After two years of memes, marketing, and hype, “Oppenheimer,” the newest film from famous director Christopher Nolan, finally released this July. In a manner fitting for a story about nuclear bombs, it proceeded to completely blow up. In a good way. Like, in a “it’s one of the most popular movies of the year and one-half of a massive viral meme sensation” way, not a “it’s a box office bomb” way.

For those of you who still aren’t familiar with the film, “Oppenheimer” is an epic, dramatic three-hour-long biopic (short for biographical picture) about the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, “father of the atomic bomb,” known for running the Manhattan Project and its creation of the first nuclear weapons used against Japan in World War II. The story is framed in an almost reverse chronological order, starting with the perspectives of J. Robert Oppenheimer and rival Lewis Strauss in the 1950s, as their recollections and testimonies lead into the film’s retelling of the past. Said recollections span across several decades, portraying Oppenheimer’s studies in Europe as a young adult, his associations with the Communist Party USA, and his involvement with the Manhattan Project during World War II, before tying back into his present conflicts with the US government and personal enemies during the Cold War period. With such a lofty and ambitious historic narrative to tackle, there’s no doubt that loads of research and planning went into the creation of “Oppenheimer.” The film was primarily based on the contents of “American Prometheus,” a 2005 biography about J. Robert Oppenheimer written by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Many of the scenes and ideas depicted in the film “Oppenheimer” stem from the objective details and accounts provided in “American Prometheus.”

That being said, the exact manner in which “Oppenheimer” goes about its portrayal of history has left some people confused and even outright upset. See, while the film is largely presented as a biopic about the true story of this individual, and follows a generally objective retelling of the facts, there are still certain characters, actions, and ideas in the movie that are rooted in speculation and revision. Indeed, “Oppenheimer” is subject to numerous instances of historical embellishment and subjective interpretations, creating a film mired in both fact and fiction. As audiences continue to debate the accuracies and ambiguities of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life, a provocative question has entered the bigger picture: what’s the deal with this “biographical” fiction, and is its presence in a film like “Oppenheimer” necessary at all?

It’s unwise to delve into this question without any prior points of reference. Fortunately for us, “Oppenheimer” provides many instances of historical embellishment to look at, starting from early on in the movie. In what is arguably one of the most shocking and dramatized scenes in the film, a young Oppenheimer impulsively laces his professor’s apple with cyanide as revenge for being barred from a lecture led by the brilliant and famous Niels Bohr. Fortunately, Oppenheimer eventually comes to his senses and returns to discard the apple, only to find it in the hands of Bohr himself. After a meaningful talk with Bohr, a tense Oppenheimer is able to quickly swipe the apple and throw it away, preventing the untimely and somewhat absurd killing of one of mankind’s most important physicists.

…Almost all of this was stuff the movie made up. In reality, Oppenheimer’s lacing of the apple was quickly discovered by the university and authorities alike, and while the actual substance used remains unknown, the authorities’ relatively lenient treatment of Oppenheimer suggests it certainly wasn’t as lethal as cyanide.

How about Oppenheimer’s interactions with a certain other famous scientist, Albert Einstein? In the movie, the relationship between the two men is given particular focus, as several key interactions depict Einstein giving his younger peer crucial opinions and advice. The most notable of these is their conversation at Princeton years after the Manhattan Project, the contents of which are deliberately hidden from the audience at first. What exactly the two spoke about is treated as a mystery throughout most of the film, with a paranoid Lewis Strauss believing it to be slander against him, while an unnamed Senate aide remarks that nobody truly knows what they said to each other. It isn’t until the final scene in the movie that the mystery is answered, as we are shown that Einstein had been imparting Oppenheimer with advice about handling the legacy and ramifications associated with his achievements, and how to live in a world that will continue to turn back and forth against him. Oppenheimer, in turn, confides to Einstein his fear that he has effectively doomed humanity. Cue credits.

Of course, there once again is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this exchange really took place. Similarly to the apple incident, this scene is somewhat rooted in the truth, as it is true that both Oppenheimer and Einstein worked together at Princeton at the time, and gradually became close colleagues. But the dramatic conversation that functions as “Oppenheimer”’s mystery and closing piece was entirely fictional. Even if it did take place, nobody else would have any idea what was said, as mentioned by the movie itself.

Finally, multiple scenes in the film depict Oppenheimer experiencing traumatic flashbacks and auditory/visual hallucinations, painting him in the sympathetic light of a man deeply haunted by his own morality and regret. The most notable of these, for example, occurs when Oppenheimer is giving a half-hearted congratulatory speech regarding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while he in turn is bombarded with horrific visions of explosive light, charred corpses, and the heartbroken bereaved. Such scenes serve as deep dives into the increasingly fragile psyche and confidence of Oppenheimer, and convey the mounting guilt he feels over his actions.

