe even more so. I don't think I had much understanding of the true horror of the event until I went to that museum years ago. Incredible.
The Unforgettable Fire
The bomb was a big saviour. Sure it killed thousands but it saved future millions of lives of the war continued.
@@victorfernandes83 Some said that then and some still say it but you can't be so rigid when confronting the morality of the issue,, by August of 45 the Japanese population was living in bombed-out cities, their Navy airforce and merchant Marine were all but completely destroyed,, they still had far-flung army forces in various places that were still formidable but when they're cut off from Japan what's the point? The entire Japanese military regime was a completely depraved and sadistic band of ghouls rather than a military force, so I say those bombs should have been dropped on the most handy large concentration of Japanese military forces that were available... A task force in a battle was out of the question since the Japanese didn't have the naval assets to fill a task force anymore,, so if you ask me the 150,000 troops on Rabaul should have been sacrificed instead of civilians in Hiroshima... The shipyards in Yokohama or Osaka could have gotten the Fat Man,, with civilian casualties reduced to maybe a few thousand and the works being probably totally destroyed...
Just be thankful it was an air burst and it didn't make full contact with the ground, and only one Kilogram went critical the full payload was 50kg..
It's quite the contrast with the Nevada Test Site Museum in Las Vegas.
My father was in an Army Air Force B29 squadron and was part of the U S forces which occupied Japan after the war. In the year after the War, he visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki spending a day in each taking numerous photos - all of his film rolls were confiscated. He lived a very healthy life to the age of 83.
Wow he never got it back?
Yes, i read Washington kept a tight lid on the effects of the bomb. This is why we should appreciate the work of investigative journalist John Hersey, who was the first to tell the story of the aftermath. He interviewed several survivors. His account was published in the New Yorker August 1946 and made into a book 2 months later titled "Hiroshima" - it has since never gone out of print
@@drryljoh10
No, and he'd been a professional photographer before the war.
My Dad was in the Australian Navy and also was a part of the occupation of Japan. I have seen a letter he wrote to his mother telling her he had visited Hiroshima six months after the bomb was dropped. Like your Dad he had collected many photos of his experiences across China and Japan.
On his return to Australia everything he had collected showing Japanese attrocities in China and the destruction of war was confiscated. He lived into his mid eighties and died . He was sixteen when he joined the navy and went to war, I wonder if he and your father ever recovered from the the things they saw. All the best to you and your family .
@@barquerojuancarlos7253 John Herseys poignant retrospective colored my impressions of the bomb when I was a young man. Hiroshima remains an invaluable source for students to acquire the raw information to inform their own opinions. It would not be a far fetched idea to secure a copy before cultural conflicts make it an issue.
If you ever think of moving to Utah, New Mexico, Colorado or Nevada, be sure to understand the remote areas where the nuclear tests were conducted. Amazing that few people talk about how radiation is still a significant issue in some areas today.
Understand yes, move or visit ..no
Because it isn't. You can freaking TOUR the Trinity nuclear site, goofus. Or are you confusing a few long term radiation storage areas (from nuclear power PLANTS) with nuclear BOMB test sites? Most US testing was done off US soil, and when it wasn't, tested well underground.
I hadn’t truly appreciated this until I watched the movie and that was definitely on my mind.
@@nmart1n I read an article years ago about how there were high incidences of birth defects, especially in parts of Utah where radioactive dust drifted across the state, and it just made me shake my head. Amazing how all of those tests were carried out and no one thought that it would have far-reaching health consequences (or didn't care) for the populations and wildlife in those areas.
@@postive-vibes Even watching the movie I was thinking about the exposure for the scientists, soldiers and all the people for miles around. Just insane that they never cared about that, it was all about producing the bomb.
"In 1939, German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann made a landmark discovery. Bombarding uranium with neutrons could transform the material into a smaller element, barium." Germans discovered the neutron 235 principle used in the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki.
You can be sure that if Germany had beaten Oppenheimer to the bomb, they would have used it on us.
We wouldn't be here commenting on TH-cam, that's for sure. Thank you, President Truman.
The main narrative is that USA had to make the bomb, because else the Nazis would make it first.
The reality is, Germany wasn´t even close to a nuclear bomb and it wasn´t a big and goverment supported project.
The whole Nazis/Nuclear bomb thing is to justify dropping the two bombs on Japan.
But they never did make with a bomb because they lost the war. So why again did we drop the atomic bomb twice on japan?
@@supernatural5354 To show that they have more than one I guess.
@@supernatural5354 First one for supposed military purposes and the second to needlessly intimidate the Soviets
From what I've read Oppenheimer was horrified by what he had created. And the government treated him terribly after he raised his concerns.
yep and it the movie they showed Truman insulting him when he came complaining to him
Greg Mitchell irresponsibly dismisses the argument that dropping the bombs shortened the war and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on BOTH sides. The Japanese mindset at the time was that they would not accept invasion, even if it meant that women and children, armed only with sharpened bamboo stakes, would be the ones fighting American soldiers. The Japanese were told, over and over, that the Americans were barbarians who would inflict all sorts of horrors on the Japanese people. I've seen film footage of women in Okinawa throwing their babies off of a cliff and into the ocean, then jumping in after them, rather than face the supposed abuse they would suffer from the approaching American troops. Read Major Charles W. Sweeney's book, War's End, for an eyewitness account of the progression of the war, the bombing of Nagasaki (Sweeney was the pilot), and the very real reasons why the bombs needed to be used.
The movie is about Oppenheimer, it's a biography about him not nukes. We all already know the statistics
Oppenheimer was FAMOUS FOR THE BOMB..
@@joaquinribeiro2941 yes, but this is a movie, not a documentary
@@lorcis1 STILL IT COULDVE SHOW MORE EXPLOSIONS LIE THE HYDROGEN BOMB.... IM NOT BUYING IT SORRY MAYBE RENT IT
160.000 women and children are just statistics now?
The bomb saved the lives of about halve a million Dutch in occupied Dutch Indonesia. My family members survived the war because of the bomb.
To my knowledge the Japanese were already seeking to surrender on reasonable terms and recently read that the US had been planning to find a reason to attack Japan before Pearl Harbour and of course the West and Germans Nazis were in a race to build a atom bomb. Also didn't the Dutch attack and take over Islands of Indonesia and that's why your family were there?
I don’t understand the criticism of the movie not showing the japanese getting nuked, Oppenheimer wasn’t there to see it, it’s a biopic from his perspective and I think the statement from the general choosing not to nuke kyoto because he honeymooned their showed the absolute horror of the decision, the movie was pretty clearly anti-nuclear and I’m really just confused that people keep making it sound like it was pro war and pro nuclear
Probably because you are a reasonable person who sees this film and thinks further than "Ooo pretty light" but sadly many people will do exactly that. We can't give the kind of psycho-paths who think dropping nukes on hurricanes is a "great idea" any more horrible ideas until we get those people back into the closet of shame.
Would it not shed some light on the life of a man to show the fruits of his labor?
@@nathanstruble2177 a reasonable person wouldn't have developed nuclear energy as a weapon. People's logic to justify killing people is mindboggling. It was developed to kill people, and that is what they did. Hollywood glamorizes violence too much.
I couldn't have explained it better. The movie is based the book American Prometheus. It's about a complex man and his life, not a documentary. Also as to the scene you pointed out, they discuss civilian casualties.
@@snailcorepistolwhippits9488 exactly and his reaction to the information and data he gets from the 2 bombs. I’m sure their is room for those raw emotions
The decades of nuclear tests had nothing to do with the film. The losses of the Japanese by the bombs are unfortunate, but a U.S. invasion of Japan would have had much, much worse. During the last months of the war 400,000 people a month were dying in the war. The US could expect up to a million deaths and the Japanese 10 million deaths in the battle for Japan.
