Also at this point a lot of the archives have been opened up. There was a period in the 90s where you could go to Moscow and see pretty much anything you wanted.

McCarthy wasn't wrong in that there was a massive amount of spying going on (in both directions) but he went so far that he became easy to dismiss.

And like others have said, and it came up in the movie, communism was viewed very differently in the 20s/30s compared to after the war. In the earlier period it was just another new philosophy like the art and music of the period that intellectuals were into. It wasn't until after the war that the world was divided into two extreme camps.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

I mean, the Soviet Union had been very actively placing and recruiting people in influential or sensitive positions. The guy had partied with, slept with, and worked alongside commies for years. At the very least it was likely he was a Soviet sympathizer, and it isn't that much of a stretch to believe he was cooperating with them on some level. It's true that Strauss was out to get him, but his past made him a very easy dude to get.

---

I think the movie does a good job explaining that while Oppenheimer was left-wing and had communist sympathies, especially early on in adulthood, he was more in favor of the American version of that (in the 30s) than the Soviet version, which pushed him away from Communism as he got older and the labor movement became more a part of the Democratic platform.

He was a dude that dabbled in a lot of different philosophies and political ideologies. Communism was one of them, but he was never actually a Communist, which the movie does a good job dealing with.

However, I do think that from the outside looking in, it was easy to pick him out as a target because of his friends.

veryfuller said:

---

But who would he be talking to that was nefarious?

---

Commie girlfriend, commie brother, commie college friends, commie spy embedded in his team.

I'm interested in how much we know about what he revealed to those people and what they revealed to others. I'm guessing there is plenty that we don't know. Could be fairly close to how the movie showed it, or could be far worse.

People seem to forget that for someone Jewish especially, the facism of Hitler in the 30's and 40's was a much worse concern that communism. Many intellectuals were curious about communism after the revolution in Russia and after during the Civil War in Spain. Add that to living through the Great Depression where the economy really fell apart. It is easy today to use the word commie and forget we were spying on them as much as they were on us...to forget we were going after German rocket scientist just as they were..to forget the cold war..unless you lived through those years. So many today want to judge people of the past by the standards of today. You have to step back to that time in history. People even forget that there was a second secret city of scientist working on the project in Oak Ridge, Tennesee. Leaks could have happened anywhere.

TXTransplant said:

---

One scene that really left an impression on me was during the hearings when Groves was asked by the board if he would give Oppenheimer his security clearance by current (at the time of the hearing) standards.

Before Groves even answered, I knew where it was going - of course not. Probably very few of the people would have gotten a security clearance to work on the Manhattan Project. But desperate times called for desperate measures, so to speak.

Oppenheimer himself, based on the little I have read, seemed to have mental health issues that were more severe than what was depicted in the movie. He had questionable politics, questionable taste in women, and a difficult personality.

But he was a scientific genius who happened to be in the right place at the right time in history. As I said in a previous post, I'm sure this started out as a vanity project for him. He was driven by ego, to beat his colleagues in Europe to the punch.

What I think the movie tried to convey is that at some point he realized the project and its impact were bigger than his genius and his ego.

Academics are primarily concerned with their legacy. Many of his colleagues went on to do other things - even win Nobel Prizes - and their names weren't synonymous with the bomb. However, at some point, Oppenheimer realized that as director, his name and his legacy was going to be forever known as the father of the most destructive weapon ever created and used. And I don't think he was comfortable with that (honestly, who would be).

I think the movie wants us to believe that his opposition to the hydrogen bomb was some sort of atonement or penance for his work on the atom bomb and that post-war, he became some sort of scientific "influencer" of atomic policy (at least until his security clearance was revoked). I also think it wants us to believe that, whatever association he had with Communism, he did not commit treason. Also, it makes no sense that we would give information to rival colleagues that could allow them to "scoop" him. That's the worst thing that can happen to an academic researcher, which is what he was.

I too didn't come away from the movie "liking" Oppenheimer or even feeling sorry for him, but I don't think that's what Nolan intended. The movie did carry through with the martyr theme, but in the context of the movie, that's not a desirable characteristic (Kitty is angry at him for being a martyr).

What I did come away with is an appreciation and respect for the wide ranging impact that Oppenheimer and this project have had - on the academic fields of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, engineering, and the scientists who have built on his work, as well weapons, war, world peace, and the ethics and morality of it all.

The movie wanted us to believe that Oppenheimer died thinking his legacy was death and the destruction of the world. We all know that's not what happened (at least not yet), and I think in many ways the relative peace across the world of the last 75+ years is making us forget his name and his contributions.

This movie is really staying with me. There have been a lot of genius scientists who have made a lot of extremely significant contributions. But I'm inclined to view this one differently, not because of its larger impact, but because of what it required from Oppenheimer and his colleagues and what it left on their collective consciences. I can't think of a scientific development before or since that asked so much of the people who created it.

---

So well said, and spot on, IMO.

Btw, I tried to buy 70mm IMAX tickets last night for the first weekend of August (I'm out of town this weekend), in LA, and there are only first row seats available for every last screening, through August 16 (the last day tickets are available). Never seen anything like this.

bankshot11 said:

---

I saw it Friday night and overall really liked it. Thought it dragged in the first hour at first but after a few days of thoughts and processing, I like it more and more each day. Florence Pugh!

Took me a few days to read that Gary Oldman played Harry Truman! That was a great scene but I'm wondering if they took creative liberties on that. Now I want to research this meeting!

---

They did meet, Oppenheimer did say the "I have blood on my hands" line which royally pissed off Truman. Truman retold the encounter multiple times in his life and gave conflicting statements about what his true response in the moment was, but none of his retellings were kind to Oppenheimer.

"crybaby"

Random thought: the way they crafted the scene of Groves explaining just how intense/ruthless Pash is while interjecting Oppenheimer's interview with him was very well done.

Fun history lesson, Groves did send Pash to Europe where he went on to lead the team which captured uranium collected by the Nazis before the soviets could get to it, and then found and captured the Nazi nuclear scientists and their subcritical reactor experiment.

Also, Casey Affleck was so good in that very quick role.

That was really cool, one of my favorite parts. Casey does well here playing him with this disarming facade but with some really chilling aggression in his eyes. One of many parts I can't wait to see a second time around.

Michael Cera Palin said:

---

Random thought: the way they crafted the scene of Groves explaining just how intense/ruthless Pash is while interjecting Oppenheimer's interview with him was very well done.

Fun history lesson, Groves did send Pash to Europe where he went on to lead the team which captured uranium collected by the Nazis before the soviets could get to it, and then found and captured the Nazi nuclear scientists and their subcritical reactor experiment.

---

Agreed. Wish this character could have been expanded upon more. Nolan needed 4 hours to do that.

I couldn't figure out if the implication was Pash had Oppenheimer's side piece crazy commie killed, or if that was simply a thought that crossed Oppy's mind when he heard the news.

I think her death is left up for you to decide. There are theories she struggles with mental health and it was a suicide. There are theories that suggest she was killed off. I kind of like that Nolan left it ambiguous (as is the reality of it).