Oppenheimer

[PeterRS]

Saw the movie this afternoon at the Paragon iMax Theatre. I have not included any additional words in the title of the thread because I cannot think of any.  This brilliant movie says it all. Its three hours went by so quickly. Superb direction and some stunning performances. I will be really surprised if Cillian Murphy is not given the Oscar Best Actor award for his truly magnificent portrayal of the conflicted genius that was Robert Oppenheimer. Most surprising, at least to me, was Robert Downie Jnr. who gives as fine a performance as any I have seen on film in the role of the scheming, two-faced Lewis Strauss as first a member and then as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. He too must be a shoo-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

This could have been a movie exclusively about the bomb and its effects not only on Japan but of a drastically changed future for the world. Instead at its core is a whole series of complicated personal relationships and how all see both their roles in assembling the bomb and the morality of their actions. The future comes later. To say more will give too much of the story away. Throughout, Murphy and Downie Jnr. are backed by some great acting from Matt Damon, Josh Hartnett, Kenneth Branagh, Emily Blunt and a host of others.

A word, too, for the truly excellent and dramatic music score. It's as though throughout it subtly tells us precisely what is about to happen and how vital that event will be. The ending of the movie left us shattered, but certainly not in any manner we were expecting.

Please try to see the iMax version. Director Christopher Nolan loves the iMax format and filmed the entire movie with iMax cameras. I feel the movie cannot be as powerful on smaller screens.

[reader]

From CNBC

‘Oppenheimer’ mania pushes Army to warn of long tourist lines at Trinity atomic test site

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army said its upcoming open house of the Trinity Site is expected to receive “a larger than normal crowd” due to the overwhelming popularity of Universal’s “Oppenheimer.”

The Trinity Site on White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico is where the world’s first atomic bomb was tested.

The film “Oppenheimer,” which premiered Friday and earned $82.4 million over the weekend, tells the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the American physicist who oversaw the Manhattan Project that produced the bomb and launched the world into the atomic age.

“Due to the release of the movie, Oppenheimer in July, we are expecting a larger than normal crowd at the 21 October open house,” the U.S. Army wrote on its White Sands Missile Range website.

“If you are not one of the first 5,000 visitors, you might not get through the gate prior to its’ closure at 2 p.m.,” the statement said, adding that wait times are expected to reach up to two hours.

Twice a year the U.S. Army allows visitors to tour the site where the “Gadget,” a six-foot sphere with a grapefruit-sized powerful plutonium heart, was detonated. Following the open house in October, the U.S. Army will allow visitors again on April 6, 2024.

[bucky13]

Eventually the human species will poison the earth.  It's been gradual yet inevitable for centuries. 

But how we allow even the existence of something so devastating that can and WILL dramatically expedite that timeline baffles me.

[PeterRS]

11 hours ago, bucky13 said:

But how we allow even the existence of something so devastating that can and WILL dramatically expedite that timeline baffles me.

The fact is that, whether we like it or not, someone was going to split an atom and realise what this could mean. As the movie makes clear, the Nazis were considerably ahead in developing an atomic weapon when the US assembled its team at Los Alamos. Although not mentioned in the movie, it was a British commando raid on Nazi-occupied Norway, one of the most dramatic and dangerous missions during WWII, that destroyed the Nazi supplies of heavy water and set the German nuclear scientists back by many months. Had that raid not been successful, it is almost certain the Nazis would have had their bomb ready before they were overrun by the Soviets and the Allied forces. What might then have happened does not bear thinking other than the Nazis would have won the war.

But once you have let such a cat out of its bag, you are then stuck with a set of hugely difficult moral circumstances. You canot put it back!

[kokopelli3]

My understanding is the Germans were nowhere near to developing an atomic bomb in WWII.

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, kokopelli3 said:

My understanding is the Germans were nowhere near to developing an atomic bomb in WWII.

Sorry, not quite correct. The Nazi's "Manhattan Project" actually started 5 months before the USA was even aware of it. The USA only awoke to the Nazi progress on receipt of a letter to Roosevelt signed by Einstein and other emigre scientists from Europe like Enrico Fermi. They all believed that German science and industry was perfectly capable of the massive development programme necessary to build a bomb and their letter warned of the potential of nuclear weapons. Indeed, fission had been first discovered in Berlin in 1938. After initial secret meetings in April 1939, at a further meeting in September German scientists agreed to work on the various elements of what would be necessary for a nuclear bomb. By October 1940, experiments were being conducted at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut that were at a roughly similar level to those then being conducted at Columbia University. At that time, though, the USA believed that the Germans were ahead in the race.