Perhaps Nolan is a filmmaker, not a documentary maker, and he trusts his audience to be informed accordingly going in, or to be intelligent enough to do the digging to know the truth after the fact. As an introduction to this turning point of history for millions of younger viewers worldwide, we have to consider that all of the consideration of “the event” taking place on account of this movie’s popularity wouldn’t remotely exist otherwise.
That's part of Nolans appeal. Modern Hollywood treats their audience like idiots.
Nolan treats the audience like they are intelligent enough to understand it, research it or pick it up half way through...
It's like a breath of fresh hair not being handheld all the way through and coming out with views so different to the person next to you that you wonder if they were paying attention
LOL. Fat chance of that. It might have made a great David Lynch film or a very good TV miniseries. I'll take a strong pass on the film.
@@cejannuzi nobody’s asking you to watch it lmao
@@matwatson7947 You sure about that? We are talking about the guy here that gave us "gems" of intelligent storytelling and thoroughly consistent plots like "The Dark Knight Rises" and those comic movies with the dude with the red cape...
I agree. Mitchell asks for too much from the movie. I was expecting Hiroshima footage, but I get the decision not to go there. He did convey the horror even though it was on a surreal level with the nightmarish images going through Oppenheimer's mind. Also, the use of sound was important in conveying the horror of an atomic bomb.
''In a nuclear war, civilians are on the frontline'' Cristopher Hitchens.
in a nuclear war the ones closest to the bomb going off are lucky
So profound! What an incredible quote!
@@markbelousov1 watch ( threads ) or ( the day after )
We will kill ourselves at their beckoning. At a lift of one finger we will die without a thought. At least so far.
@@blakebortles6098true surviving it is actually worse 😢
I just seen an eye opening documentary that a British investigative journalist did that shocked me to the core. My boyfriend when he was a child lived on an island named Kawjalean,(I never heard of it)so I looked it up. On youtube I came across this documentary. The story to say the least is very involved. The long and short of it all is the American government detonated bombs in the Pacific ocean around a bunch of islands. The military told the inhabitants to these islands that they would be safe. That was the farest thing from the truth. The native people were used as guinea pigs for our government to test the effects of radiation on people. One of the beautiful islands became completely uninhabitable(I think it was bikini island) there is still traces of radiation existing there today. Many of the people died, suffered long term effects, loss of hair, loss of skin and the list goes on, literally dispictable. The island my boyfriend lived on named Kawjalean is now a United States property for military and they do rocket launches off this island. Our government just thought it was okay to uproot these native people and put them on another island, and used these same ppl as guinea pigs.. all in the name of warfare. Why we never hear about this I can speculate. The news is controlled and we only hear what they allow us to hear. Sounds like our democracy is just as bad if not worse than countries ruled by dictators or communist parties. I thinK WE NEED LEADERS THAT ARE FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE!! NOT JUST WEALTHY LAWYERS WHO HAVE BIG FINANCIAL BACKERS.. ITS OUR TIME
USA is infamous for these nefarious acts all across the globe
Are you referring to the Coming War on China by John Pilger?
Yes that is the documentary I watched. I wasn't sure but just searched it and yes that is it.
US is not perfect, surely has much much freedom for its people than a marxist hellhole.
If your uncertain of this I invite you to live in one of those.
The island you refer to is Kwajalein. A number of islands in the Pacific were selected as sites for nuclear testing. The government was well aware of the negative effects of being exposed to certain radiation; that was not new -- Marie Curie developed some radiation poisoning. The government did undertake efforts to relocate people who occupied these islands and the islanders were not given much of a choice. They were treated unfairly; after all, they had no vote on the matter.
Anyone who watches that movie and DOESNT understand the horrors of the aftermath of a nuclear blast, arent very intelligent to begin with.
We dont need the movie to show and detail every statistical aspect of what happens during a nuclear explosion.
I understand Greg mitchell's point on what's missing... But those omissions would be a problem if the movie was called "the bomb"... The movie is called Oppenheimer, its about the ambivalence on his words, his relationship with his coworkers... Some aspects of his personal life. The movie is 3 hours long, but yes, there was material for making it last two more hours...
Agreed
Hardly anyone would take an interest in Oppenheimer's life, if it weren't for his pivotal role in the development and use of the most deadly weapon that has ever been deployed in warfare. It is a complete failure of the movie to focus on some petty power plotting of a politician instead of doing the exploration of the moral dilemma justice.
Okay, but it didn't have to be only about the guy's life. The title could have been different. That's why Greg is saying Hollywood is afraid of the truth about the bomb.
It was based on the book on "Oppenheimer", hence Nolan made the film about him based on the book. So many movies could be made on so many different aspects of nuclear weapons, war, etc.
Well it is a prpblem if you ommit that he defended the bomb. That seems like its a very important aspect to the man to omit. Would be a bit like showing i dunno one of hitlers guys looking on sadly at gas chambers when actually he was a eugenisist till the day he died no?
I disagree with him. Oppenheimer did have an internal struggle and it was shown when he visited Truman saying I have blood on my hands and advocated to shut down the program. He also did publicly defended the bomb and it was shown on the film when he spoke to the public but his struggle couldn’t let him hear the claps etc
President Truman had the final say. Thank you, President Truman.
This guy is a BLOGGER. When did democracy now start using hacks as sources? Is Amy being held hostage? Or has DN eroded?
🤣🤣
So you're basing your ability to read a man's mind...
By what you saw in a film made 50 years after he died?
You should learn to discern what you see on a film from what is actual truth and fact. You are conflating the two.
@@cosimodirondo972war criminal
I thought the effect of the movie was even stronger when Oppenheimer couldn't hear audience clapping and saw them in a flash. It was absolutely chilling.
Japan was not ready to surrender. They weren’t ready to surrender even after the second bomb was dropped.
I'm not a Nolan Fanboy, however you may have missed the point of the movie. Everyone and their grandson now can google images of the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The implied horror of what Oppenheimer's team had unleashed upon the world hit way harder than showing sensationalized pictures of burnt bodies. The scene where Oppenheimer hallucinates about stepping onto the husk of a burnt body very convincingly conveys what might have been going through his mind thinking about the horrors that were unleashed upon the two Japanese cities.
I understand this speaker's concerns about the fallout from the nuclear tests, and the protracted aftermath of the little boy/ Fat man explosions. But it would be foolish to ignore the efficacy of a movie that has inspired so many viewers to actually read about the history behind this era.
I agree, the movie’s a character study on Oppenheimer, so it focuses more on him than the nuclear bombs themselves. At first i thought we should’ve seen the bombing of Japan, but when i thought about it i realised that really would have been out of place and silly. We see the whole movie from Oppenheimer’s perspective, he didn’t see the bombing of Japan so why should we?
@@trento9891 i've been to hiroshima, my in-laws are japanese, the japanese are pretty philosophical about the bombs, most of the people of japan didn't want to the war, hirohito is to blame for all of the atrocities, even the ones the japanese inflicted on numerous others.
my son and i watched the movie, he rang the peace bell in hiroshima city, when he 3 years old, it's a great and thriving city.
Why do you call pictures of burnt people "sensationalized"? It's simply reality.
Better that than the thousands of American servicemen it would have taken to end the war conventionally.
If you historically track global conflicts starting from the 7 Years War/French & Indian War, the Nuclear Weapon has quelled global conflicts. You should also consider the effects and carnage Industrialization has had starting from the American Civil War. The Nuclear Weapon is ACTUALLY the single greatest deterrent from Mass Slaughter.
