I happen to be reading Behind the Fog and Oppenheimer approved all sorts of human experimentation programs under "radiological weapons" programs: rather than a bomb, using radioactive materials to poison people. To figure out how to do that, US scientists injected plutonium and other radioactive substances into civilians without their consent, to study how fast the poisons would be excreted and what they would do to the subjects. Sometimes it was expected that this would kill the victims. They also did some direct tests with neutron beams on (usually) terminally-ill patients.
Although the military said that the program was interested in area denial ("nobody can use this factory or they'll get sick") a lot of these applications are obviously civilian-only.
Does Nolan include anything on that? Or is it just him totally not realizing this bomb was gonna be used on the working class, I swear bro?
edit: to be clear the US did far more extensive radiological tests on US civilians through the 60s, Oppenheimer just wasn't around for the later stuff. Behind the Fog is primarily about when they dumped lots of radioactive dust into poor parts of St. Louis to see what would happen to the people there. Fun for the whole family!
Oppenheimer was definitely off the rails in many ways, a little known fact is that he wanted to drop multiple nuclear bombs on Japan simultaneously to create maximum carnage, but had that idea rejected by military command, not because it was too extreme, but because it would lessen the data they would get out of it.
I think it's safe to say he had little to no empathy for human life with all his "experiments", like the one you described.
Not surprising, given his famous "I am become Death" quote. He built a terrible weapon and proclaimed himself a god for it.
I mean he didn't say the quote IRL until like 20 years later in an interview.
Oppenheimer was definitely off the rails in many ways, a little known fact is that he wanted to drop multiple nuclear bombs on Japan simultaneously to create maximum carnage, but had that idea rejected by military command, not because it was too extreme, but because it would lessen the data they would get out of it.
I think it's safe to say he had little to no empathy for human life with all his "experiments", like the one you described.
So you're saying the Oppenheimer movie isn't very "historically accurate" since the main thrust of its delivery is shoot-and-cry Great Man With Regret?
I haven't watched it, but it's probably not historically accurate. No movie made by Hollywood involving the US at war will ever be historically accurate. Though from what I've heard, I don't think the movie portrays him in a good light, unless you're the type to make sigma male memes with
, then you'll think Oppenheimer is based or something. It's probably a shoot and cry type plot, with some added complication to the plot with Oppenheimer being Jewish and wanting to build the nuclear bombs before the Nazis (I'm just guessing here). All I hope is that it's against the red scare and not complete American propaganda.Thanks for the thorough answer.
I haven't seen it, and I probably won't see it, so I have to assemble what I know about it from what other people say about it.
Yeah I can tell you really don't like Nolan movies lol. I don't really have high hopes for the plot or characters, with Nolan it's all about the "spectacle". That's why he decided to master the film for 70mm IMAX, a theatre experience that only 19 cinemas in the entire US can provide. Yeah I don't get it either. Though I prefer Nolan chasing the spectacle to him trying to write/create more complex characters, can't imagine how badly he'd butcher a character trying to explain the sexism or racism they've experienced in life, oë something similar.
I think critics and the mainstream will love it because it will at least be more complex than all the superhero slop that has dominated cinema for the past decade, while still being able to appeal to a large audience, despite the run time.
with Nolan it's all about the "spectacle"
That's part of the problem for me: I don't really watch movies specifically for their spectacle potential. I've been arriving 10-25 minutes late for years when I go to see modern films just so I can avoid... this in the trailers that come before whatever I came to see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAOdjqyG37A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PbkxyZfI8k
EDIT: Even the Barbie movie had a downpour of FWOOM FWOOM FWOOM trailers before it and it was exhausting even after arriving late and skipping many of them.
No, it doesn't mention this. But the movie doesn't make Oppenheimer look like some kind of moral hero either, so I'm not sure what the point of this post is.
Haven't seen the movie, hence my question. From critical reception I gather that it is basically a scientific shoot-and-cry, which this would undermine.
It's a Nolan movie. Fans can, have and will get weird about defending it from criticism or even critical inquiry.
I does show him poisoning an apple like the Snow White witch
Pretty good movie overall
I think it's absent because it doesn't fit the Nolan narrative, in much the same way that actually showing more of the scientific competence of Oppenheimer's love interest wouldn't fit the Nolan narrative.
