Oppenheimer: Less Science, More Art

Look, I’m not a Nolan fan and I’m not going to pretend I understand the artistry of Oppenheimer. Looking at Nolan’s entire filmography, I’ve only seen Inception, and even that’s just a hazy memory at this point. Still, Oppenheimer was entertaining enough, telling an interesting and meaningful story with nice visuals, though I’m never going to get over the lack of attention given to those who actually suffered as a result of the atomic bomb... Or at least, I thought I would never get over it, until I realised it might have been a deliberate choice, one made so that the audience would consider that this isn’t a problem with the film, but rather with Oppenheimer’s story as a whole.

My immediate reaction upon finishing the film was that we need less science and more art, a message which I now believe Nolan deliberately tried to convey. Science isn’t inherently bad, of course, but the fact of the matter is that humanity has, for a long time, had what we needed to survive : food, shelter, and most importantly, each other. Scientific and technological advancement have made life easier and longer, sure, but Nolan forces us to consider if it has really improved our lives. Oppenheimer’s atomic bomb is the perfect example of how science can actually make life worse, destroying happiness as it lead to death for those it is used against, guilt for those who created it, and a looming dread for all who have existed since its creation. It's clear that it was doomed to harm humanity since its inception, so why did Oppenheimer agree to create it?

Surprisingly, despite Oppenheimer leading the Manhattan Project, I don’t blame him for what he made any more than I blame the inventor of the first gun. If not them, someone, if not then, sometime. Instead, society, especially education, should be blamed. While Oppenheimer is a dramatised and fictionalised retelling of what happened, anyone who has spent enough time around the brilliant minds of the world knows that the arrogant and flippant attitudes of the scientists shown in the film are depressingly true to life. There’s a prevailing sense among the talented that one’s intelligence or accolades equate to superiority over the masses, to the point that the concerns of mere mortals can be discounted for the sake of divine “progress”. In Oppenheimer, Nolan shows us a crisis of science without ethics, invention without philosophy, which is exactly why art and the humanities are an indispensable part of education.

This idea is best reflected in the political themes of the story. Nolan could have chosen to approach Oppenheimer's story from a variety of angles, but he ultimately chose to focus on how politics played a role in Oppenheimer’s life, from the meetings he held as a lecturer to the woman he loved to his ultimate downfall as his security clearance was stripped. During the creation of the bomb, however, it’s repeatedly mentioned that politics are strictly forbidden in the Manhattan Project - especially communism, an ideology which in theory advocates for a more equal and kind world. By banning the discussion of politics and being directed to focus solely on their work, the scientists are effectively forbidden from considering the impact of their creation, instead expected to simply do their job and then leave. There's no room for beliefs or feelings, only cold, unfeeling science.

Nolan even goes so far as to note that Oppenheimer was aware of the danger of the bomb during its construction - he knows that it might set off a chain reaction which would destroy the whole world - yet still he's so committed to invention that he ignores the danger. The consequences only become real to him after the project is finished, at which point he returns to politics by campaigning against the bomb’s use and returning Los Alamos to the Natives they took it from - but he no longer has the power to make those decisions. When the bomb is finally dropped, he finally realises the impact of his invention, hearing a child scream and stepping into a body charred beyond recognition even as he grandstands and declares it to be a great victory. Science is no longer his focus, he's able to be political and advocate for good again, and his humanity finally returns. We finally remember the victims of Oppenheimer's choices at the same time he does : too late.

Oppenheimer is a masterful warning of what we risk if we continue to emphasise STEM above everything else, and it’s only natural that a work of art such as Oppenheimer is what makes us to confront the dangerous path humanity is on. The film itself is a perfect example of the value that arts and humanities bring to our lives, forcing us to question our actions and consider consequences, the exact thing that Oppenheimer was missing. What Oppenheimer did was a tragedy, but the true tragedy of his story is that he and everyone else involved in the Manhattan Project were so blinded by science that they were unable to see what they were doing until it was too late. Unfortunately, though, it’s a mistake humanity will keep making, at least until we value the warmth of art and the humanities as much as the coldness of science and technology.