Why is Hollywood so afraid of a factual movie, the Sound of freedom.
It's really easy to judge with the benefit of hindsight the decisions that were made at the end of the second world war, a war that had cost the lives of millions already, I'm pretty sure that Truman and Oppenheimer and all who were involved in the manhatten project to their dying days felt some responsibility for what happened but the reality was after 5+ years of killing they wanted a conclusive end to the war. Millions more dying fighting for every inch of ground in Japan must have been so very unpalatable that any alternatives must have been appealing.
Let's not forget that Japan was not the country it is today, it was a militarist ultranationlist xenophobic dictatorship that had rolled across its neighbours, treating those that surrendered combatant and non-combatant alike in the most brutal fashion imaginable.
Deaths from Japan's actions alone are estimated to be close to 30 million, that doesn't include the millions of other victims who didn't actually die but had to live with the trauma they experienced.
Completely Accurate ! Millions of Chinese SLAUGHTERED. Japanese Soldiers Beheading people with swords for sadistic enjoyment. . . That's how Karma works, in this instance, Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword. The Japanese "owned it."
@@floridaboomer523 They actually had beheading "competitions." The photos were published in the Tokyo newspapers and I've seen them.
@@floridaboomer523 Don't forget the Japanese citizens keeping a "killed score" of their favorite soldier. Japan's citizenry supported their government's aggression and murder.
On the day the Atomic Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, millions of people in Asia remained under the boot of the Japanese Military andnthe Japanese Secret Police, the Kempeitai.
The life expectancy of anyone under Kempeitai interrogation was not good.
The atomic bombs were a major factor in Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945.
Many lives throughout Asia were saved as well.
It was not the only factor, but a major factor nonetheless.
Emperor Hirohito's rescript ending Japan's war specifically mentioned "a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable ... . Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation"...
I agree with you.
This movie is about Oppenheimer and shot from his viewpoint. It's NOT a retrospect, it's NOT about all the facts of the atomic bomb.
Mister Mitchell is saying facts but is blind for the fact the movie isn't about all these things he complains about aren't explicit in the movie.
That is his point, They should perhaps have been more factual.
Chill bro, it’s still a good movie. But this dude makes super valid points, Nolan got cold feet and didn’t show the Nagasaki footage, just Murphy looking depressed
@@VanisleGirl1961 It is factual. Oppenheimer wasn't at Hiroshima when the bomb was dropped.
"This movie is abou...ying facts but is blind for the fact the movie isn't about all these things he complains about aren't explicit in the movie."
But that's kind of the point! It SHOULD be about that!
I just watched the movie today. I Highly recommend to anyone. Timing of this movie is Incredible considering the fact that nato is at war (proxy war) with a nuclear armed russia. Just like in the movie even today, some people are dismissive of the fact that russia could really use a nuclear weapon if they feel threatened. It would be great if we had more nations speaking up to make peace and stop the war in ukraine and russia. Even a small nuke today is much more powerful then the ones US used in Japan!
Any peace that benefits everyone is a failure to Russia's objectives, so no, it won't happen. The attitude Russia has had towards Ukraine has been the same for over 200 years, it's not even the first time Ukraine has tried to break away from Russian influence. So no this isn't a "proxy" war, this would have happened with or without NATO, but Ukraine won't be totally alone this time. It's time for Russia to wake up and finally answer the question of who they are, otherwise they will continue to drag the rest of the world down with them.
Well written Russian bot 😂😂😂
@@blueberrywilbur315 whether he's a Russian bot or not. He got a point.
I wonder if anyone asked the opinions of the men who were preparing for the invasion of Japan what they thought? Every one of these hippocrates today would willingly press the button if their lives were on the line....and these cowards know it!
@@BC-du5hm,
You don't need any nation to speak up against the war, you just need to stop the U.S. government from fueling the fire !
The only thing I didn’t like about the movie is that they build up the trinity test the whole time but they don’t show the immense scale of the explosion.
The cloud itself was nearly 1.5x taller than Mount Everest. But instead they show a hyper closeup view of the explosion instead.
I think showing a man standing before this impossibly massive explosion would’ve been important in showing how insanely horrific it was. I think Oppenheimer had regret almost immediately just looking at how large the explosion was.
Possibly not, since there is the suggestion they did not know how limited it would be.
ya I can't agree more. The flash was so bright you could see your bones through your hand, but yet that wasn't even shown... they could have carried an important message in this movie, how dangerous these weapons are --- but they didn't... what a missed opportunity.
@@yaynu yeah 💯..a missed opportunity by Hollywood and even worse by Nolan. He chicken out, they all do in the end when they piles of stash and immense wealth is at risk. Wont be watching anymore of Nolan the rat 🐀 movies ever again. What a goddamn sellout
You may be aware of it but if you want a real life, frightening scale look, check out the footage from the Baker Blast from Operation Crossroads. Where they strung out all manner of ships to see what would happen then detonated a hydrogen bomb below the water's surface. Blast wave with water is titantic, visibly sweeping in to destroy those ships.
@@ZZ-ou7gpyou are so stupid you know that? This movie isn't a history lesson. Nolan didn't make this movie to lecture anyone. He simply made a good movie and specifically through the eyes the physicist thats why its literally named Oppenheimer. Nolan was not going on a moral crusade or anything....It was a film through the lens of Oppenheimer not a tribute to the victims.
Should the film have also shown the Nanking Massacre and the 20 million civilians murdered by the Imperial Japanese military in China alone?
From the title itself, the movie is about Oppenheimer. You cannot put everything that happened in years of events with its every detail in a 3 hour movie. It's about Oppenheimer, what he felt about his invention and the consequences afterwards, how it was used, how it affected his mental health. It's a biopic. The focus of the story is of course more about Oppenheimer.
There’s no question the story was about Oppenheimer. The issue was what are the most important details of his life story seventy years later. The story focused FAR too much on the vindication of his reputation, and far too little on the existential crisis and consequences of his earth changing work.
@@ranjeeththunga The story definitely does not vindicate Oppenheimer's reputation at all, in fact it shows him to be a coward and a hypocrite. It sounds like you wanted a different film, this was a biopic that actually seemed to spend more time demonstrating how the left were unfairly persecuted than on the bomb itself.
We should absolutely use this film as a spring board to talk about, as you said, 'the existential crisis and consequences of his earth changing work'. But this is art at the end of the day, we can judge it to be good or bad, but it has no moral obligation.
I think we can use topics like the film's portrayal of the persecution of the left and how unnecessary and cruel the dropping of the bombs were to start wider conversations about these topics. I feel like spending all our time critiquing a film for things you wanted to be in it, rather than using the film as a starting point to discuss those issues covers up the very real and important things the film does discuss.
@@ranjeeththungathat’s not what the movie is about though, that’s what you want it to be about. Its purpose was to explore Oppenheimer’s journey and how it affected him. The focus of the movie was not his work but how is work affected his life. So no, it didn’t focus too little on the consequences of his life changing work since the atom bomb was never meant to be the star of the show
The least they could have done is acknowledge the consequences of the atomic bomb a little better though.
Like if we'd actually seen the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on screen then the film would be a much better film than it already is, as well as more honest about what the bomb actually represents.
Plus the fact that it's a 3 hour movie shows that Christopher Nolan wasn't concerned about runtime.
It's a very important point you mentioned that the film can be a springboard for further dialog. I guess kinda like what we're having. :) So I do agree from a higher perspective, it still does serve its purpose and where we can go from here.