The embellishment displayed here is plain to see. It is obviously impossible to accurately base such psychologically internal content on objective history alone. No historian or peer of Oppenheimer could ever have any confident say on what exactly the man did or didn’t see from the depths of his mind, or to what extent he felt remorse and regret over the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, it is famously known that Oppenheimer explicitly, publicly stated that he merely regretted not making the bomb fast enough to use on the Germans.

Unsurprisingly with a biopic that has garnered as much attention as “Oppenheimer,” much scrutiny has been directed towards the film’s historical accuracy — or occasional lack thereof. Some have voiced critical, negative reactions to the changes seen in the movie, taking issue with what they perceive as unjust, unfounded accusations towards the character and principles of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Others are upset because they see the film as a more sanitized, embellished depiction of a very morally condemnable man. What both of these camps miss, however, is that by going off of just history alone, the exact specifics of Oppenheimer’s life are shrouded in inherent ambiguity and mystery. It’s impossible to know just what exactly Oppenheimer laced his professor’s apple with, or how lethal the substance was. It’s impossible to truly understand what went on in his mind following the aftermath of the Manhattan Project or the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to what extent any trauma or regrets reached. And it’s impossible to truly learn about every single word that had been said in private between him and Einstein, and if they really did have any dramatic, curtain-closing talks about the fate of humanity.

So, what would happen if Christopher Nolan chose to eschew any kind of subjectivity whatsoever? What would we have gotten if “Oppenheimer” purely stuck to nothing but the explicit facts and accounts known to the public, without any ounce of dramatization or speculation to fill in all of the blanks? It’s simple: we’d get a documentary. Without any of the drama, or embellishment, or even any of the acting and direction (because that too stems from a purely creative source), the epic biopic we have would instead be a documentary. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with documentaries, of course, but I find it needless to say that creating a full-fledged, dramatic biopic of the same epic caliber as “Oppenheimer” would be impossible without any means to enter the internal, private recesses of the titular man’s life. The embellishment is wholly necessary in order to create the film at all.

What “Oppenheimer” does is solidly attempt to accurately retell what is explicitly understood, and then use grounded speculation and creative interpretation for the rest. The film, already a three-hour-long biopic heavy on objective detail, incorporates a liberal usage of embellishment, but none of it stands out as overly unrealistic or historically revisionary. While the film’s depictions of Oppenheimer lacing the apple and his interactions with Einstein were dramatized, I’ve also mentioned that both instances were rooted in historical truth. What the embellishment merely did in these cases was serve as a means to fill out the unknown aspects that historians and the public never got to see and learn for themselves — while also spicing up the entertainment factor somewhat. And while Oppenheimer never publicly expressed remorse over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, historians and laymen alike have found it reasonable to infer serious regret based off of Oppenheimer’s assumption of responsibility over the bombings and following denuclearization stances. It stands to reason that Christoper Nolan would belong in this camp, and thus choose to portray Oppenheimer as a psychologically haunted individual.

I also take issue with the notion that the embellishment in “Oppenheimer” miseducates viewers, as the film itself clearly distinguishes fact from fiction through its use of color, as well as Christopher Nolan’s direction. See, “Oppenheimer” as a film is more or less cleanly split into two sides: the objective and subjective. Scenes displaying important historical and political events in an objective manner are shown in black-and-white, harkening back to the old black-and-white media common at the time. These parts of the movie also focus on Oppenheimer from a more external point of view, usually following the perspective of Lewis Strauss instead. This allows the movie to keep its audience at a distance from Oppenheimer, only showing what everyone else — and by extension, history — was able to see of him. On the flipside are the parts of the movie shot in color, and directed more closely in the style of a typical dramatic film. It is here that we closely follow the life and perspective of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and get to see close glimpses into his private life, mental state, burdens and responsibilities alike. This is the subjective side of “Oppenheimer.”

Of course, an argument can be made that the methods employed by the film may not be entirely effective in execution. The aesthetic and directive choices shown on film are supposed to distinguish the objective and subjective parts of the movie, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll register with audiences. What if it just confuses people even further? The answer, as ironic as it may sound, is that whether or not the film succeeds on this front ultimately comes down to the subjective thought process and interpretation of the viewer themself, and their ability to grasp the concepts presented to them. In my book, however, what “Oppenheimer” does is nothing less than a wonderfully creative means of weaving together history and entertainment in an unprecedented manner.
There ultimately is no denying that “Oppenheimer” is guilty of mixing fact and fiction, but can it really be called guilt if the act isn’t a crime? The film’s use of embellishment and subjective interpretation is nothing less than vital to its foundation as a dramatic biopic. It allows “Oppenheimer” to shine as a masterfully crafted historical biopic, one that not only captures an extensive look at the life and work of its titular individual, but also shares a unique, dramatic perspective from which it can be viewed. Through its excellent script and clever use of filmmaking techniques to divide fact from fiction, “Oppenheimer” presents an enthralling, comprehensive story that is able to both educate and entertain audiences while averting the risk of misleading them.