The head of the German research programme was Werner Heisenberg whose mentor had been Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist with a mass of research into an understanding of atomic structure and quantum physics. After the Germans overran Scandinavia, Bohr initially elected to remain in Denmark even though Heisenberg had invited him to join the German atomic reesearch team. It was only in 1941 that US scientists slowly began to pull ahead of the Germans. This was largely due to a critical miscalculation in Berlin that January. It was this error that led to the only "moderator" for a bomb available to the Germans being heavy water as a means of producing weapons grade uranium. Hence the vital importance of the British commandos 1943 raid to destroy the Norwegian plant. In 1943 Bohr was warned that he was about to be arrested by the Nazis. He escaped to Sweden and was then spirited to London. He became part of the British mission sent to Los Alamos and played a major role in developing the bomb, even though he was not based at Los Alamos. Thanks to his knowledge and his regular visits, Oppenheimer regarded Bohr as a father figure to the younger scientists who played a key role in part of the bomb's development. By then, though, the Germans were far behind.

As we know from the movie, it also took the US scientists several years to gather enough uranium-235 just to make the test nuclear bomb.

[kokopelli3]

Still, the fact is the Germans were not in the running to develop an atomic bomb. Many reasons for that including the brain drain of top scientists from Germany, lack of heavy water and, possible reluctance among remaining scientists in Germany. Scientists in Germany were tinkering with nuclear fission while those in the USA were actively pursuing the development of the atomic bomb. The Japanese were even further behind than the Germans.

Not sure what the Russians were doing  but they developed a bomb in 1949 most likely do to their spying and traitors in the US/UK. 

[PeterRS]

If by that you mean the Germans did not produce a bomb even though they had a major head start, then of course you are correct. But the reasoning is not. As Einstein stated, even after the Jewish scientists had left, Germany still had many excellent scientists perfectly capable of getting together to build a bomb. He was paticularly praiseworthy of Werner Heisenberg. Germany had created nuclear fission back in December 1938. These were just two of the reasons why Einstein wrote his warning letter to Roosevelt. Why Germany did not in fact build a bomb was much more complex. Part lies in the fact that whereas the USA had up to 150,000 scientists all working together in virtual secrecy at Los Alamos and a total cost of US$2 biillion, Hitler and the Nazis preferred to have three groups each working separately. Even so, Germany was still ahead in the 'race' when the USA set up Los Alamos.

After the Nazi error which set their project back, it was still believed that uranium in heavy water would create suffficient plutonium for a bomb. That is why the 1943 British commando raid in Norway was essential in denying the Nazis stocks of that vital ingredient. By then, though, enough of the scientists working on a Nazi bomb realised that their efforts would be in vain, if only because Germany did not have the long rang delivery vehicles to make it effective other than over London. Then by that stage Germany was involved in total war with Europe and the US hitting them from the west and the Soviets from the east. The German scientists realised that even if they managed to construct a working bomb, it would not be ready in time to affect the outcome of the war. Some even feared a bomb getting into the hand of the Soviets. So the programme to construct a bomb was effectively wound down

After reviwing a great deal of relevant material, the reaearchers Timothy Koech and Miriam Hiebert concluded in an article in Physics Today reprinted in the Wall Street Journal in 2019 that the Nazis came much closer to building a bomb than earlier thought.

“If the Germans had pooled rather than divided their resources,” Koeth and Hiebert write, “they would have been significantly closer to creating a working reactor before the end of the war.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-nazi-germany-got-a-lot-closer-to-building-a-nuclear-weapon-in-wwii/2019/05/10/3181c168-71b2-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html

[forky123]

What you are putting forward is interesting though the articles are a typical media job making a strong breeze into a hurricane with careful use of language. The Germans spent a very small fraction of the money the US spent on the Manhattan project, millions as against billions. They built a small reactor but never sustained a controlled reaction and had no way to enrich sufficient Uranium. I haven't managed to see Oppenheimer yet but surely it portrays the serious obstacles those at Los Alamos had to overcome to create the bombs before the end of the war? The Germans had serious obstacles to overcome still and their resources were needed elsewhere to sustain the war effort. 

[PeterRS]

To a certain extent I agree. On the other hand, why was the Manhattan project initiated? I have explained Einstein's view. But let's not forget that even in August 1943, Oppenheimer himself said, "It is possible that the Germans will have, by the end of this year, enough material accumulated to make a large number of gadgets [atomic bombs] which they will release at the same time on England, Russia, and this country." Indeed, Oppenheimer was only involved in the Manhattan Project because he believed Germany would develop the bomb. It was this repeated fear of what the Germans might have achieved up to that point, given their head start, that prompted the US to build Los Alamos.