I still believe a different film would give a better platform for discussion... I believe the film we got represents our sociopathic obsession with whose at fault more than the gravity of human tragedy. But we work with what we got.
No one ever ask the opinion of the marines, seabees and sailors that were going to be the lead into an invasion of Japan. Those American servicemen that had just fought at Iwo Jima and Okinawa i am sure were very glad the bomb was used. The bomb saved many lives of both our servicemen and Japanese. Also, it sent a message to Russia to NOT EVEN think about invading and taking parts of East Asia.
(1) The movie has an exceptionally clear and unambiguous anti-nuclear weapon theme, delivered in several very ominous and frightening scenes. I've seen critiques of the movie claiming that because some particular theme the critic feels strongly about seems to have been omitted, this makes the movie supportive of the use of nuclear weaponry. I'm baffled - and not entirely sure what movie the critic saw. You could use exactly the same arguments to claim 'Apocalypse Now' is a pro-Vietnam War move, or that 'The Godfather' is supportive of the Mafia. You could make 20 epic movies all about the creation of the first nuclear weapons, all of them excellent, all of them focusing on a different set of themes in different settings, and still leave something significant out. It's a vast subject.
(2) Some of the 'omissions' are deliberate. In horror movies, effective directors sometimes don't show the monster directly on screen and rely on the viewer's imagination to conjure up something far worse than could ever be shown, or for the dread sense of the unknown to make the viewer more tense and frightened. I will make zero spoilers - just that Christopher Nolan tries to use this device fairly often, such as in a scene where scientists are looking in horror, disgust and shock at something we aren’t shown. Our imaginations are cued by their faces. There’s definitely a debate to be had about whether he pulled this off, could he have done it better, or should he have tried something else entirely, given the subject matter. But there are certain things a number of critics seem to demand should have been depicted on screen, and the lack of this is evidence of a harmful bias on the director’s part and lack of understanding of the subject matter. I think that’s unfair.
(3) Some of the things people are upset about not being addressed in the movie . . . ARE in the movie. Literally. They’re in it, and addressed and tackled. Characters mention them out loud in dialogue. I’m gobsmacked. I think the problem is that two decades of huge budget franchise blockbusters have dumbed audiences down. The subject matter is present in a complex, nuanced and adult script with a lot of dense dialogue, nuanced acting depicting morally ambiguous characters and sophisticated, multi-layered visual direction. You have to be observant and work to follow what's happening. Also when certain things are presented, the viewer doesn’t seem to be given easy answers. A lot of the greatest art challenges the viewer, reader or listener to come up with their own thoughts and ideas in a response. Instead, some modern audiences seem to be upset with ‘Oppenheimer’ that it didn’t spoon feed them clear, simple didactic messaging that lined up with the personal morality they already held before viewing it. Which is doubly strange because it’s a movie that definitely and harshly critiques the emerging military-industrial complex, the nuclear arms race, McCarthyism and secret lobbying.
(4) The film is chiefly a psychological portrait of Robert J Oppenheimer, architect of nuclear weaponry. My opinion is that while there are a few flawed scenes, generally it’s an excellent piece of cinema, and frequently it’s quite brilliant. It’s also far more historically accurate than the average historical blockbuster. Responsibility in tackling important historical subject matter is crucial - there’s always a risk someone may walk away from something like this with a serious misapprehension about real life history. Ironically for me, one of my favourite movies, ‘Amadeus’, based on Peter Shaffer’s play, while a brilliant piece of fictional drama, put completely incorrect ideas in millions of people’s heads. In real life, Mozart and Salieri were nothing like the versions in the movie. Obviously, that’s music and the lives of musicians. The stakes are far higher when dealing with subject matter involving, say, racism or war. But at the same time, when someone wants to make a creative piece of art, I don’t think starting out by handing them a long checklist of things they have a ‘duty’ to include in their creative piece to ensure its validity is a positive way of approaching human creativity. My feeling on this comes from decades of teaching creative art.
5) Everyone, however, has the absolute right to communicate whatever criticism they like about this film. Criticism is not to be feared - it is to be embraced. If you disagree with my take, and think ‘Oppenheimer’ failed because some element, especially one you may have expertise in, was not in the movie - you may well be correct, and I may be wrong.
I will make a suggestion. This is not glib mockery, or snide - I am absolutely sincere and encouraging.
Write your own screenplay about the subject matter.
I’m serious.
Maybe you’ve never written a line of scripted dialogue in your life. Maybe you’ve never even read or seen a movie script. Maybe you have never even thought for a millisecond of your existence up until now of birthing a single syllable of creative writing. Maybe you’re convinced you can’t do it.
So?
Research how scripts are written. Rewatch your favourite movies to see if you can understand why they are your favourites. Research the subject matter deeply and immersively. Summon up your disappointment at ‘Oppenheimer’, and all your emotion, your political conviction, your ideals, your energy, your creativity - and see what happens.
Will you write a brilliant screenplay, make that movie and have it a success?
I have absolutely no idea. Probably not, because life is twisty, chaotic, unpredictable and very unfair.
You WILL fail several times, write a lot of utter rubbish, get frustrated and upset, and curse that idiot with his TH-cam comment and why the hell did you ever pay attention to it.
But you may also start an important journey that will teach you and people around you important things, and maybe a true criticism of ‘Oppenheimer’ will emerge - your vision. Not mine, not Christopher Nolan’s, not anyone else’s - your vision. Maybe it will be just an essay - or maybe a fully fledged script. Perhaps even with a storyboard. Maybe you’ll even shoot a full production. Maybe it will be a documentary. Maybe a stage play. Who knows?
The best answer to art that fails is art that succeeds.
Im not sure what Greg Michell is getting at here when he claims that a Japanese surrender was possible before the bombs were dropped. To be clear, the Japanese were not willing to surrender even after the first bomb was dropped. Is he implying that the Americans did not in fact intercept communications from the Japanese between August 7-9 ( the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on the 6th) confirming that a nuclear attack of Hiroshima had occurred and that they were willing to move forward with the war in the face of more destruction? The second bomb was then dropped on the 9th. Is he claiming that didn’t happen? He says Hiroshima was a civilian target, but Hiroshima was the headquarters of an Army division and for the Field Marshal in command of the defence of Southern Japan. Hiroshima was also an industrial target as it manufactured a lot of items needed for war.
I’ve not read this man’s books, but can anyone with possibly a better understanding of his work and of history illuminate my confusion here please?
It amazes me how people are treating this whole thing as if it's never been discussed before. Every bit of what was in the film has been covered--perhaps not in one place--in past documentaries, etc. I would highly recommend a visit to the Bradbury Museum at Los Alamos, NM. I learned a number of things there which I'd not seen covered in ANY of the many films, etc. that have been produced to date.
Yes, the young don't know, and they don't even suspect. Therefore, they don't even know how to form a real discussion about WW2, much less the bomb. People that are geriatric Boomers with good jobs don't even know their own World History.
Maybe try a book next time.
@@CarrotConsumer What does mean? A book? Is that a yea or nea?
American history regardless of the claims of museums and the like, is built on lies. If you choose to believe this garbage, then you are underscoring these lies and we deserve what we get
Yup. Bewildering wasn't it? Italy non cinematic experience - men talking talking in poorly lit? rooms. About communism of all things. Again. Totally missing the point if a Summer Entertainment all about atomic bang bang kids, get your Popcorn! And fizzle. Way more on utub
clips. Zero scroll at end credits to at least patch up the fallout, locals, Conquistador cast/crew, statistics re: Japan if not even 1 image shown??? 1 character? Anti NUkraine message ? All just ignored. Can only imagine Alphabet agency financed. Zzzzz
There is a tendency in looking at history to argue "what if things went differently?" and to get so downright absorbed in that cloud of speculation to lose sight of the needs of the present.