After two years of memes, marketing, and hype, “Oppenheimer,” the newest film from famous director Christopher Nolan, finally released this July. In a manner fitting for a story about nuclear bombs, it proceeded to completely blow up. In a good way. Like, in a “it’s one of the most popular movies of the year and one-half of a massive viral meme sensation” way, not a “it’s a box office bomb” way.

For those of you who still aren’t familiar with the film, “Oppenheimer” is an epic, dramatic three-hour-long biopic (short for biographical picture) about the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, “father of the atomic bomb,” known for running the Manhattan Project and its creation of the first nuclear weapons used against Japan in World War II. The story is framed in an almost reverse chronological order, starting with the perspectives of J. Robert Oppenheimer and rival Lewis Strauss in the 1950s, as their recollections and testimonies lead into the film’s retelling of the past. Said recollections span across several decades, portraying Oppenheimer’s studies in Europe as a young adult, his associations with the Communist Party USA, and his involvement with the Manhattan Project during World War II, before tying back into his present conflicts with the US government and personal enemies during the Cold War period. With such a lofty and ambitious historic narrative to tackle, there’s no doubt that loads of research and planning went into the creation of “Oppenheimer.” The film was primarily based on the contents of “American Prometheus,” a 2005 biography about J. Robert Oppenheimer written by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Many of the scenes and ideas depicted in the film “Oppenheimer” stem from the objective details and accounts provided in “American Prometheus.”

That being said, the exact manner in which “Oppenheimer” goes about its portrayal of history has left some people confused and even outright upset. See, while the film is largely presented as a biopic about the true story of this individual, and follows a generally objective retelling of the facts, there are still certain characters, actions, and ideas in the movie that are rooted in speculation and revision. Indeed, “Oppenheimer” is subject to numerous instances of historical embellishment and subjective interpretations, creating a film mired in both fact and fiction. As audiences continue to debate the accuracies and ambiguities of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life, a provocative question has entered the bigger picture: what’s the deal with this “biographical” fiction, and is its presence in a film like “Oppenheimer” necessary at all?

It’s unwise to delve into this question without any prior points of reference. Fortunately for us, “Oppenheimer” provides many instances of historical embellishment to look at, starting from early on in the movie. In what is arguably one of the most shocking and dramatized scenes in the film, a young Oppenheimer impulsively laces his professor’s apple with cyanide as revenge for being barred from a lecture led by the brilliant and famous Niels Bohr. Fortunately, Oppenheimer eventually comes to his senses and returns to discard the apple, only to find it in the hands of Bohr himself. After a meaningful talk with Bohr, a tense Oppenheimer is able to quickly swipe the apple and throw it away, preventing the untimely and somewhat absurd killing of one of mankind’s most important physicists.

…Almost all of this was stuff the movie made up. In reality, Oppenheimer’s lacing of the apple was quickly discovered by the university and authorities alike, and while the actual substance used remains unknown, the authorities’ relatively lenient treatment of Oppenheimer suggests it certainly wasn’t as lethal as cyanide.

How about Oppenheimer’s interactions with a certain other famous scientist, Albert Einstein? In the movie, the relationship between the two men is given particular focus, as several key interactions depict Einstein giving his younger peer crucial opinions and advice. The most notable of these is their conversation at Princeton years after the Manhattan Project, the contents of which are deliberately hidden from the audience at first. What exactly the two spoke about is treated as a mystery throughout most of the film, with a paranoid Lewis Strauss believing it to be slander against him, while an unnamed Senate aide remarks that nobody truly knows what they said to each other. It isn’t until the final scene in the movie that the mystery is answered, as we are shown that Einstein had been imparting Oppenheimer with advice about handling the legacy and ramifications associated with his achievements, and how to live in a world that will continue to turn back and forth against him. Oppenheimer, in turn, confides to Einstein his fear that he has effectively doomed humanity. Cue credits.

Of course, there once again is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this exchange really took place. Similarly to the apple incident, this scene is somewhat rooted in the truth, as it is true that both Oppenheimer and Einstein worked together at Princeton at the time, and gradually became close colleagues. But the dramatic conversation that functions as “Oppenheimer”’s mystery and closing piece was entirely fictional. Even if it did take place, nobody else would have any idea what was said, as mentioned by the movie itself.

Finally, multiple scenes in the film depict Oppenheimer experiencing traumatic flashbacks and auditory/visual hallucinations, painting him in the sympathetic light of a man deeply haunted by his own morality and regret. The most notable of these, for example, occurs when Oppenheimer is giving a half-hearted congratulatory speech regarding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while he in turn is bombarded with horrific visions of explosive light, charred corpses, and the heartbroken bereaved. Such scenes serve as deep dives into the increasingly fragile psyche and confidence of Oppenheimer, and convey the mounting guilt he feels over his actions.

