Author: Robert Brockway
I
don’t
go
the
cinema
much.
I
concluded
decades
ago
that
Hollywood
would
only
change
if
they
were
starved
of
funds.
That
was
before
they
went
really
woke
of
course.
At
the
time
I
just
wanted
them
to
put
out
better
content.
Since
then
the
movies
produced
by
Hollywood
have
become
significantly
worse.
The
last
movie
I
recall
paying
for
was
District
9
in
2009.
I
did
see
Wreck-It
Ralph
with
my
family
in
2012
but
we
won
those
tickets.
Thus
it
would
be
fair
to
stay
I’ve
lived
by
my
credo
of
trying
to
starve
the
Hollywood
beast.
I
nearly
didn’t
see
Oppenheimer.
Some
comments
by
Robert
John
Downey
Jr.
caused
me
to
suspect
the
movie
might
be
woke.
While
working
on
the
movie
Downey
commented:
“Men
start
wars
and
the
entire
planet
should
be
a
matriarchy.
But
I’ve
never
changed
position
on
that.
This
[the
movie]
was
just
a
triple
confirmation.”
Downey’s
comments
go
directly
against
what
we
know
about
female
rulers,
who
are
more
likely
to
start
and
continue
wars
than
male
rulers.
Ultimately
I
concluded
that
his
comments
didn’t
reflect
on
the
movie
itself
and
that
making
a
movie
like
this
woke
would
be
quite
a
feat.
This
article
contains
minimal
spoilers,
such
as
they
would
be.
Perhaps
there
wouldn’t
be
many
spoilers
with
such
well
documented
events.
J.
Robert
Oppenheimer
was
a
theoretical
physicist
and
is
often
called
the
father
of
the
atomic
bomb.
As
a
history
and
science
nerd
I’m
familiar
with
the
story
and
also
the
physics
underlying
the
atomic
bomb.
Despite
essentially
being
a
biopic
the
movie
is
very
fast
pasted
and
I
suspect
that
people
who
do
not
have
familiarity
with
the
subject
matter
would
struggle
to
understand
some
parts
of
the
film.
There
is
often
very
little
exposition
in
the
dialogue.
Niels
Bohr
and
Werner
Heisenberg
appear
briefly
which
is
a
treat
for
any
physics
geeks
that
know
their
important
contributions.
A
good
example
of
this
is
the
difference
between
the
types
of
weapons
that
Oppenheimer
was
working
on,
which
use
nuclear
fission,
and
hydrogen
bombs.
Apart
from
one
line
about
a
small
fission
weapon
being
needed
to
start
the
fusion
process
of
a
hydrogen
bomb
there
is
nothing
in
the
dialogue
that
explains
the
difference.
It
is
assumed
that
viewers
will
simply
know
this.
Similarly,
the
fact
that
two
designs
were
being
worked
on
in
parallel
is
evident
from
the
story
but
not
pointed
out.
The
bombs
shipped
off
to
be
used
in
war
are
never
named
in
the
movie
either.
There
were
also
a
number
of
scenes
where
clues
are
dropped
about
an
impending
reveal.
I
recognised
these
due
to
my
familiarity
with
the
story
but
I
don’t
believe
that
the
narrative
would
be
harmed
if
someone
missed
them.
Two
figures
prominent
in
the
historical
events,
General
Groves
and
Edward
Teller,
were
both
regarded
as
very
prickly
characters.
Difficult
to
get
along
with.
I
suspect
some
of
their
contemporaries
might
have
described
them
as
assholes.
The
movies
somewhat
plays
this
down
in
both
cases.
Yes
they
are
shown
as
being
difficult
but
the
historical
record
seems
to
suggest
they
were
significantly
worse.
I
judge
that
the
movie
was,
unusually
for
Hollywood
in
the
2020s,
not
woke.
This
is
with
the
possible
exception
of
one
scene.
Oppenheimer’s
wife
Kitty
is
being
interviewed
during
a
small
closed-door
inquiry.
The
inquiry
had
interviewed
many
men,
leaving
them
all
twisted
in
knots
from
the
questioning.
Kitty
deftly
handles
all
of
the
questions
put
to
her
and
leaves
everyone
listening
in
no
doubt
that
she
won
the
verbal
exchange.
It’s
notable
that
two
of
the
three
women
Oppenheimer
is
shown
to
be
romantically
involved
with
were
professionally
trained.
Kitty
was
a
biologist
but
had
traded
the
lab
for
diapers.
His
on-again
off-again
girlfriend,
Jean
Tatlock,
was
a
clinical
psychiatrist
and
thus
a
qualified
medical
doctor.
Tell
me
again
how
women
didn’t
work
until
second-wave
feminism
came
along.
I
talk
extensively
about
women’s
involvement
in
historical
societies
in
my
upcoming
book,
The
Victorian
Fallacy.
Hint:
the
feminists
are
lying
to
you.
They
make
it
clear
that
Kitty
is
an
alcoholic
and
violent
towards
Robert
Oppenheimer.
They
don’t
dwell
on
this
though.
She
isn’t
shown
hitting
him
but
she
does
throw
a
small
bottle
at
him
during
a
drunken
rage.
I’d
call
this
intimate
partner
violence
but
perhaps
the
writers
and
producers
didn’t.
In
any
case
the
movie
is
nearly
three
hours
long
and
delving
further
in
to
this
would
have
made
is
longer
still.
I
don’t
blame
them
for
moving
the
story
on.
Going
in
I
was
wondering
if
the
movie
would
take
a
position
on
the
use
of
the
atomic
bombs
on
Hiroshima
and
Nagasaki.
Ultimately
the
movie
took
a
nuanced
approach
to
this
which
would
have
been
closer
to
the
positions
of
people
alive
at
the
time.
Although
it
was
not
named
the
movie
talked
briefly
about
Operation
Downfall,
the
planned
land
invasion
of
Japan
by
the
allies.
Planners
projected
a
land
invasion
would
result
in
many
millions
of
human
deaths,
mostly
Japanese.
Towards
the
end
of
the
movie
Oppenheimer
laments
dropping
the
bombs
on
an
enemy
which
was
nearly
defeated.
I
suspect
this
is
somewhat
anachronistic.
The
world
was
at
the
end
of
a
conflagration
that
had
killed
tens
of
millions
of
people.
Contemporary
news
reports
often
spoke
casually
about
the
death
and
destruction
happening
around
the
world
at
the
time.
I
believe
that
this
is
representative
of
how
desensitised
people
were
after
years
of
war.
The
contemporary
position
in
allied
leadership
was
that
the
Japanese
government
and
people
were
prepared
to
fight
on
and
Operation
Downfall
would
have
likely
proceeded
had
it
not
been
for
the
atomic
bombs.
The
decision
ultimately
fell
to
President
Truman.
He
made
his
choice
and
the
world
has
debated
it
ever
since.
I
actually
think
the
movie
could
have
been
successfully
released
as
two
parts,
or
expanded
further
with
more
exposition
and
made
in
to
a
trilogy.
In
any
case
it
was
a
fine
movie
and
I’m
glad
I
saw
it.
Recommended.
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)