The atomic bombs were dropped. It happened, there is no going back and changing things... We can argue endlessly about whether or not it was necessary but that will not bring about any productive changes... It is exactly the same thing with the Ukraine war. This and that, what if this or that? People lose sight of the real enemy, the real issues in the endless pursuit to speculate a different series of events potentially occurring.
It is said that those who do not look at history are doomed to repeat it... I think the same can be true in the sense that those who look too much into history are doomed to become obsessed with it and take on the wrong lessons, or become paralysed by indecision. Know your history but understand how to use that knowledge for the right reasons.
Japan used Weapons of Mass Destruction in China.
Watched the movie last Friday on opening night. I think the movie absolutely challenges the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. It makes a crystal clear condemnation of it in fact and I think there are multiple scenes that do this.
First of all they make it clear in the scene before the Trinity test that Germany had already surrendered and that Oppenheimer’s intention was to defeat the N*zis, they state that they’re using the weapon on an already defeated enemy.
They state again and again that Oppenheimer never expected it to be used at all. Only that they demonstrated it’s power to enemies as a deterrent. “This weapon would make war unthinkable” “weapon to end all wars”
Harry Truman is portrayed as a villain in his scene where Oppenheimer tells him he feels he has blood on his hands and Truman calls him a crybaby scientist.
The entire last hour is explores his guilt and inner conflict over what happened. It wasn’t just a concern for the future use. There is even a line where Oppenheimer says he regretted building the bomb as soon as he realised they’d use it.
I’m not sure where this guy got the idea that this film in any way supports the usage of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You build and it will be used.
His critique of the movie feels somewhat hollow. I think they wanted to discuss the history of Oppenheimer and the bombs regardless of the movie’s audience reception.
@8866panda What a horrific experience -- is your Dad's memoir a published one? If not, you should consider having it published
LOL, unbeknowst to most, they are simply watching yet another U$ propaganxx.
THAT is the beauty of hollywood, it "appears" to show you the h0rrors of nukes but so what, there has been many debates, public enquiry, senate enquiry, congressional hearings of all sorts in the U$....what is the outcome?
JFk enquiry, debates, faked illlegal Irak war, Nam, Libya, and so on....what does it matter, everybody knows the true story, U$ is a terr0r state...NOTHING and NO ONE will be held to acct....just another holllywood productions.
Welcome to U$ propaganda, it makes you feel good you can talk and discuss about U$ atrocities, but it's just another dog and pony show. LOL
The movie never shows him as clearly opposing the bombings themselves, only that he was "conflicted", which is itself just an exaggeration. He was opposed only to the subsequent arms race, not the dropping of the bombs themselves, in fact he seems to buy the excuses that the military made up for their use at the time and even helped choose the targets.
Now regarding the movie, yes it may be read as having a vague anti nuclear message if it all. But I'd say the problematic aspect of the movie isn't its message but its whitewashing and valorization of Oppenheimer as some kind of tragic martyr, deeply troubled by his deeds...etc. It's only a movie of course, and its a fun watch, but we should valorize characters like that, there's nothing to admire there other than scientific and managerial competence.
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.
This weapon was going to be made. Whether by us in the U.S. or Russia after the war. A lot like A.I. (or any revolutionary new tech today), humanity has this fundamental relationship with the laws of physics and the universe:
"If it is impossible, there is no problem."
"If it is possible, it is inevitable."
there's a slight difference between making something and using it.
I don't think we watched the same movie Sir. This video should be retitled "What we omitted to see in Oppenheimer's movie".
Actually there was a scene of Oppenheimer watching footage from Hiroshima, in which he intentionally looks away from the screen, which is why we as viewers don't see the footage. A powerful scene as it shows how he did not have the guts to look the horror he partook in creating into the face. The film depicts him as flawed individual, and while it celebrates him to an extent, it also shows the damage such a celebration of individual genius can lead to.
Also, the film does not shy away from the fact that the bomb was used against the rightful doubts of many whether it was necessary, and has an explicit scene in which Oppenheimer, believing the lies his superiors have told him (and hell-bent on continuing what he has begun), opposes people who are holding a meeting at Los Alamos jn in which they discuss that it is not necessary to use the bomb as the Japanese are loosing in military strengh day by day.
Mitchell makes many good and important points, but some of the allegedly omitted facts are actually in the film, albeit perhaps drowned by the pace and onslaught of dense imgagery, and perhaps brushed over too quickly
There is no scene in the movie where Oppenheimer watched footage of the aftermath of the bomb! My God, did you people even WATCH the movie? Oppenheimer heard the news on the radio, like everyone else at that time. The film is a snapshot of the time of the bombing! The only aftermath covered were the attempts to label him a communist and discredit him later because of his opposition to nuclear proliferation!
Thank you-excellent points.
The people hell-bent on labeling everything about the dropping of the bomb “evil” have lost context and you are right to point that out. Not everything needs to be an opportunity to reinforce their own oversimplified views.
What was really "powerful" *and psychotic was his barking out quoting text from Hindu veda "I am destroyer of the Worlds"!
No one knew exactly which way the Japanese military was going. We did know that their soldiers would fight to the death, and that the Japanese civilians were willing to do the same, by the 10s of thousands.
@@emitindustries8304 Agreed. As well as the fact that the Allies were 'running out' of adult-aged males to send to war after at least 4 years of hard fighting (by the USA at least). We also didn't trust the Soviets and could not turn our backs on them in Europe.
It was a very,very difficult decision, all decisions on using deadly weapons against an opponent always are.
The idea that Japan was close to surrendering is silly in nature. If The Japanese were close, they would've surrendered after the first bomb.
I'll include a story from my father. He was a baby boomer and while he was in school, two Japanese foreign exchange students came to his school. They talked about how their dad, a child, and their grandmother were training to fight Americans to the death. They said if the bombs had not been dropped, they never would've been born. That came from two Japanese teenage brothers.
The Japan omissions were on purpose. This movie is a biopic made mainly from Oppenheimer's perspective. When those bombs left on a truck from Los Alamos, Oppenheimer lost control of them and therefore anything that happens after that. You can see it in his eyes that he has apprehension about what he has just created and lost control of. Hence his whole meeting with Truman. This still weighed on Oppenheimer greatly. Also, the movie does a great job about illustrating the conflicting nature of the whole situation. The imperfection of man and the decisions we make. Its by no means a war movie, so I absolutely wouldn't expect to see the Japanese bombings
Once our works leave us and have an ultimate impact, we also lose control of the evil they may accomplish. While almost nothing is impossible for humans thru science and technology, achieving peace they are not capable of. This is the timeless message of the Bible, which forecasts and details such a once unimaginable horrible end of life on earth. But instead of seeing the terrors people are going to unleash on each other, people imagine they are humanitarian, good-natured, and peace loving. The human heart deceives itself. How long will you decieve yourself that you are honest, kind, and loving and reject the blood of Jesus as truth?
Fantastic movie but he makes very valid points. Nolan should have shown some of the Nagasaki footage Oppenheimer saw. Americans still really don’t understand the absolute horror we put those poor people through.
Did they mention how Nagasaki wasn't even the actual target?
How they decided to bomb it instead... due to CLOUDY Weather?
@@HughJass-313 I liked the part where the politician said he didn’t want to bomb Kyoto because he and his wife vacation there
@@TheJonnyEnglish
🤣🤣
Right!