The embellishment displayed here is plain to see. It is obviously impossible to accurately base such psychologically internal content on objective history alone. No historian or peer of Oppenheimer could ever have any confident say on what exactly the man did or didn’t see from the depths of his mind, or to what extent he felt remorse and regret over the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, it is famously known that Oppenheimer explicitly, publicly stated that he merely regretted not making the bomb fast enough to use on the Germans.

Unsurprisingly with a biopic that has garnered as much attention as “Oppenheimer,” much scrutiny has been directed towards the film’s historical accuracy — or occasional lack thereof. Some have voiced critical, negative reactions to the changes seen in the movie, taking issue with what they perceive as unjust, unfounded accusations towards the character and principles of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Others are upset because they see the film as a more sanitized, embellished depiction of a very morally condemnable man. What both of these camps miss, however, is that by going off of just history alone, the exact specifics of Oppenheimer’s life are shrouded in inherent ambiguity and mystery. It’s impossible to know just what exactly Oppenheimer laced his professor’s apple with, or how lethal the substance was. It’s impossible to truly understand what went on in his mind following the aftermath of the Manhattan Project or the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to what extent any trauma or regrets reached. And it’s impossible to truly learn about every single word that had been said in private between him and Einstein, and if they really did have any dramatic, curtain-closing talks about the fate of humanity.

So, what would happen if Christopher Nolan chose to eschew any kind of subjectivity whatsoever? What would we have gotten if “Oppenheimer” purely stuck to nothing but the explicit facts and accounts known to the public, without any ounce of dramatization or speculation to fill in all of the blanks? It’s simple: we’d get a documentary. Without any of the drama, or embellishment, or even any of the acting and direction (because that too stems from a purely creative source), the epic biopic we have would instead be a documentary. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with documentaries, of course, but I find it needless to say that creating a full-fledged, dramatic biopic of the same epic caliber as “Oppenheimer” would be impossible without any means to enter the internal, private recesses of the titular man’s life. The embellishment is wholly necessary in order to create the film at all.

What “Oppenheimer” does is solidly attempt to accurately retell what is explicitly understood, and then use grounded speculation and creative interpretation for the rest. The film, already a three-hour-long biopic heavy on objective detail, incorporates a liberal usage of embellishment, but none of it stands out as overly unrealistic or historically revisionary. While the film’s depictions of Oppenheimer lacing the apple and his interactions with Einstein were dramatized, I’ve also mentioned that both instances were rooted in historical truth. What the embellishment merely did in these cases was serve as a means to fill out the unknown aspects that historians and the public never got to see and learn for themselves — while also spicing up the entertainment factor somewhat. And while Oppenheimer never publicly expressed remorse over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, historians and laymen alike have found it reasonable to infer serious regret based off of Oppenheimer’s assumption of responsibility over the bombings and following denuclearization stances. It stands to reason that Christoper Nolan would belong in this camp, and thus choose to portray Oppenheimer as a psychologically haunted individual.

I also take issue with the notion that the embellishment in “Oppenheimer” miseducates viewers, as the film itself clearly distinguishes fact from fiction through its use of color, as well as Christopher Nolan’s direction. See, “Oppenheimer” as a film is more or less cleanly split into two sides: the objective and subjective. Scenes displaying important historical and political events in an objective manner are shown in black-and-white, harkening back to the old black-and-white media common at the time. These parts of the movie also focus on Oppenheimer from a more external point of view, usually following the perspective of Lewis Strauss instead. This allows the movie to keep its audience at a distance from Oppenheimer, only showing what everyone else — and by extension, history — was able to see of him. On the flipside are the parts of the movie shot in color, and directed more closely in the style of a typical dramatic film. It is here that we closely follow the life and perspective of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and get to see close glimpses into his private life, mental state, burdens and responsibilities alike. This is the subjective side of “Oppenheimer.”

Of course, an argument can be made that the methods employed by the film may not be entirely effective in execution. The aesthetic and directive choices shown on film are supposed to distinguish the objective and subjective parts of the movie, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll register with audiences. What if it just confuses people even further? The answer, as ironic as it may sound, is that whether or not the film succeeds on this front ultimately comes down to the subjective thought process and interpretation of the viewer themself, and their ability to grasp the concepts presented to them. In my book, however, what “Oppenheimer” does is nothing less than a wonderfully creative means of weaving together history and entertainment in an unprecedented manner.
There ultimately is no denying that “Oppenheimer” is guilty of mixing fact and fiction, but can it really be called guilt if the act isn’t a crime? The film’s use of embellishment and subjective interpretation is nothing less than vital to its foundation as a dramatic biopic. It allows “Oppenheimer” to shine as a masterfully crafted historical biopic, one that not only captures an extensive look at the life and work of its titular individual, but also shares a unique, dramatic perspective from which it can be viewed. Through its excellent script and clever use of filmmaking techniques to divide fact from fiction, “Oppenheimer” presents an enthralling, comprehensive story that is able to both educate and entertain audiences while averting the risk of misleading them.