But (and this is not in the movie - so no spoier) there remain doubts that the German scientists were anywhere near as motivated as their American colleagues. Heisenberg met with Niels Bohr at a September 1941 Conference in Copenhagen. Prior to the meeting Heisenberg had discussed the possible meeting with other scientists involved in nuclear research including Carl von Weizsacker and Karl Wirtz. For thanks to the discovery of another nuclear team in Berlin working under Fritz Houtermans, as Heisenberg recalled years later, “It was from September 1941 that we saw an open road ahead of us, leading to the atomic bomb.” At that time, of course, it seemed that Germany was going to win the war.

While accounts of that meeting weeks later held in the open air to avoid spies remain uncertain due to the differing accounts later provided by the two men, there seems little doubt now that Heisenberg was actually committing treason by providing Bohr with some information about German nuclear progress. According to the memoir of Heisenberg's wife, 

"The truth was that Heisenberg saw himself confronted with the specter of the atomic bomb, and he wanted to signal to Bohr that Germany neither would nor could build a bomb.  That was his central motive.  He hoped that the Americans, if Bohr could tell them this, would perhaps abandon their own incredibly expensive development."

Yet we now know that Frau Heisenberg was either gilding the lily in sugesting the Germans "could not" build a bomb or was merely unaware of what Heisenberg knew about Houterman's research. The meeting was unsuccessful and Bohr allegedly walked away. Nevertheless, this meeting did succeed again in confirming to the Americans that Germany was actively involved in research into an atomic bomb. After the war, it sparked controversy over what Heisenberg was actually trying to achieve. The British interred most of the leading German scientists at a place named Farm Hall in England. All the rooms were bugged. Much of what the British heard indicated that Germany could have produced the bomb, but that it was the German scientists themselves who managed to delay these efforts as they did not morally want Hitler to win the war.  This conclusion has become known as the "Heisenberg Version". Even after the scientists were repatriated, some continued to reiterate the view that a German bomb had been possible. Yet other scientists like Erich Bagge and Paul Harteck were under no illusions that they could have been successful. They and many of their colleagues realised that with a budget estimated at not much more  than US$1 million, success could never be achieved.

It was fact that the scientists themselves were mostly not Nazi sympathisers and believed in Hitler's vision. They were out and out German nationalists who believed early in the war that the future of Europe would be based on German or Soviet domination. Heisenberg certainly had no love for the Nazis. In 1937 he had been accused of being a "white Jew". He was interrogated by the Gestapo for a year until he was finally exonerated by Himmler of all accsations against him. But he was a true German nationalist and refused to join his former jewish colleagues abroad.

But much remains conjecture. The fact is that for a variety of reasons no German bomb was developed.

[kokopelli3]

Somewhat reminiscent of the scare tactics during the Iraq War whereby "weapons of mass destruction" were reported but nothing was found. Nonetheless, Americans and Allies did have reason to be concerned about the Germans developing nuclear weapons.

[forky123]

Not really the same thing. There were many reasons to believe Hussain was lying about having WMD including weapon's inspectors stating he didn't. Bush wanted his war though. The allies knew Germany was ahead in atomic research in the late 30's and very early 40's and assumed a full on effort from the Germans. No one knew they had diverted most of their resources elsewhere by the end of '41 as intelligence was poor on the subject. It wasn't until the ALSOS mission after D Day that the allies got good intelligence that the Germans had not put significant resources into their atomic research.

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, forky123 said:

Not really the same thing. There were many reasons to believe Hussain was lying about having WMD including weapon's inspectors stating he didn't. Bush wanted his war though.

Bush and the neocons have a great deal to answer for. The refusal to allow the UN to have a second vote, conning Blair and other leaders with lies which at least Blair had the decency to apologise for, albeit many years later, their determination to get rid of Saddam etc. And once they won the war, the absolute shambles they left behind led by the gung-ho idiot Paul Bremer, a total mess including the disbandment of the Ba'athist army which led directly to the creation of ISIS. Notable too were the huge amounts of cash that just happened to disappear during his administration. That Iraq remains a failed state is directly due to Bush.