It is better to not show it, because that would be taking the focus away from Oppenheimer himself
I think the charred body that Oppenheimer stepped on and the face he saw that was melting in his hallucination state did a good job of showing the awful circumstances of dropping the bomb while keeping the focus on him. The movie is supposed to be from his perspective.
Not seen the film but there was a huge discussion between the scientists about its future use.
Nils Bohr was a strong advocate of giving away the scientific results so that everyone would have access to it as he thought M.A.D would prevail (he was proved right).
Can't recommend enough the book "the making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes.
There was a lot of talk about sharing lately, some suggest quite a few prominent scientists who worked on the project shared the results with Russians to assure MAD. It made sense after seeing what could happen if only one country had nuclear bombs.
While almost nothing is impossible for humans thru science and technology, achieving peace they are not capable of. This is the timeless message of the Bible, which forecasts and details such a once unimaginable horrible end of life on earth. But instead of seeing the terrors people are going to unleash on each other, people imagine they are humanitarian, good-natured, and peace loving. The human heart deceives itself. How long will you decieve yourself that you are honest, kind, and loving and reject the blood of Jesus as truth?
@barneyrubble9309 You are right, "The making of the atomic bomb" is excellent and so is his other big work, "Dark sun" about the making of the hydrogen bomb.
The white man is a very dangerous spicy is what I've learned in my 71 yrs of living on this planet
The film is not a documentary, it's not about what happens to humans exposed to radiation or nuclear bomb explosions. Greg Mitchell has directed his own film, I presume he included everything he wanted at the time. I'm not sure why talking heads are rolled in to tell us what is not in the film but at least the subject is being discussed again and the people who died are never forgotten.
Maybe discussing what Nolan left out is a good thing? This is what Nolan wanted. Chill dude. The guy you’re listening to is an ally
He just wants to get on his soap box. This movie was not about the war or the atomic bomb
@@davidkruse4030Not even you believe your claims. A cliché is not a substitute for critical analysis.
Btw, the carbon /toxicity footprint of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
Because films impact culture, and culture impacts political thought.
It doesn't show footage on the ground of Hiroshima or Nagasaki but it does show a charred corpse and how affected the Oppenheimer character is by what he helped to do. You see burning flesh briefly and hear screams in the sound design and I think the idea was to be more effecting by being subtle rather than showing the destruction on a larger scale.
It was wise by Nolan not to include it because it would kinda be taking the focus away from Oppenheimer himself
Also, when Oppenheimer experienced that moment, he didnt have any photos of the results, he only had his imagination at that moment, he wasnt in Japan
I agree. I think it was clever of Nolan not to show the footage directly. What he did instead was more effective.
I like this part because it's relatable in the sense that viewer and most people actually didn't see the actual bombing footage. That makes us feel disconnected but his expression bought us back to reality that it happened and it actually something devastating when we took time to think about it and the aftermath.
I hope your comment gets more attention, amazing tale and brave family member
There is a throwaway line near the end of the film that mentions how unnecessary it was to ending the war but it isn’t prominent
It should have been at the beginning of the film
The film was a biography not a history lesson. There are errors in history including the bomb prompting the Japanese surrender. The Russian invasion had much to do with it.
A huge factor is dropping the bomb was preventing Soviet advances into Japan. Okinawa showed the tenacity of Japanese resistence. Had the bombs not been dropped, the Japanese would have continued to resist, and many more American and Japanese lives would have been futily lost. The truth is that the civilians of of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where sacrificed for future American and JAPANESE lives. Had they not been dropped, much of Japan would have lived in an Orwellian world like North Korea.
“I’m/was only doing my job.” Is the lesson/excuse I took away from the movie. Presently and historically the most dangerous justification humans use. More dangerous than atomic bombs or any other weapon man has or will create.
the greatest anti-nuclear war movie of all time is not Oppenheimer, it's Threads.
The Day After is up there too...
@@tboner4062 Threads knocks The Day After out of the Park!!
@richardvernon317 if course you'll say that you're British lol... I'm neither...
@@richardvernon317 that's what I've heard too, though I haven't seen The Day After yet. I also have When the Wind Blows on my to-watch list....but I need a little while to recover from Threads
I just found it here on YT. Thanks for the heads up 👍🏼
If you're concerned about civilian deaths, far more civilians would've been killed in a mainland invasion of Japan.
I mean from my perspective and opinion the actual bombings were not included because it was heavily not oppenheimer's decision. He did pick them as example locations only because of their military size but ultimately he as a scientist did his job to create an atomic bomb before the Nazis and our president chose to drop them. Just imagine what life would be like if the US wasn't the first to drop a nuke..
So basically this guy is saying the problem with a movie called Oppenheimer is that it was about Oppenheimer instead of the entire philosophical debate about nukes?
I think the movie touches on the philosophical debate about nukes, but you're probably right, it is called Oppenheimer, it should be more about his life, too.
I saw the movie last week and felt *maybe* there was something missing from the film. This video does a good job of pointing that out. But I feel that knowledge is to be discovered in another place. "The film IS about Oppenheimer the man and his life**. I don't think it was meant to be all inclusive about the effects of radiation and the aftermath of the bombs being dropped in Japan. It is already almost a three hour film. There are other resources for learning more about the Manhattan Project. The movie has caused me and many other people to be more aware and interested in seeking more knowledge on what happened.
I'm more surprised people don't know what happened... All these are like common knowledge to me.
Yes. Excellent points
Can't agree more, the movie really achieve what it want to achieve n i like it very much
Yes, but there were some script flaws concerning Oppenheimer, as indicated at 4:49. Not considering additional details about radiation poisoning and the emphasis on civilian casualties caused by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. These aspects needed consideration to ensure a truly accurate depiction of Oppenheimer in the movie.
Greg Mitchel's view that there are omissions in the Oppenheimer movie sounds whinny to me. The Manhattan Project was a huge enterprise and could hardly be covered completely in a 3 hour movie. Historians still argue over the justifications to use the bomb on Japan and certainly there are only guesses as to how the war with Japan might have proceeded otherwise. This movie will encourage further thought and discussion of that point. Obviously Greg has his views and should make movies or discuss the issues, but to cloak those in his criticism of the movie is self serving in my view. I think the movie will engage a whole new generation of young people in recognizing the dangers of nuclear weapons, and that is not a bad thing. The movie correctly showed that once the bombs were built the scientists no longer had control, which went to Truman and the Army Air Core (later the Air Force.)
Its named OPPENHEIMER not Nagazaki or Hiroshima Bombing…. Of course they were not showing details of any of that. People always love to complain over other people’s work who they know nothing about.
This is a character study from Nolan about Oppenheimer not a dissection into what the Bomb did to the people of Japan. Why even write about a film if you can’t understand the angle or purpose behind it. 🤦🏻♂️
This is why critics reviews are never worth taking serious and why there is so much discrepancy with the general audience score.
So you're saying Hollywood isn't telling the truth? Imagine that.
If Hollywood makes a “woke” movie then all of a sudden it is telling the truth
I would recommend a recent book by Barrett Tillman entitled "When the Shooting Stopped, August 1945". Were the Japanese ready to Surender in August 1945? Despite what revisionist historians may say, the answer is, no. Tillman's book reveals a great deal of detail about what was actually going on in Japan, both among the military and the government, as well as about the negotiations being initiated by the Allies to persuade Japan to surrender before the islands hd to be invaded. In spite of the damage being inflicted upon Japan by American bombing, and the rapid collapse of the Japanese Kwangtung Army as a result of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, all such overtures were rejected out of hand. It was not until after Nagasaki that the Emperor finally went on the radio and announced the surrender to the Japanese people, and the end of the war. In fact, that was the very first time he had ever gone on the air at all and, in fact, was the very first time his people had ever even heard his voice at all. Even after that, some Japanese units still refused to accept that the war was over for some time. The fanaticism of the Japanese is difficult for people today to comprehend. However,, long before we began to read stories in the press about fanatical Islamic "suicide bombers", the Japanese were doing exactly the same thing, and on a regular, daily basis.