After two years of memes, marketing, and hype, “Oppenheimer,” the newest film from famous director Christopher Nolan, finally released this July. In a manner fitting for a story about nuclear bombs, it proceeded to completely blow up. In a good way. Like, in a “it’s one of the most popular movies of the year and one-half of a massive viral meme sensation” way, not a “it’s a box office bomb” way.For those of you who still aren’t familiar with the film, “Oppenheimer” is an epic, dramatic three-hour-long biopic (short for biographical picture) about the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, “father of the atomic bomb,” known for running the Manhattan Project and its creation of the first nuclear weapons used against Japan in World War II. The story is framed in an almost reverse chronological order, starting with the perspectives of J. Robert Oppenheimer and rival Lewis Strauss in the 1950s, as their recollections and testimonies lead into the film’s retelling of the past. Said recollections span across several decades, portraying Oppenheimer’s studies in Europe as a young adult, his associations with the Communist Party USA, and his involvement with the Manhattan Project during World War II, before tying back into his present conflicts with the US government and personal enemies during the Cold War period. With such a lofty and ambitious historic narrative to tackle, there’s no doubt that loads of research and planning went into the creation of “Oppenheimer.” The film was primarily based on the contents of “American Prometheus,” a 2005 biography about J. Robert Oppenheimer written by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Many of the scenes and ideas depicted in the film “Oppenheimer” stem from the objective details and accounts provided in “American Prometheus.”That being said, the exact manner in which “Oppenheimer” goes about its portrayal of history has left some people confused and even outright upset. See, while the film is largely presented as a biopic about the true story of this individual, and follows a generally objective retelling of the facts, there are still certain characters, actions, and ideas in the movie that are rooted in speculation and revision. Indeed, “Oppenheimer” is subject to numerous instances of historical embellishment and subjective interpretations, creating a film mired in both fact and fiction. As audiences continue to debate the accuracies and ambiguities of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life, a provocative question has entered the bigger picture: what’s the deal with this “biographical” fiction, and is its presence in a film like “Oppenheimer” necessary at all?It’s unwise to delve into this question without any prior points of reference. Fortunately for us, “Oppenheimer” provides many instances of historical embellishment to look at, starting from early on in the movie. In what is arguably one of the most shocking and dramatized scenes in the film, a young Oppenheimer impulsively laces his professor’s apple with cyanide as revenge for being barred from a lecture led by the brilliant and famous Niels Bohr. Fortunately, Oppenheimer eventually comes to his senses and returns to discard the apple, only to find it in the hands of Bohr himself. After a meaningful talk with Bohr, a tense Oppenheimer is able to quickly swipe the apple and throw it away, preventing the untimely and somewhat absurd killing of one of mankind’s most important physicists.…Almost all of this was stuff the movie made up. In reality, Oppenheimer’s lacing of the apple was quickly discovered by the university and authorities alike, and while the actual substance used remains unknown, the authorities’ relatively lenient treatment of Oppenheimer suggests it certainly wasn’t as lethal as cyanide.How about Oppenheimer’s interactions with a certain other famous scientist, Albert Einstein? In the movie, the relationship between the two men is given particular focus, as several key interactions depict Einstein giving his younger peer crucial opinions and advice. The most notable of these is their conversation at Princeton years after the Manhattan Project, the contents of which are deliberately hidden from the audience at first. What exactly the two spoke about is treated as a mystery throughout most of the film, with a paranoid Lewis Strauss believing it to be slander against him, while an unnamed Senate aide remarks that nobody truly knows what they said to each other. It isn’t until the final scene in the movie that the mystery is answered, as we are shown that Einstein had been imparting Oppenheimer with advice about handling the legacy and ramifications associated with his achievements, and how to live in a world that will continue to turn back and forth against him. Oppenheimer, in turn, confides to Einstein his fear that he has effectively doomed humanity. Cue credits.Of course, there once again is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this exchange really took place. Similarly to the apple incident, this scene is somewhat rooted in the truth, as it is true that both Oppenheimer and Einstein worked together at Princeton at the time, and gradually became close colleagues. But the dramatic conversation that functions as “Oppenheimer”’s mystery and closing piece was entirely fictional. Even if it did take place, nobody else would have any idea what was said, as mentioned by the movie itself.Finally, multiple scenes in the film depict Oppenheimer experiencing traumatic flashbacks and auditory/visual hallucinations, painting him in the sympathetic light of a man deeply haunted by his own morality and regret. The most notable of these, for example, occurs when Oppenheimer is giving a half-hearted congratulatory speech regarding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while he in turn is bombarded with horrific visions of explosive light, charred corpses, and the heartbroken bereaved. Such scenes serve as deep dives into the increasingly fragile psyche and