Understanding Oppenheimer's Controversial Choice: In Defense by Christopher Nolan

Article Overview

In Oppenheimer, Christopher Nolan justifies his choice of not depicting the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, emphasizing his intention to deliver a subjective experience and concentrate on the unintended aftermath caused by Oppenheimer's actions.

The viewers have been divided over Nolan's decision, with some finding it puzzling, while others think it was wise to refrain from exploiting the citizens' horrific fate. In the end, Nolan's choice to exclude the bombings was the correct one, as it remained faithful to his goal of portraying the story from Oppenheimer's point of view.

Christopher justifies his choice to exclude the well-known Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in his recent epic Oppenheimer. Starring Cillian Murphy as the main character, along with talented actors such as Emily Blunt, Robert Downey Jr., Florence Pugh, and Rami Malek, Nolan's highly acclaimed film tells the true story of the physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his involvement in creating the first nuclear weapons, which were used by the United States to devastate the Japanese cities during World War II. Although Oppenheimer has generated numerous discussions since its release, the omission of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings remains a highly debated topic.

During an interview with Variety, the acclaimed director defends his decision not to explicitly depict the bombings in Oppenheimer's conclusion. Nolan explains that the film aimed to present Oppenheimer's perspective subjectively. He further states that he wanted to portray the central character as someone who gradually realizes the unintended consequences of his actions. Read Nolan's complete statement below:

Should Christopher Nolan Have Shown The Hiroshima And Nagasaki Bombings?

The portrayal of Oppenheimer's experience in the film is deliberately subjective. From the beginning, my aim was to adhere strictly to that perspective. Oppenheimer becomes aware of the bombing at the same time as the rest of the world, and the film aims to depict his gradual realization of the unintended consequences of his actions. It is equally important to consider what is not shown as it is to consider what is shown.

Since Oppenheimer's release earlier this year, the debate surrounding Nolan's decision not to portray the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has divided many. Some viewers found it perplexing that Nolan omitted such a crucial aspect of the story, while others applauded his choice, arguing that the film had already failed to adequately explore the experiences of the local citizens affected by the bombings. Portraying them only through the bombings could have been seen as exploiting their horrific fate.

I wanted to demonstrate someone who is beginning to understand the unforeseen outcomes of their actions.

Although there are valid arguments for both sides of the argument, Nolan made a wise decision by excluding the bombings. As mentioned earlier, his intention for the film was to portray it from J. Robert Oppenheimer's viewpoint, and including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings would have veered away from that. Additionally, given Nolan's desire to keep Oppenheimer CGI-free, it would have been an enormous challenge to accurately recreate bombings of such magnitude and give them the proper treatment they deserve.

Movies such as Hideo Sekigawa’s 1953 film Hiroshima and Renzo Kinoshita's 1978 short film Picadon have painstakingly depicted the horrifying consequences faced by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In contrast, Oppenheimer's main focus was to give viewers insight into the perspective of the man responsible for creating nuclear weapons. However, by choosing to include the impact of his creation, there was a danger of trivializing the thousands of lives lost and turning it into a mere spectacle for entertainment purposes.

Editor's P/S

As a Gen Z fan, I have mixed feelings about Christopher Nolan's decision not to depict the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in his film "Oppenheimer." On the one hand, I understand his desire to focus on Oppenheimer's personal journey and the unintended consequences of his actions. On the other hand, I believe that the bombings were such a significant part of the story that they could not be ignored.

Overall, I believe that Nolan made the right decision by excluding the bombings from "Oppenheimer." While it would have been interesting to see how he would have depicted them, I think it was more important to focus on Oppenheimer's personal journey. The film does a good job of showing the impact of the bombings on Oppenheimer, even without showing them explicitly.