JACKSON: I love historical films but hate 'Oppenheimer'
Column: Writer's Block
I have always enjoyed watching historical films — be it "All Quiet on the Western Front," "12 Years a Slave," "The Imitation Game" or "Dead Presidents." It is one thing to learn about history, but through films, people's stories feel more real. It can be incredibly powerful and beneficial for our understanding of historical events to watch movies.
To only watch a film, though, and not analyze it can leave viewers with an incredibly skewed view of the event. It is important to remember that every filmmaker has a narrative they are emphasizing, which inevitably obscures the details of other events. After watching a film, it is always important to reflect on the messages and underlying themes being conveyed to weigh whether the film had a net positive impact or not.
Perhaps you are thinking that the process should stop after watching the film. Let me explain why it is important to go further.
Let us examine Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer." At face value, you have a historical action movie with a big bomb and boobs. Perhaps you left it at that. Perhaps you left the theater after sitting there for almost 4 hours and never gave it another thought.
Now, let us consider that the total budget for this film was reportedly $100 million and that it has grossed more than $939 million worldwide so far. By going to see this movie in the theater, you have directly contributed to that massive profit.
If we do not think critically about the media that we contribute to, we are not being responsible consumers. When we use our money to support a movie that espouses certain narratives without giving more thought to it, we are overlooking the nuance of these issues and encouraging more problematic films — and I say this all as someone who saw "Oppenheimer" in theaters.
But as soon as I left the theater, I began to think about everything I witnessed. I came out with one big question: Why? Why did we need another big-budget film centered on the god complex of a white man? People who do not have a wider understanding of the history being represented could easily have never considered whether the narrative presented in "Oppenheimer" was correct or all-encompassing.
This is something that I have consistently learned in history courses and in analyzing historical films. Do not get me wrong, I love these types of movies. I think we become so much more invested in something when there is an appealing story or empathetic character we can gravitate toward.
I believe that historical films should be used to bring attention and light to people who have been historically marginalized. In some of these cases, perhaps there is limited sourcing, but has that ever really stopped us in the past? Not really, so we might as well use these hundreds of millions of dollars to highlight historically silenced voices.
Now, I am going to offer my opinion on the film and highlight the aspects which troubled me.
There was really no diversity in "Oppenheimer." There was no meaningful representation of non-white people. The film fails to address the effect of the atomic bomb test on the surrounding populations.
Following the film's premiere, several articles and statements were released by Indigenous communities and other marginalized populations in New Mexico, who highlight the ways that radiation exposure continually affects their lives and health. Additionally, we do not even see the effect of the bomb in Japan, where it was used twice to devastate Japan's population.
Perhaps Nolan could have taken some time away from the various political subplots to explore the greater implications and damages that Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) and the U.S. government inflicted on marginalized communities. Instead, this point was completely erased.
Beyond this, the film did not pass the Bechdel test, meaning there was never a scene where two women spoke about something other than men. The two most prominent women in this film were Oppenheimer's wife, Kitty (Emily Blunt), and his mistress, Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh), whose primary function is represented as limited to the domestic sphere.
Considering the amount of time dedicated to sexual scenes between Oppenheimer and Jean, one could believe there would have been time to develop these characters more independently from men. But this was not the case.
To both of my points, one could say it is a matter of historical accuracy. I argue that it is a matter of choice. It is not that these non-white people or women did not exist at this time — it is that their story was not chosen to be told. Nolan chose to create a biopic about Oppenheimer, centering everything from his perspective and the perspective of another white man, Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.).
This film could have been made a million different ways. It could have been told from the perspective of an Indigenous person who lived through the testing and witnessed its direct impact on their land and life. It could have been told from Kitty's perspective to explore the additional struggles of womanhood and exclusion from scientific spheres at this time.
It is always worth questioning why a film was made a certain way and who benefits from the narrative. This film truly glorifies Oppenheimer as a god-like figure, failing to fully recognize the other stories connected to this historical moment.
So, it is these issues that contributed to my immense disappointment in "Oppenheimer." I hope that we see more films, historical or not, that offer meaningful representation and narratives to encourage discussion among viewers. When you watch a movie or TV show, think about the ways it is influencing you and informing your opinions.
Kate Jackson is a junior in the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in history and minoring in critical intelligence studies. Her column, "Writer's Block," runs on alternate Tuesdays.
*Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Due to space limitations in our print newspaper, letters to the editor must not exceed 900 words. Guest columns and commentaries must be between 700 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com by 4 p.m. to be considered for the following day's publication. Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.