confidence of Oppenheimer, and convey the mounting guilt he feels over his actions.The embellishment displayed here is plain to see. It is obviously impossible to accurately base such psychologically internal content on objective history alone. No historian or peer of Oppenheimer could ever have any confident say on what exactly the man did or didn’t see from the depths of his mind, or to what extent he felt remorse and regret over the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, it is famously known that Oppenheimer explicitly, publicly stated that he merely regretted not making the bomb fast enough to use on the Germans.Unsurprisingly with a biopic that has garnered as much attention as “Oppenheimer,” much scrutiny has been directed towards the film’s historical accuracy — or occasional lack thereof. Some have voiced critical, negative reactions to the changes seen in the movie, taking issue with what they perceive as unjust, unfounded accusations towards the character and principles of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Others are upset because they see the film as a more sanitized, embellished depiction of a very morally condemnable man. What both of these camps miss, however, is that by going off of just history alone, the exact specifics of Oppenheimer’s life are shrouded in inherent ambiguity and mystery. It’s impossible to know just what exactly Oppenheimer laced his professor’s apple with, or how lethal the substance was. It’s impossible to truly understand what went on in his mind following the aftermath of the Manhattan Project or the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to what extent any trauma or regrets reached. And it’s impossible to truly learn about every single word that had been said in private between him and Einstein, and if they really did have any dramatic, curtain-closing talks about the fate of humanity.So, what would happen if Christopher Nolan chose to eschew any kind of subjectivity whatsoever? What would we have gotten if “Oppenheimer” purely stuck to nothing but the explicit facts and accounts known to the public, without any ounce of dramatization or speculation to fill in all of the blanks? It’s simple: we’d get a documentary. Without any of the drama, or embellishment, or even any of the acting and direction (because that too stems from a purely creative source), the epic biopic we have would instead be a documentary. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with documentaries, of course, but I find it needless to say that creating a full-fledged, dramatic biopic of the same epic caliber as “Oppenheimer” would be impossible without any means to enter the internal, private recesses of the titular man’s life. The embellishment is wholly necessary in order to create the film at all.What “Oppenheimer” does is solidly attempt to accurately retell what is explicitly understood, and then use grounded speculation and creative interpretation for the rest. The film, already a three-hour-long biopic heavy on objective detail, incorporates a liberal usage of embellishment, but none of it stands out as overly unrealistic or historically revisionary. While the film’s depictions of Oppenheimer lacing the apple and his interactions with Einstein were dramatized, I’ve also mentioned that both instances were rooted in historical truth. What the embellishment merely did in these cases was serve as a means to fill out the unknown aspects that historians and the public never got to see and learn for themselves — while also spicing up the entertainment factor somewhat. And while Oppenheimer never publicly expressed remorse over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, historians and laymen alike have found it reasonable to infer serious regret based off of Oppenheimer’s assumption of responsibility over the bombings and following denuclearization stances. It stands to reason that Christoper Nolan would belong in this camp, and thus choose to portray Oppenheimer as a psychologically haunted individual.I also take issue with the notion that the embellishment in “Oppenheimer” miseducates viewers, as the film itself clearly distinguishes fact from fiction through its use of color, as well as Christopher Nolan’s direction. See, “Oppenheimer” as a film is more or less cleanly split into two sides: the objective and subjective. Scenes displaying important historical and political events in an objective manner are shown in black-and-white, harkening back to the old black-and-white media common at the time. These parts of the movie also focus on Oppenheimer from a more external point of view, usually following the perspective of Lewis Strauss instead. This allows the movie to keep its audience at a distance from Oppenheimer, only showing what everyone else — and by extension, history — was able to see of him. On the flipside are the parts of the movie shot in color, and directed more closely in the style of a typical dramatic film. It is here that we closely follow the life and perspective of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and get to see close glimpses into his private life, mental state, burdens and responsibilities alike. This is the subjective side of “Oppenheimer.”Of course, an argument can be made that the methods employed by the film may not be entirely effective in execution. The aesthetic and directive choices shown on film are supposed to distinguish the objective and subjective parts of the movie, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll register with audiences. What if it just confuses people even further? The answer, as ironic as it may sound, is that whether or not the film succeeds on this front ultimately comes down to the subjective thought process and interpretation of the viewer themself, and their ability to grasp the concepts presented to them. In my book, however, what “Oppenheimer” does is nothing less than a wonderfully creative means of weaving together history and entertainment in an unprecedented manner.

