![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qatsiFor some time in decline, the demise of Reading Film Theatre at the university was perhaps an inevitable consequence of the pandemic. Fortunately, it lives on at the recently opened Reading Biscuit Factory and I hope it will be showing some films of interest in coming months.
For now, though, my first visit to a cinema since the pandemic was for something more mainstream: Oppenheimer. I'm familiar with the basic story - both the science and the politics - having seen a play from the RSC in 2015, and a TV documentary, possibly from PBS, at some point in the past.
In some ways, the play was more digestible; it didn't deal with the post-war American politics that is one of the major threads of the film. But, obviously, there is a lot more that can be done with film, particularly in the way of manufacturing a town in the desert and testing an explosive. Unlike some, I wasn't bothered by the loudness of the soundtrack, the brightness of the light, Oppenheimer's constant and unshakeable companions as he was tormented by his creation. The investigation that led to the removal of Oppenheimer's security clearance, based largely on transcripts, and the machinations of Lewis Strauss, are portrayed in a very partisan fashion; but American politics is hardly subtle.
One thing I wasn't keen on: Einstein's conversation with Oppenheimer on the possibility of a never-ending chain reaction that would destroy the Earth's atmosphere feels contrived (and didn't happen); Einstein's suggestion that, if calculations are confirmed, they should inform the Nazis, feels revisionist (although Einstein and Eddington kept correspondence via intermediaries during World War I, the content was of no military value). It's a bit like Churchill's mythical trip on the tube.
But on the other hand, Oppenheimer's opinion that people would not believe the terrible power of the bomb if it wasn't used and they couldn't see the destruction wrought with their own eyes, rings true. Sadly it's demonstrated in our own time by climate change.
Why didn't the Germans succeed in building an atomic bomb? That would make an interesting story, but it's only thrown in as a footnote. Were they just focused on an impractical approach? Or were they deceiving the Nazis by sabotaging their own thoughts? There's a passing reference that Hitler thought of modern physics as "Jewish science"; but I doubt that would have been such a blocker if results had been forthcoming.
It seemed about right that Klaus Fuchs was almost a non-character, present but apparently unimportant.
It seems obvious that Oppenhemier was naïve after the war, believing he had a reputation that would shield him when he expressed political opinions. But there was also a naïvety in General Groves' testimony: "According to the current regulations, I wouldn't hire Oppenhemier... but I wouldn't hire any of them".
For now, though, my first visit to a cinema since the pandemic was for something more mainstream: Oppenheimer. I'm familiar with the basic story - both the science and the politics - having seen a play from the RSC in 2015, and a TV documentary, possibly from PBS, at some point in the past.
In some ways, the play was more digestible; it didn't deal with the post-war American politics that is one of the major threads of the film. But, obviously, there is a lot more that can be done with film, particularly in the way of manufacturing a town in the desert and testing an explosive. Unlike some, I wasn't bothered by the loudness of the soundtrack, the brightness of the light, Oppenheimer's constant and unshakeable companions as he was tormented by his creation. The investigation that led to the removal of Oppenheimer's security clearance, based largely on transcripts, and the machinations of Lewis Strauss, are portrayed in a very partisan fashion; but American politics is hardly subtle.
One thing I wasn't keen on: Einstein's conversation with Oppenheimer on the possibility of a never-ending chain reaction that would destroy the Earth's atmosphere feels contrived (and didn't happen); Einstein's suggestion that, if calculations are confirmed, they should inform the Nazis, feels revisionist (although Einstein and Eddington kept correspondence via intermediaries during World War I, the content was of no military value). It's a bit like Churchill's mythical trip on the tube.
But on the other hand, Oppenheimer's opinion that people would not believe the terrible power of the bomb if it wasn't used and they couldn't see the destruction wrought with their own eyes, rings true. Sadly it's demonstrated in our own time by climate change.
Why didn't the Germans succeed in building an atomic bomb? That would make an interesting story, but it's only thrown in as a footnote. Were they just focused on an impractical approach? Or were they deceiving the Nazis by sabotaging their own thoughts? There's a passing reference that Hitler thought of modern physics as "Jewish science"; but I doubt that would have been such a blocker if results had been forthcoming.
It seemed about right that Klaus Fuchs was almost a non-character, present but apparently unimportant.
It seems obvious that Oppenhemier was naïve after the war, believing he had a reputation that would shield him when he expressed political opinions. But there was also a naïvety in General Groves' testimony: "According to the current regulations, I wouldn't hire Oppenhemier... but I wouldn't hire any of them".