This article contains spoilers for the film Oppenheimer. Richard Rhodes is widely regarded as one of the most insightful authors to write about the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer. His book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which won a Pulitzer Prize in 1986, is considered the definitive account of the Manhattan Project. Rhodes’s comprehensive history is not only a massive work of scholarship, running nearly 800 pages, but also a literary masterpiece that he conceived as “the tragic epic of the twentieth century.” Despite numerous attempts, no film or television adaptation of Rhodes’s book has ever been made due to the sheer magnitude of the story.
Over the weekend, Rhodes joined millions of other moviegoers and watched Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, a three-hour biopic about the physicist who is commonly known as the father of the atomic bomb. Curious about Rhodes’s thoughts on the film, I spoke with him on the phone the next day. Rhodes was deeply impressed by the movie, especially considering previous attempts to adapt the same material. He described it as “first-class work,” comparing it favorably to Roland Joffé’s Fat Man and Little Boy and praising Cillian Murphy’s performance as Oppenheimer.
During our conversation, Rhodes and I also discussed aspects of the story that were not covered in the film, such as the “drama on the industrial side” and the perspectives of scientists and victims outside Oppenheimer’s sphere of awareness. For a more comprehensive understanding, Rhodes suggested referring back to his own extensive work on the subject, which goes beyond the constraints of even the largest IMAX screen.
The following interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Alec Nevala-Lee: Do you believe the film accurately portrays Oppenheimer?
Richard Rhodes: On one occasion, I asked physicist Bob Serber if my portrayal of Oppenheimer came close to capturing the essence of the real person. Serber, known for his dry wit, responded, “It’s the least wrong of all those I’ve seen.” I think that sentiment applies here because some of the more difficult aspects of Oppenheimer’s personality were smoothed out. Previous portrayals of Oppenheimer have differed significantly. The BBC series with Sam Waterston depicted him as too nice, while the 2009 PBS docudrama The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer portrayed him as an anxious wreck, which I found quite irritating. Oppenheimer, who accomplished what he did in his life, couldn’t possibly have been constantly anxious and shaky.
Nevala-Lee: Many viewers are being introduced to figures like Lewis Strauss and Leslie Groves for the first time.
Rhodes: Yes, I believe Strauss was depicted as somewhat more pleasant than he actually was. He was even nastier in reality. I was pleasantly surprised by Matt Damon’s portrayal of Groves. It provided me with a different perspective on him. I had always pictured him as more rigid, but the film’s depiction seems closer to the truth. Groves was an outstanding leader who had his own anxieties and insecurities around the scientists, which was a curious combination considering that he still managed to push them to get the job done.
Nevala-Lee: Did anything else about the film surprise you?
Rhodes: Only minor things. The shock wave following the Trinity test was something I had read about, but experiencing it in IMAX was something else entirely. It practically knocks you back in your seat and reverberates in your chest. We were completely stunned. I just wish Edward Teller, Oppenheimer’s adversary in the hydrogen bomb debate, had been portrayed differently. I had a fascinating 30-minute conversation with Teller and got a sense of what he was like. The actor playing him in the film was a tad too slick and not quite as sinister as the real Teller.
Nevala-Lee: Nolan strikes me as someone who is intellectually inclined but also capable of making grand-scale movies. It seems fitting that he would be drawn to Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist unexpectedly thrust into a massive industrial effort.
Rhodes: That certainly makes sense. In my experience, your best books are the ones you have a deep emotional investment in. When writing a biography, there’s a natural tendency to project oneself onto the character.
Nevala-Lee: Nolan, who plays with structure in his films, seems like a good choice for this story because it allows him to convey a wealth of information. By interweaving different periods and events, he can provide explanations and connect with the audience.
Rhodes: I never thought about the parallel between Strauss and Oppenheimer until now, but the story is structured in such a way that both characters are destroyed by the forces of Washington, D.C. It’s a remarkable parallel. Oppenheimer is a tragic hero, whereas I wouldn’t grant that status to someone like Strauss. However, in a corrupt sense, they follow similar arcs throughout their lives. This insight, which I haven’t seen before, might be present in the biography [American Prometheus].
Nevala-Lee: I recently read the biography, and Strauss’s hearing is summarized in just one paragraph. Nolan, on the other hand, devotes a fifth of the movie to that event, for the reasons you mentioned. It’s a fascinating parallel that can be explored only in a film. The thematic echoes and the editing rhythm create a sense of closure that would be much harder to achieve in book form.
Rhodes: That’s true, but it takes that kind of insight. And Nolan had it. When researching for a book, you often come across something that can be expanded upon. While working on The Making of the Atomic Bomb, I read a history of physics development in the United States. In a footnote at the end of a chapter buried deep within the book, there was a note about Enrico Fermi, looking down at Manhattan Island on a gray winter day and saying, “A little bomb like that and it would all disappear.” The historian saw this as insignificant and relegated it to a footnote. But I made it the ending of the entire first third of my book.
Ian Allen
Nevala-Lee: The movie is mostly grounded in reality but also includes dreamlike moments to visualize Oppenheimer’s state of mind, reminiscent of your book. The opening paragraph of your book starts with a physicist crossing the street, describing the weather in London, and ends with a passage from John Milton. This elevates the tone and provides insight into the material.
Rhodes: That was my intention, of course. However, I found it slightly off-tone when Nolan depicted Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock engaging in intimate activity during the security hearing. It felt like an overreach. It’s also interesting that they chose not to show the bombing of Hiroshima.
Nevala-Lee: I wondered if Nolan would include it, but the film primarily focuses on Oppenheimer’s perspective and the lack of control he had over the weapon. Instead of showing the bombing, you see Oppenheimer waiting for a phone call. There’s an earlier scene where the characters discuss saving lives by preventing a potential American…
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