There ultimately is no denying that “Oppenheimer” is guilty of mixing fact and fiction, but can it really be called guilt if the act isn’t a crime? The film’s use of embellishment and subjective interpretation is nothing less than vital to its foundation as a dramatic biopic. It allows “Oppenheimer” to shine as a masterfully crafted historical biopic, one that not only captures an extensive look at the life and work of its titular individual, but also shares a unique, dramatic perspective from which it can be viewed. Through its excellent script and clever use of filmmaking techniques to divide fact from fiction, “Oppenheimer” presents an enthralling, comprehensive story that is able to both educate and entertain audiences while averting the risk of misleading them.

After two years of memes, marketing, and hype, “Oppenheimer,” the newest film from famous director Christopher Nolan, finally released this July. In a manner fitting for a story about nuclear bombs, it proceeded to completely blow up. In a good way. Like, in a “it’s one of the most popular movies of the year and one-half of a massive viral meme sensation” way, not a “it’s a box office bomb” way.

For those of you who still aren’t familiar with the film, “Oppenheimer” is an epic, dramatic three-hour-long biopic (short for biographical picture) about the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, “father of the atomic bomb,” known for running the Manhattan Project and its creation of the first nuclear weapons used against Japan in World War II. The story is framed in an almost reverse chronological order, starting with the perspectives of J. Robert Oppenheimer and rival Lewis Strauss in the 1950s, as their recollections and testimonies lead into the film’s retelling of the past. Said recollections span across several decades, portraying Oppenheimer’s studies in Europe as a young adult, his associations with the Communist Party USA, and his involvement with the Manhattan Project during World War II, before tying back into his present conflicts with the US government and personal enemies during the Cold War period. With such a lofty and ambitious historic narrative to tackle, there’s no doubt that loads of research and planning went into the creation of “Oppenheimer.” The film was primarily based on the contents of “American Prometheus,” a 2005 biography about J. Robert Oppenheimer written by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Many of the scenes and ideas depicted in the film “Oppenheimer” stem from the objective details and accounts provided in “American Prometheus.”

That being said, the exact manner in which “Oppenheimer” goes about its portrayal of history has left some people confused and even outright upset. See, while the film is largely presented as a biopic about the true story of this individual, and follows a generally objective retelling of the facts, there are still certain characters, actions, and ideas in the movie that are rooted in speculation and revision. Indeed, “Oppenheimer” is subject to numerous instances of historical embellishment and subjective interpretations, creating a film mired in both fact and fiction. As audiences continue to debate the accuracies and ambiguities of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life, a provocative question has entered the bigger picture: what’s the deal with this “biographical” fiction, and is its presence in a film like “Oppenheimer” necessary at all?

It’s unwise to delve into this question without any prior points of reference. Fortunately for us, “Oppenheimer” provides many instances of historical embellishment to look at, starting from early on in the movie. In what is arguably one of the most shocking and dramatized scenes in the film, a young Oppenheimer impulsively laces his professor’s apple with cyanide as revenge for being barred from a lecture led by the brilliant and famous Niels Bohr. Fortunately, Oppenheimer eventually comes to his senses and returns to discard the apple, only to find it in the hands of Bohr himself. After a meaningful talk with Bohr, a tense Oppenheimer is able to quickly swipe the apple and throw it away, preventing the untimely and somewhat absurd killing of one of mankind’s most important physicists.

…Almost all of this was stuff the movie made up. In reality, Oppenheimer’s lacing of the apple was quickly discovered by the university and authorities alike, and while the actual substance used remains unknown, the authorities’ relatively lenient treatment of Oppenheimer suggests it certainly wasn’t as lethal as cyanide.

How about Oppenheimer’s interactions with a certain other famous scientist, Albert Einstein? In the movie, the relationship between the two men is given particular focus, as several key interactions depict Einstein giving his younger peer crucial opinions and advice. The most notable of these is their conversation at Princeton years after the Manhattan Project, the contents of which are deliberately hidden from the audience at first. What exactly the two spoke about is treated as a mystery throughout most of the film, with a paranoid Lewis Strauss believing it to be slander against him, while an unnamed Senate aide remarks that nobody truly knows what they said to each other. It isn’t until the final scene in the movie that the mystery is answered, as we are shown that Einstein had been imparting Oppenheimer with advice about handling the legacy and ramifications associated with his achievements, and how to live in a world that will continue to turn back and forth against him. Oppenheimer, in turn, confides to Einstein his fear that he has effectively doomed humanity. Cue credits.

Of course, there once again is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this exchange really took place. Similarly to the apple incident, this scene is somewhat rooted in the truth, as it is true that both Oppenheimer and Einstein worked together at Princeton at the time, and gradually became close colleagues. But the dramatic conversation that functions as “Oppenheimer”’s mystery and closing piece was entirely fictional. Even if it did take place, nobody else would have any idea what was said, as mentioned by the movie itself.

Finally, multiple scenes in the film depict Oppenheimer experiencing traumatic flashbacks and auditory/visual hallucinations, painting him in the sympathetic light of a man deeply haunted by his own morality and regret. The most notable of these, for example, occurs when Oppenheimer is giving a half-hearted congratulatory speech regarding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while he in turn is bombarded with horrific visions of explosive light, charred corpses, and the heartbroken bereaved. Such scenes serve as deep dives into the increasingly fragile psyche and confidence of Oppenheimer, and convey the mounting guilt he feels over his actions.