[kokopelli3]

Finally I did see Oppenheimer in Pattaya, but unlike others, I found it boring to the point I left halfway through the movie. A very confusing film where separating fact from fiction was impossible along with all the flashbacks/flash forwards. Worst of all was the scene with Oppenheimer and his "femme du jour" sitting naked, in separate chairs like a shrink with his client. Perhaps if I endured another 1 1/2 hours I could have seen something worthwhile but my endurance had its limits.  🥱  

 

[forky123]

2 hours ago, kokopelli3 said:

Finally I did see Oppenheimer in Pattaya, but unlike others, I found it boring to the point I left halfway through the movie. A very confusing film where separating fact from fiction was impossible along with all the flashbacks/flash forwards. Worst of all was the scene with Oppenheimer and his "femme du jour" sitting naked, in separate chairs like a shrink with his client. Perhaps if I endured another 1 1/2 hours I could have seen something worthwhile but my endurance had its limits.  🥱  

 

I can understand some will find it hard. I think the sex and nudity, as little as there was, is going to cost real money as films with a 15 rating simply don't generate as much money as a PG13. I saw those two scenes as fairly pointless in the scheme of things and really didn't add anything to the story. I found the film incredibly well acted but can only feel that if you wanted to know about the Manhattan Project this would not be a film to watch as you are limited to Oppenheimers perspective and the rate the film skips through those years it almost seems the atomic bomb was a foregone conclusion from splitting the atom with little complex effort involved other than some maths. 

As a biopic I found it very interesting and strangely similar to Alan Turing's story in some perspectives (the biographical book rather than the The Imitation Game). The acting was incredible and both Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Junior should be serious Oscar contenders. The vehicle of showing the subjective stuff in colour and the objective in black and white was fairly lost on me. It certainly didn't help distinguishing the various timelines. I wasn't keen on Nolan's use of multiple timelines and perspectives in Dunkirk either.

Overall a good film, incredibly well acted, but not one I would watch again.

[JKane]

I thought the performances were amazing though I question the use of the spat with the politician as the framing device for the movie.  Of all the stories about the creation and use of the first atomic bombs that was not particularly important!  Let's gloss over the decision to use it even though Japan has clearly already lost (and not even mention whether the whole point was to show off to Stalin) to get back to a senate confirmation hearing!

Still, I enjoyed seeing it.  Thought Florence Pugh's tiddies were superfluous though nicely not Playboy bunny perfect for a change--and he was clearly a womanizer so maybe they belonged.   

[PeterRS]

On 8/2/2023 at 6:09 AM, JKane said:

I thought the performances were amazing though I question the use of the spat with the politician as the framing device for the movie.

Respectfully I have to disagree. I would hardly call it a framing device although it appears throughout. We perhaps tend to forget nowadays that in the 1930s there were communists just anout everywhere. It was an appealing ideology for many who hated the Great Depression in the USA, the slaying of so many of the sons of the ruling classes in England in WWI and the rise of fascism. Then later with China falling to Mao and Stalin getting the bomb so quickly (won't say how!), the USA was paranoid with McCarthy leading his horrific witch-hunts. Not even heroes were immune.

[PeterRS]

A follow-on documentary to Oppenheimer has just been released in cinemas in the UK. A Compassionate Spy is the tale of Ted Hall, the 19 year old and youngest scientist who was part of the Los Alamos team (how on earth did they permit someone so young, I wonder?). Like more than at least one other scientist at Los Alamos, including Klaus Fuchs who is mentioned in the Oppenheimer movie, Hall became a spy for the Soviet Union. Steve James, the director of the documentary, states that what people later accused Oppenheimer of doing was mostly Ted Hall's work.

"Unsettled by the US government’s refusal to share atomic intelligence with its allies and the prospect of a US monopoly on the bomb, Hall shared aspects of the project at Los Alamos with Soviet intelligence – a secret that went largely unknown for nearly 50 years, and is left out of the hit movie."

Historian Joseph Albright, the co-author on a book about Hall, estimates that his spying accelerated Soviet progress on their own weapons by about 5 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/aug/07/compassionate-spy-documentary-ted-hall

[finchchloe]

 I find it amazing how a well-crafted film can transport you into another world and keep you completely engrossed for hours.
I'm particularly intrigued by your praise for Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr.'s performances. It's always refreshing to see actors truly embody their roles and deliver captivating performances. And the way you described the intricate personal relationships at the core of the story adds even more depth to the narrative.

[finchchloe]

On 5/8/2024 at 3:28 PM, finchchloe said:

 I find it amazing how a well-crafted film can transport you into another world and keep you completely engrossed for hours.
I'm particularly intrigued by your praise for Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr.'s performances. It's always refreshing to see actors truly embody their roles and deliver captivating performances. And the way you described the intricate personal relationships at the core of the story adds even more depth to the narrative.

"Oppenheimer" sounds like an unforgettable cinematic experience
I'll definitely make it a priority to check out new movie releases in theaters, especially if they promise such a riveting and emotionally impactful experience.