Oppenheimer is a three-hour biopic about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the leader of the Manhattan Project which invented the atomic bomb. It is Christopher Nolan’s twelfth film—all but one of which (Insomnia (2002)) he has also written. The film has rightly been hailed as a masterpiece: its visuals, sound design, acting, set design, costuming, thematic and dramatic intensity are all terrific.
Among the many themes the film explores, the challenge of moral action with regard to enormously powerful technology is central. Oppenheimer draws us into one of the most overwhelming examples of extraordinary decisions having to be made by imperfect human beings—powerful, brilliant but finite and compromised human beings.
Necessary High-Stakes Risk-Taking
The team working under Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) design the first atomic bomb uncovered an apocalyptic risk: that the detonation of the bomb might set off a chain reaction that would ignite the atmosphere and destroy the planet. Having run the numbers, however, the team comes back with the reassuring news that the likelihood that this would in fact happen is “near-zero”. To this, Major General Groves (Matt Damon) understandably exclaims, “Zero would be nice!” How do you take a calculated risk, when the stakes are this high?
A slightly less catastrophic risk is the rationale that Oppenheimer claims for pursuing the project: “I don’t know if we can be trusted with such a weapon,” he says. “But I know the Nazis can’t. We have no choice.” The American nuclear advantage is counted to be an imperative for global stability. Given how American President Harry Truman is portrayed later on the film (more of this below), this is small comfort.
Oppenheimer concludes that in a sense the Manhattan Project did indeed set off a metaphorical chain reaction that would destroy the world. The bombs which ended the Second World War could also be seen as the first act of a new cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, in which a nuclear arms race would play a central part.
By God’s grace, and perhaps against the odds, it could be argued that nuclear weapons have proved to serve as something of a deterrent and contributed to the aversion to direct conflict between major global powers. At least this has been the case for the last seventy-eight years—not long in the span of history. Subsequent history has also witnessed various attempts at international communication and cooperation, for which Oppenheimer advocated after World War II, which are crucial to tightly managing the appalling risk of nuclear war.
On one level Oppenheimer is a horror movie; the monster is, to use President Truman’s words: “[the] harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power”. Throughout the film, and in a whole range of ways, Christopher Nolan overwhelms us with the concept of such unthinkable power. Yet like many zombie films and TV series, also monstrous is the behaviour of ordinary human beings when put under the pressure of monstrous circumstances.
Compromised Individuals, Compromised Institutions
Oppenheimer himself is a flawed character. He is serially unfaithful in his love life. He is portrayed as being driven by intellectual ambition, not merely moral qualms—willing to abandon his work unionism, for example, in order to take a leading role in the Manhattan Project. A disingenuous 1954 security clearance hearing frames the film and increasingly occupies its final hour. This hearing not only exposes the flaws in the American government, but also in the film’s protagonist.
Enormous decisions are thus entrusted to extremely flawed people. Gary Oldman gives a terrifying portrayal of President Truman: smug, simplistic, bellicose, greedy for the development of a still more powerful super-bomb. When potential targets for the atomic bombs are being discussed, Kyoto is removed from the list of potential sites because the secretary of war honeymooned there: “beautiful city”, he says almost to himself. This hints at how ill-equipped human beings are to make decisions of such gravity. We are told that the Nazis’ own atomic program was hampered by antisemitism that made them deaf to the recommendations of Jewish scientists. At least once a character in the film suggests that dropping the bombs on Japan is technically unnecessary, as the surrender was imminent. Moreover, as one nightmarish scene portrays, the crowd can be just as easily intoxicated with victory as sickened with horror.
Nolan resurrects a storytelling device from his earlier film, Memento (2002), with its complex timeline: using black and white footage to signal the shift to a later timeline. In Oppenheimer, this device is effective for the post-war scenes, dealing with the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs: the events of a moment quickly become the subject of committees, hearings, newspaper reports, history writing. This section of the film further highlights the ways in which the United States itself was hampered by communist paranoia; by the ego of powerful individuals, such as Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jnr.), who is portrayed as proud, cynical and vindictive; by the simple desire for military power.
Christian Living and Ethical Quandaries
The film forces its audience, including a new generation, to ponder afresh the very real and present ethical emergency of nuclear weapons, not to mention other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons. The climate emergency likewise is a potential global disaster, to prevent it, imperfect human beings and fraught international cooperation is needed.
The Scriptures do not give simple answers to these complex problems, but Christians ought to care very deeply about doing what is right; we ought to be very interested in learning from the wise and the foolish, the prophetic and the short-sighted decisions made by leaders in the past. The Lord continues to care for his creation. There is a sense in which we can trust his general providential care (Mat 5:45b, 6:25–34). And yet the end of this present world, which will run according to his timing, is inevitable, and we need to live in the light of it (2 Pet 3). Nevertheless, within this lifetime, one of the ways in which our heavenly Father cares for his creation continues to be through our rule over it as those created in his image. We need to continue to prayerfully exercise ourselves with how to “work … and take care of” this world for its blessing (Gen 2:15).
While few of us will be involved in ethical quandaries of the scale depicted in Oppenheimer, all of us will face complex ethical challenges, where we have no guarantee regarding the outcome—in our workplaces, in our personal relationships, in our participation in the political process. As we make decisions we can so easily be driven by ambition, simplistic ideological paranoia, bureaucratic machinations or foolish bravado. May the Spirit search our hearts to shine a light that exposes folly and wickedness, that helps us see the good more clearly.
Gospel Ministry and High-Stakes Risk
In gospel ministry, too, we are harnessing the “all-surpassing power” of God in our very fragile and volatile “jars of clay” (2 Cor 4:7). There are eternal risks at stake in gospel ministry: to distort the message into a false gospel that saves no one; to set up obstacles for someone hearing about God’s love through an incomprehensible presentation; to turn someone away from God through offensive words or actions; to strategically invest vast amounts of time and energy in failed schemes. “[W]ho is equal to such a task?” Paul writes (2 Cor 2:16). But knowing that God himself is at work through our finite and flawed ministry, “we do not lose heart” (2 Cor 4:1, 16).
On the large scale of God’s ultimate purposes, we will not fail, for he is at work. And yet this reassurance does not lead to fatalism or apathy. God is at work in us and through us. While zero risk would be nice, our gospel ministry is nowhere near risk-free. We need to continually strive towards godliness, pay careful attention to doctrinal truthfulness, be ever-vigilant against sinful tendencies and demonic temptation.
As we deal with mind-boggling eternal realities, within this brief moment of “the last days”, we nevertheless need to strive to do what is good and right, both with respect to this present world and the world to come.
