Critical Flaws in 'Oppenheimer'

Oppenheimer is a decent biopic about the dawn of the atomic age and the central role played by Robert Oppenheimer, who had leftist sympathies and devoted the last years of his life to a spirited campaign to put the genie of atomic bombs back in the bottle, failing predictably. While entertaining and thought-provoking, i.e., a Hollywood rarity, the movie is, unfortunately riddled with flaws, diminishing its value. Here are several examples.

First, in a party scene, Oppenheimer brags about having read all the three volumes of Das Kapital and then to show off his knowledge of Marx adds "ownership is theft," He is immediately corrected by a female communist saying "no, property is theft." But, that's hllarious since they are both wrong: Marx never said that and this phrase belongs to the famed anarchist Joseph Proudhon, who was in fact critiqued by the early Marx. Clearly the director and or the script writer should have done their homework in this regard and didn't.

Second, there is a recurring scene of Oppenheimer's and Einsten's first encounter at a pond, and only in the final moments of the movie we hear their conversation -- that includes Oppenheimer's reference to a sketch of the bomb prepared by another scientist Edward Teller. But, the problem here is that there is another scene, pertaining to a subsequent period when Oppenheimer has already set up the Los Alamos secret lab and has been given Teller's sketch, which he shows Einsten for comment while they're walking in the woods. In other words, the earlier reference to Teller's sketch at the pond scene would have been impossible, i.e., a cardinal error on the director's part.

Third, in a scene with Oppenheimer and his lover, she browses through his book shelf and pulls out a book and is amazed that Oppenheimer can read Sanskrit, then asks him to read from a page she opens randomly and insists that he reads from that particular page, which he does, quoting a famous line "Now I am become death, the destroyer of the world." Indeed, what a coincidence! A better gesture would have been for Oppenheimer himself opening the book and reciting that famous line, instead of forcing an improbable coincidence on the audience.

Fourth, for a movie about the dawn of atomic age, there is not a single reference to radiation and or image of the bombed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, instead, we are treated to a slide show about the horrific death tolls with the camera focused solely on the audience. This great omission is unforgivable and is probably due to the director's mainstream intent on not rousing anti-American emotions,

Fifth, the movie parrots the narrative that we dropped the bomb because Japan would never surrender and we had to save GI lives. This myth has long been debunked and this writer simply refers the readers to a Nation article that shows the US generals knew Japan was already defeated and on the brink of surrender and, still, opted to drop the bombs for the sake of global power projection, and dominance, particularly vis-a-vis the Soviets, who were okayed by Yalta agreement to intervene against Japon three months after the war in Europe, i.e., a small but significant part of history often neglected in the Western rationalization for the atrocious and inhuman decision to drop the bombs on Japon.. As a result, so many decades since the atrocious decision to use the bombs, Hollywood still acts as the American soft power, recycling the official myths.

In conclusion, this is yet another mainstream Hollywood movie that misses the critical mark, reflecting the American soft power through the movie industry giving a helping hand in perpetuating American hegemony. Little wonder then that this movie is hailed by the mainstream media and their army of "movie critics," a terrible misnomer for status quo apologists with rare exceptions, as one of the best of the century. The heap of praise is for the most part undeserving, however.

Comments