First, the material on Strauss was confusing at best. The time sequence made little sense.
Also, there was no context. The decision to drop the bombs was made after the casualty counts from Okinawa and Iwo Jima came in and it became clear that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would leave millions dead. The deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an order of magnitude or two less. People died, sure. But fewer died with the dropping of the bombs.
My random humble thoughts on the film, which I thought was superb, and on your (excellent) review....
1. How did you know the guy in the car was Feynman? I didn't cop that.
2. I disagree re "too much music".... I thought it was the right amount. Maybe as time goes by, we are more and more accustomed to music in every scene, and it seems a bit strange without. In fact, the moments of silence were extremely stark and memorable, and possibly that was because of all the music in the rest of it.
3. Regarding splitting it into 3 movies: you suggest the first one would be about Oppenheimer's early life and womanising.... I don't think that would be sufficiently interesting to make a film about. If it was an 8 part Netflix series, it would be an interesting first episode though.
4. For me the most memorable part of the film was not the Trinity Test (which was undoubtedly brilliantly done), but it was the scene when the crowd are clapping and cheering after the bombings in Japan. The reality of when the bomb they had been designing and testing became a physical reality, and seeing Oppenheimer's moment of .... I don't know.... horror? fracture? regret? conflict?.... when the crowds suddenly look disgusting to him. The monster in the story is not the invention, but the appetite for horrors and badness and destruction that were unleashed.
5. I agree that Cillian Murphy was excellent.
6. Another moment that stayed with me was when Truman said words to the effect of "Nobody cares who made the bomb. They only care that I dropped it." There's an interesting fuzzy line between science and politics.
7. The scene where the physicists pass around the piece of paper showing that a chain reaction could be started was unbelievably unrealistic. It would surely take even the brightest minds a considerable length of time to understand and debate the complex mathematics behind this, not a 2 second glance at a page. I would have much preferred if they showed him explaining his maths at the blackboard and the implication that the possibility of a chain reaction was given the hours or days of debate and discussion that it merited..... after all they were discussing the possible END OF THE WORLD.... they made a bit light of it (as did Einstein).
First, the material on Strauss was confusing at best. The time sequence made little sense.
Also, there was no context. The decision to drop the bombs was made after the casualty counts from Okinawa and Iwo Jima came in and it became clear that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would leave millions dead. The deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an order of magnitude or two less. People died, sure. But fewer died with the dropping of the bombs.
My random humble thoughts on the film, which I thought was superb, and on your (excellent) review....
1. How did you know the guy in the car was Feynman? I didn't cop that.
2. I disagree re "too much music".... I thought it was the right amount. Maybe as time goes by, we are more and more accustomed to music in every scene, and it seems a bit strange without. In fact, the moments of silence were extremely stark and memorable, and possibly that was because of all the music in the rest of it.
3. Regarding splitting it into 3 movies: you suggest the first one would be about Oppenheimer's early life and womanising.... I don't think that would be sufficiently interesting to make a film about. If it was an 8 part Netflix series, it would be an interesting first episode though.
4. For me the most memorable part of the film was not the Trinity Test (which was undoubtedly brilliantly done), but it was the scene when the crowd are clapping and cheering after the bombings in Japan. The reality of when the bomb they had been designing and testing became a physical reality, and seeing Oppenheimer's moment of .... I don't know.... horror? fracture? regret? conflict?.... when the crowds suddenly look disgusting to him. The monster in the story is not the invention, but the appetite for horrors and badness and destruction that were unleashed.
5. I agree that Cillian Murphy was excellent.
6. Another moment that stayed with me was when Truman said words to the effect of "Nobody cares who made the bomb. They only care that I dropped it." There's an interesting fuzzy line between science and politics.
7. The scene where the physicists pass around the piece of paper showing that a chain reaction could be started was unbelievably unrealistic. It would surely take even the brightest minds a considerable length of time to understand and debate the complex mathematics behind this, not a 2 second glance at a page. I would have much preferred if they showed him explaining his maths at the blackboard and the implication that the possibility of a chain reaction was given the hours or days of debate and discussion that it merited..... after all they were discussing the possible END OF THE WORLD.... they made a bit light of it (as did Einstein).