People seemed to have forgot about the "kyuju incident" where a military unit lead by Major Kenji Hatanaka tried to overthrow the imperial guards and capture the emperor in order to stop him from broadcasting the surrender.
Or how Hiroshima was to be a staging ground for the invasion of the western portion of the main island Honshu. And how ground zero was the Imperial Japanese Army Headquarters. Or how Nagasaki was home to major japanese industries such as the Mitsubishi Heavy Steel Ind. and the Mitsubishi shipyard.
And the biggest lie of them all, how we just didn't want the soviets to invade." And to that I say "witch what!? Paddle boards??? They didn't have anything? No troop transports, no landing ships, no supply vessels, no strategic bombing force, no dry docks to build anything (The germans destroyed them earlier in the war), zero experience conducting an actual amphibious assault (They try to claim river crossing as amphibious assaults as well as ferrying 90 guys on a torpedo boat). Russia's entire surface fleet was 72 ships. We lost over 30 ships in Okinawa alone and they were protected by over 1,600 ships. That argument falls flat on its face when met with even a sliver of questioning and 2 minutes of research.
The film highlights the assembly of world class physicists who developed the first atomic bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t come into it, as soon as the bomb was made the military took over from that point. Los Alamos had no input into future use of the bomb…
I think that focusing on how this is a different kind of weapon distracts, or even diminishes how people suffer from conventional weapons. The firebombing of Tokyo killed over 90 thousand, most of them civilians. They were crushed and burned to death, their pain was just as horrific as those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Germans firebombed Rotterdam. The Allies firebombed Dresden. The Soviets firebombed Helsinki. Did those victims suffer less because the bombs were not nuclear?
While I am sure there was great suffering in those cities during and after the firebombings, I don’t think it quite compares to the agony of the atomic bombings and their long lasting impact. Radiation illnesses are particularly debilitating. But basically, I think whataboutism is really not an appropriate argument to make here.
I'll say war is horrific. Period. An m-16, a fire bomb, a hydrogen bomb....all appropriately horrific you know you wouldn't wanna get fire bombed OR shot OR get leukemia.
@@gatesurferI think all war sucks.
@@gatesurfer I am not sure why you think the agony of being burned alive is less. That's some twisted thinking.
And yes, the "whataboutism" is exactly the argument, and I think it is very appropriate because when your flesh is burning, when your loved ones are killed, and when your life is destroyed, the last thing you'll be thinking about is how different is the bomb that fell on you.
Atom bombs are not simply big bombs. You completely ignore the effect of radiation for decades
Japan only surrendered after the SECOND atomic bomb was dropped. In the two battles that preceded the bombing, Japanese soldiers fought to the last man. Casualties in an invasion of Japan, would have superseded all the casualties of the previous 4 years combined.
It's almost as if Mr Mitchell didn't see the film. They didn't show the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because Doctor Oppenheimer didn't see them. But the powerful images of him talking to the team when after those bombs were dropped did allude to the horrific effects of the bomb and the incongruity of what he was saying to reality.
Didn't they show Oppenheimer the footage, though?
One other thing, the tests were carried out on Native Reservations also, not concerned at all about the effects on the land and its inhabitants. Just because something is possible, does not mean it should be done. Our lack of moral development exceeds our capabilities.
Stephen Hawking, may he rest in peace, was asked what he thought would be the most likely way we will become extinct and answered it would eventually be nuclear annihilation because we are not mature enough not to destroy ourselves with them.
Did the movie even mention
Lise Meitner?
The mother of atomic fission?
When the report first came back of her findings, Oppenheimer first proclaimed "impossible!" But he quickly realized her calculations were correct, that fission would produce tremendous energy.
within a few weeks on his blackboard he had a crude drawing of a bomb.
it only mentioned the experiment
It would have been nice to have a female scientist represented in the mix.
The nation was at war. The world was at war. My father was an eighteen-year-old private on rotation in the South Pacific headed into battle where hundreds of thousands of American soldiers already died when the bombs were dropped. War IS hell and it was us or them.
No, actually Japan was no threat to the US whatsoever at that point of war. Even Pearl Harbor did not produce as many civilian casualties as any other cities that were bombed during WW2. The US, however, did bomb the shit out of Japan as in thousands of civilians got burned to death even before the atomic bombs. Perhaps it was necessary or perhaps not since Japan had refused to surrender until they’ve seen the atomic bombs drop. But it’s an overstatement to say that “it was either us or them” when Japan was like a little kid and the US was the strongest guy in the world.
The decision by the US to send in young American soldiers into sure death was a mistake on the US’s part. Japan had no capability to attack the US. The US could have bombed the hell out of Japan until there is nothing left. But the US still sent in young patriotic soldiers into a field of machine gunfire. It’s a fucking tragic that the leaders at the time did that.
Pathetic official murican narrative.
did it show the mutilated bodies of US soldiers from Guadalcanal to Okinawa? the lack of any moral code the Japanese had? or the Japanese civilians versus mercilessly butchered by their own soldiers ?
You can’t tell everything that happened back then in a movie. That would be called a mini series. This was amazing and deserves everyone’s attention.
I have always felt that the use of the bomb against Japan and targeting cities has probably saved the world, so far, from a nuclear conflict because a real explosion occurred and the world does not have to imagine the effects of a nuclear bomb. We humans are very bad when we have to anticipate the effects of something that has not actually happened. Now that we are faced with an even deadlier situation, the collapse of the environment, we are showing again that we are unwilling to take the consequences of our societal model into account. If only there was a way to demonstrate what is happening …
Thank you for your comment. I’m a history teacher and this is the main point I teach my students. It is so easy to get caught up in the event that we forget the effects. I personally feel that the effect of seeing not only the destructive power of the bomb, but also the total devastation of the whole war itself has had a profound impact on keeping the world from going to war again.
I take issue with Greg Mitchell’s take. The film is a character study of the man & how he experienced the creation & the aftermath of bomb. Oppenheimer learnt about the use of the bomb from the radio like the rest of America. He wasn’t at Hiroshima or Nagasaki & nor did he have a say about the use of the weapon. It’s a film about Oppenheimer & his experiences. It’s not about the bomb.
Spot on! Thank you.
The real reason is you don't want to feel guilty with a movie where you're portrayed as the villains.
@@MaidaseuGuilty? What are you on? War is war. We have even more terrible weapons now than what was dropped on Japan in 1945. Power is power. Sorry it sucks that you feel like you’re not in power. Are the majority of Chinese civilians going to feel bad if China nukes Taiwan? No, no they won’t because they don’t really have a say in that decision. Just like the majority of Americans didn’t have a say in the decision for ending the war in the pacific during WWII.
@@Maidaseu portrayed as the villains ? I don’t think so. If we didn’t build a Nuclear bomb first, someone else would of. Maybe the Nazis, maybe communist Russia. Once someone started building it (in this case, the Nazis) the genie is out of the bottle and you can’t put it back & it wasn’t us who started letting the Genie out. It was a nuclear RACE & I’m glad we got their first because I promise you, if we didn’t, the damage would of been far greater & we might not be here right now. Things aren’t black and white. Especially subjects like these.