The embellishment displayed here is plain to see. It is obviously impossible to accurately base such psychologically internal content on objective history alone. No historian or peer of Oppenheimer could ever have any confident say on what exactly the man did or didn’t see from the depths of his mind, or to what extent he felt remorse and regret over the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, it is famously known that Oppenheimer explicitly, publicly stated that he merely regretted not making the bomb fast enough to use on the Germans.

Unsurprisingly with a biopic that has garnered as much attention as “Oppenheimer,” much scrutiny has been directed towards the film’s historical accuracy — or occasional lack thereof. Some have voiced critical, negative reactions to the changes seen in the movie, taking issue with what they perceive as unjust, unfounded accusations towards the character and principles of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Others are upset because they see the film as a more sanitized, embellished depiction of a very morally condemnable man. What both of these camps miss, however, is that by going off of just history alone, the exact specifics of Oppenheimer’s life are shrouded in inherent ambiguity and mystery. It’s impossible to know just what exactly Oppenheimer laced his professor’s apple with, or how lethal the substance was. It’s impossible to truly understand what went on in his mind following the aftermath of the Manhattan Project or the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to what extent any trauma or regrets reached. And it’s impossible to truly learn about every single word that had been said in private between him and Einstein, and if they really did have any dramatic, curtain-closing talks about the fate of humanity.

So, what would happen if Christopher Nolan chose to eschew any kind of subjectivity whatsoever? What would we have gotten if “Oppenheimer” purely stuck to nothing but the explicit facts and accounts known to the public, without any ounce of dramatization or speculation to fill in all of the blanks? It’s simple: we’d get a documentary. Without any of the drama, or embellishment, or even any of the acting and direction (because that too stems from a purely creative source), the epic biopic we have would instead be a documentary. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with documentaries, of course, but I find it needless to say that creating a full-fledged, dramatic biopic of the same epic caliber as “Oppenheimer” would be impossible without any means to enter the internal, private recesses of the titular man’s life. The embellishment is wholly necessary in order to create the film at all.

What “Oppenheimer” does is solidly attempt to accurately retell what is explicitly understood, and then use grounded speculation and creative interpretation for the rest. The film, already a three-hour-long biopic heavy on objective detail, incorporates a liberal usage of embellishment, but none of it stands out as overly unrealistic or historically revisionary. While the film’s depictions of Oppenheimer lacing the apple and his interactions with Einstein were dramatized, I’ve also mentioned that both instances were rooted in historical truth. What the embellishment merely did in these cases was serve as a means to fill out the unknown aspects that historians and the public never got to see and learn for themselves — while also spicing up the entertainment factor somewhat. And while Oppenheimer never publicly expressed remorse over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, historians and laymen alike have found it reasonable to infer serious regret based off of Oppenheimer’s assumption of responsibility over the bombings and following denuclearization stances. It stands to reason that Christoper Nolan would belong in this camp, and thus choose to portray Oppenheimer as a psychologically haunted individual.

I also take issue with the notion that the embellishment in “Oppenheimer” miseducates viewers, as the film itself clearly distinguishes fact from fiction through its use of color, as well as Christopher Nolan’s direction. See, “Oppenheimer” as a film is more or less cleanly split into two sides: the objective and subjective. Scenes displaying important historical and political events in an objective manner are shown in black-and-white, harkening back to the old black-and-white media common at the time. These parts of the movie also focus on Oppenheimer from a more external point of view, usually following the perspective of Lewis Strauss instead. This allows the movie to keep its audience at a distance from Oppenheimer, only showing what everyone else — and by extension, history — was able to see of him. On the flipside are the parts of the movie shot in color, and directed more closely in the style of a typical dramatic film. It is here that we closely follow the life and perspective of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and get to see close glimpses into his private life, mental state, burdens and responsibilities alike. This is the subjective side of “Oppenheimer.”

Of course, an argument can be made that the methods employed by the film may not be entirely effective in execution. The aesthetic and directive choices shown on film are supposed to distinguish the objective and subjective parts of the movie, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll register with audiences. What if it just confuses people even further? The answer, as ironic as it may sound, is that whether or not the film succeeds on this front ultimately comes down to the subjective thought process and interpretation of the viewer themself, and their ability to grasp the concepts presented to them. In my book, however, what “Oppenheimer” does is nothing less than a wonderfully creative means of weaving together history and entertainment in an unprecedented manner.
There ultimately is no denying that “Oppenheimer” is guilty of mixing fact and fiction, but can it really be called guilt if the act isn’t a crime? The film’s use of embellishment and subjective interpretation is nothing less than vital to its foundation as a dramatic biopic. It allows “Oppenheimer” to shine as a masterfully crafted historical biopic, one that not only captures an extensive look at the life and work of its titular individual, but also shares a unique, dramatic perspective from which it can be viewed. Through its excellent script and clever use of filmmaking techniques to divide fact from fiction, “Oppenheimer” presents an enthralling, comprehensive story that is able to both educate and entertain audiences while averting the risk of misleading them.