39 ms·

Why 'Oppenheimer' Is a Bad Film

14 points by NoRagrets 3y ago

fargle 3y ago
> The USA, which is embarrassed about being the only country to use the Bomb in war, can soothe consciences by saying the action saved tens of thousands of allied troops from death. 10's of thousands? More like 100,000 or 1,000,000. I don't understand what axe this author has to grind, but this was a big hint to me that he's got some chip on his shoulder. Bullshit.
darkclouds 3y ago
> The scientists knew they were building a weapon of mass destruction, but excused themselves because Hitler might build one too. And British scientists have been doing this before and after, even on innocent kids, in the name of science.
strangattractor 3y ago
Where to begin. Peter Hitchens is a bad blogger. An elderly white male points out all the things he already knows and how redundant making a movie about them is. He fails to acknowledge there are at least 2 generations of young people that did not grow up in an era where the cold war was "a thing" and may benefit from being exposed to a portrayal of the events which they know little about. He leaves out specific pieces of information such as German scientist actively sandbagging the atomic bomb idea to Hitler because they were afraid of what would happen if such a weapon were to be available to him. A similar belief held by the German scientist working for the Allies convinced them to work on it. He also neglects to point out the US was likely to lose 100s of thousands soldiers forcing Japan to capitulate the war. Maybe being British he does not consider that a problem. I could go on but I might risk being as bad a Blogger as Peter Hitchens:)
superchroma 3y ago
He makes some good points. I think the only response is that americans are simply not ready to swallow the bitterest truth that the atomic bombs were unnecessary and an unjustified moral abomination. The film would not have been a success if it had taken that line.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nunez 3y ago
> Except that it isn’t the end. All kinds of worrying things are buried in the story. At one point, in 1942, one of Oppenheimer’s Communist friends, Haakon Chevalier, suggests that Oppenheimer gets in touch with the Soviet Union about the bomb project through a British scientist (and Soviet asset) George Eltenton. Oppenheimer realises immediately that the suggestion is treasonous and refuses it. But he does not report the contact to Groves or anyone else for eight months. When he eventually does, he tries to cover up Chevalier’s role for four months. They covered that in the movie (though they glossed over it).

14 points by NoRagrets 3y ago

> The USA, which is embarrassed about being the only country to use the Bomb in war, can soothe consciences by saying the action saved tens of thousands of allied troops from death. 10's of thousands? More like 100,000 or 1,000,000. I don't understand what axe this author has to grind, but this was a big hint to me that he's got some chip on his shoulder. Bullshit.

darkclouds 3y ago

> The scientists knew they were building a weapon of mass destruction, but excused themselves because Hitler might build one too. And British scientists have been doing this before and after, even on innocent kids, in the name of science.

strangattractor 3y ago

Where to begin. Peter Hitchens is a bad blogger. An elderly white male points out all the things he already knows and how redundant making a movie about them is. He fails to acknowledge there are at least 2 generations of young people that did not grow up in an era where the cold war was "a thing" and may benefit from being exposed to a portrayal of the events which they know little about. He leaves out specific pieces of information such as German scientist actively sandbagging the atomic bomb idea to Hitler because they were afraid of what would happen if such a weapon were to be available to him. A similar belief held by the German scientist working for the Allies convinced them to work on it. He also neglects to point out the US was likely to lose 100s of thousands soldiers forcing Japan to capitulate the war. Maybe being British he does not consider that a problem. I could go on but I might risk being as bad a Blogger as Peter Hitchens:)

superchroma 3y ago

He makes some good points. I think the only response is that americans are simply not ready to swallow the bitterest truth that the atomic bombs were unnecessary and an unjustified moral abomination. The film would not have been a success if it had taken that line.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nunez 3y ago

> Except that it isn’t the end. All kinds of worrying things are buried in the story. At one point, in 1942, one of Oppenheimer’s Communist friends, Haakon Chevalier, suggests that Oppenheimer gets in touch with the Soviet Union about the bomb project through a British scientist (and Soviet asset) George Eltenton. Oppenheimer realises immediately that the suggestion is treasonous and refuses it. But he does not report the contact to Groves or anyone else for eight months. When he eventually does, he tries to cover up Chevalier’s role for four months. They covered that in the movie (though they glossed over it).