Anti-nuclear, I think we should truly mean anti-weaponized nuclear arm. We shouldn't be afraid of potential nuclear energy, this movie should stand a great example standing against weaponized energy. But to bring realize how it's energy can save the Earth's climate nightmare how clean nuclear power is.
The waste is already solved decades ago thanks to Kyle Hill's Half Life series.
This is a Hollywood movie!! Since when has that ever been a replacement for the “normal” educational tracks. In other words .. ITS NOT A DOCUMENTARY…is an movie made for entertainment. Geez .. there are many avenues to get educated .. mostly books, university classes, etc.
if you only use Hollywood movies .. no wonder we are in the political situation we are in today .. people are just too lazy to educate themselves.. instead like to sit two hours on their butts and think that’s it!!
I visited Hiroshima earlier this year and it was heartbreaking going through the peace museum.
How about the USS Arizona? The men are still trapped there and listed as Missing In Action.
There were alternatives that could've and should've been explored rather than dropping the two bombs. Many myths about the necessity of their usage have been historically debunked over the years.
Greg Mitchell should read the title of the movie outloud a few times to realize that the movie is not about the atomic bomb.
Xactly!!!!😄👍
Would anyone know Oppenheimer's name if it weren't for his involvement with developing the atomic bomb?
@@dinkster1729 Go troll somewhere else
What's to talk about? It was them or us 🇺🇸. On top of that we had to tell them twice! War isn't pleasant & we did not start it. We even built their country back up. No sympathy, no regrets.
I wonder when people will get tired of complaining about movies. It’s a movie. Not a documentary. And it’s a psychological drama about Oppenheimer not about the bomb itself.
Would you expect an Osama bin Laden movie without the mention of terrorism?
@@Maidaseu That's not the point. People need to stop treating it like its a movie about the atomic bomb and see it as a biopic about Oppenheimer
yes a fictional film about an actor, singer but not a biopic of Oppenheimer you run the risk of whitewashing the past.
Ain't gonna lie, I was blown away by the movie. Christopher Nolan did one hell of a job with this. I did do a quick Google search on Oppenheimer before watching it but I don't claim to know the true historical context of the movie but the movie was spectacular! Now I gotta read on him and Einstein and how he came uo with that.
Hate to tell you but ONLY the last Scene was real with Einstein. Einstein was not friends with Oppenheimer. Nor did Oppie ever go to Einstein for advice. Except perhaps far later on.
It was war. You do what you have to do, to win. The Japanese, who were brutal and suicidal, were refusing to surrender even after the SECOND a-bomb was dropped!
@@ExecutiveChefLance The only thing Einstein knew anything about was math. He would never have built his first and third homes with his own two hands, like I did. His IQ was high. But his knowledge of anything other than math was limited. He was no fan of Capitalism or Free Enterprise.
Get a life lady!! 'LIVE AND LET LIVE' is all you need to know about bombs... Blown away, really??...
@@alwaysfreedom9354He was a theoretical physicist, not a mathematician. In fact, in the movie he makes a comment about hating math.
Outstanding movie. We expected what the man mentioned then realized this movie was about Openheimer. We know the rest of it. This was about the man.
Except people don't really know the rest of it. It's like having a film about Hitler and it ignores the holocaust
It stopped the war, lots more would have been killed without them. So good job.
The film is historical fiction and it works in that genre. It has stimulated discussion, moral re evaluation and intense discussion. I’m n that it has a service. The film could not deal with issues that still, 60 years after the event, still being analyed and argued over. It’s a good film.
It may be historical fiction BUT IT WAS BASED ON FACT. THEY DID DENTONATE 2 HORRIFIC BOMBS. AND THEY'RE STILL DETONATING THEM FOR PRACTICE. SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHATS WRONG WITH THE CLIMATE.
I wouldn't classify it as fictional, as it is historical, as you said. Though, it is classified as a drama, and as such certain aspects were dramatized.
However, I'll also say that the film isn't strictly antinuclear rhetoric/propaganda.
There's a lot to be said for humanities fear of the unknown.
"People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer." ~ Andrew Smith
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” ~ Arthur C. Clark
Science can be used for the greater good, and adversely for great atrocities.
This doesn't mean we should not advance science, but be more limited in our application of it.
Nuclear energy for instance is an amazing accomplishment of society.
However, it has its drawbacks, but without it however we wouldn't be where we are today. A good portion of the nation's energy comes from nuclear power.
Nuclear energy is as much a detriment to society as it is a blessing.
It doesn’t matter what you think. 😂 historical fiction is fiction
@@Veladem I'd like to hear you make a case for your last statement. I think the benefits completely outweigh the negatives.
@@mikefallwell1301 explain the benefits and the negatives??? Please?
My grandfather is an Atomic War Veteran he is one of 1000s of Veterns that have been erased from history as well as denied any reparation for the victims and their families!!
thats why i say I would rather shoot myself than join an army and partake in killing other mindless drones sent to die for the benefits of the people in charge.
in other words, grandpa is just a pawn. As were the millions he helped kill. Good job.
I've seen people argue that "Nolan is a filmmaker, not a documentarian", and I have to say, for those who fail to understand, a biopic is literally an interpretation of history. One which many people will take at face value. This movie will influence public opinion whether you like it or not. I've overheard far too many conversations in the past two weeks to think otherwise. I find that the only difference between a biopic and a documentary is narrative style, that's it. They both are attempting to speak to true events, and that is understood by the audience. Documentaries don't get a free pass, they can be wildly biased and even straight up lie, but at least there the documentarian stands to lose credibility. Nolan, on the other hand, gets a free pass it seems. So long as the film is entertaining, who cares if he's spreading misinformation? Except I really think this exposes Nolan's own biases. This weird inability to reckon with our country's crimes. In making this film, he adds himself to the list of those who feel they must sugar coat unpalatable truths.
Because whether it was right or not isn't cut and dry. There is no answer as to whether the bombs were justified or not.
Consequentially, it may have saved more lives than it destroyed.
From a humanitarian position, maybe the fallout and the way people's lives were ruined by that was crime enough to condemn it.
Nolan isn't wrong for not presenting your personal view of the events.
Of course this film shows Nolan's biases around the topic. How could it not? It would show the biases of whoever made the film. Just like anything you say or do about it would show yours.
You're literally pointing nothing out by saying this.
Nolan seems to have been principally interested in Oppenheimer as an interesting and deeply flawed human being. And not trying to litigate moral absolutism about incredibly fucking hard choices that were made during a morally murky point in history.
The film is incredibly effective at doing what it wants to do. And I wouldn't have wanted him to change anything just so we could say he paid lip service to whatever moral indignation you hold about this particular period in history.
@@justsomelovelyladyidiot that’s the point, not everyone gets to make one, so it’s important the people that do don’t lie. Also he did make a film
@@Cernunnnosyou’re proof of everything this guy is saying. You are absolutely unable to see out of the bubble created for you and attack those that do as having some weird outside perspective. You are a minion
@@M_SC I don't even know how to respond to that amount of stupidity.
How you could even possibly read what I just said as an attack against people who think different is frankly astounding.
My comment is explicitly about there not being an objective truth to the morality of the topic and it all being put through our individual lenses.
Did you not read what I was saying? Or are you just monumentally stupid? Because you took away the exact opposite of what I was saying.
That's actually damn impressive.
its a fucking film, not everything has to be intended to promote an agenda of some sort. Your attitude is what ruined movies and hollywood. No one wants to pay money to be preached at when they go to a show.
Go back and read the entire history of the conflict with Japan. The horror that was the atomic bomb blasts is continually taken out of context with the enormity of the horrors of war that preceded it.