Â鶹Ãâ·Ñ°æÏÂÔØ

INTRODUCTION

Film has become one of the most powerful tools in shaping the public's opinion on certain topics and as we continue into the latter part of the 2020s, the number of films being produced continues to increase. In 2023, there was a new peak in the number of films being produced and the amount of money being made by these films (Hancock et al., 2025). This is significant as films can influence and change people's minds about topics that are featured in them. This is shown by a study done in 2012 at the University of Cambridge, where participants watched two films, Argo (Affleck, 2012) and Zero Dark Thirty (Kubrak, 2020). Before watching these films, the participants were asked about their opinions of the government to see if their opinions changed. After only watching one of the two films, 25% of the participants changed their opinions surrounding the United States government to be more positive overall concerning the real-life events that were depicted in both movies. The reason that films can achieve this is due to their ability to create pseudo-experiences and suspend the belief of the audience. This is especially important when it comes to changing the public perception of real-life events depicted in movies, particularly when those movies depict important engineering ethical decisions being made and the process behind them.

This influence is especially consequential in films depicting the ethical decisions behind history's most destructive weapon, the nuclear bomb. Oppenheimer (2023) depicts J. Robert Oppenheimer over forty years, starting in the 1920s where Oppenheimer is teaching at Berkley, then goes into depicting the creation of the bomb, the decision to use it, the aftermath, and the eventual consequences that Oppenheimer faced. However, while this might be the most recent example of a movie depicting this, it isn't the only one, and depictions of Oppenheimer and the bomb have changed over time. With Fat Man and Little Boy (1989), the film focuses on both J. Robert Oppenheimer and Leslie Groves and only spans the period through the creation and eventual use of the bomb. Between the two movies, there are major differences in the way that pivotal moments and characters are portrayed, thus shaping audience perceptions in differing ways leading to different opinions being formed. By comparing both Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) and Oppenheimer (2023) against interviews with J. Robert Oppenheimer himself, I will argue that what matters in depicting these engineering ethical decisions is not solely accuracy, but rather how the film presents the material and whether it gives the audience the space to truly understand the full weight of the decision while still considering all of the circumstances surrounding it.

OPPENHEIMER

Since there are many different adaptations of the same story, the adaptations that focused mostly on J. Robert Oppenheimer were Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) and Oppenheimer (2023), making them easy to compare, alongside real clips of the actual J. Robert Oppenheimer speaking about specific events depicted in the movies. One scene in particular stands out between the two movies and the interview clips: the Trinity Test. The Trinity Test was a major moment in the creation of the bombs so looking at this moment specifically between all three sources allows for a good basis to examine the differences between them.

Fat Man and Little Boy (1989), directed by Roland Joffé and starring Dwight Schultz as J. Robert Oppenheimer, revolves around General Leslie R. Groves and his experience with the Manhattan Project. While this movie doesn't fully revolve around Oppenheimer, the Trinity Test scene does. Within the movie as a whole, Schultz plays Oppenheimer as a simplified characterization, garnering criticism from many including both Richard Rhodes and Roger Ebert. Richard Rhodes, author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986), describes Schultz's portrayal of Oppenheimer as "'an ignorant distortion of the man…. The Oppenheimer of wartime was not a divided human being. …. He was focused and centered on making this thing happen.'" (Easton, 1989). This is visible in the Trinity Test scene itself, where Schultz's Oppenheimer seems very unsure and nervous throughout, which reflects Rhodes' point that the film doesn't capture who the real Oppenheimer actually was in that moment. Roger Ebert, known for his many film reviews, further states that Schultz's portrayal "lacks the quickness and fire of the real man and seems curiously muted and befuddled." (Ebert, 1989). Together these criticisms reinforce the idea that Schultz's performance failed to give the audience a real sense of the gravity behind the decision being made.

Comparatively in Oppenheimer (2023), Cillian Murphy portrays J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the film fully revolves around him and his journey, with his portrayal earning critical acclaim across many publications and notably winning awards including an Oscar. Murphy's portrayal achieves a greater depth through psychological awareness and situational grounding, capturing the complexity of Oppenheimer's experience more fully. This is especially clear in the Trinity Test scene, where Murphy pauses, allowing the audience to see the weight of the situation hit him before he begins to celebrate with others. This singular moment of hesitation is able to separate the two interpretations from each other as it doesn't let the audience simply celebrate alongside Murphy instead it makes them stop and feel what he is feeling.

Looking at J. Robert Oppenheimer's own interviews about the Trinity Test also reveals the reality of the situation and how it relates to the two film interpretations of him. In the 1965 NBC interview from the program OPPENHEIMER: The Decision to Drop the Bomb, Oppenheimer describes how quiet the room actually was, stating that "A few people laughed, few people cried, most people were silent." (1965). This is very different from both film interpretations as they both show some level of celebration after the bomb successfully worked. Oppenheimer also describes how the gravity of the situation began to sink in during those moments, something which aligns more with Murphy's interpretation of the scene than with Schultz's.

THE PRODUCTION

Another major difference across the two films is the way that they used cinematography and practical effects, specifically relating to the Trinity Test scene. In Fat Man and Little Boy (1989), during the Trinity Test scene, air is blown onto Schultz's face, making the scene feel as though it could be played for comedy. This takes away from the overall gravity of the situation and doesn't give the audience a real sense of what that moment meant. Oppenheimer (2023) takes a completely different approach, removing nearly all sound from the scene except for Murphy's breathing. This was a specific choice made by Nolan to leave the audience with only the striking visuals of the atomic bomb, forcing them to sit with what they are seeing. These visuals are a replication of what the bomb would have actually looked like during the test, which adds to that effect. One film treats the moment as a more of a spectacle, while the other allows the audience to absorb the moment.

Something else that Oppenheimer (2023) does differently is after the visual recreation of the bomb, the movie displays the quote "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" through on-screen text. This quote is originally from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, a text which Robert Oppenheimer was fascinated with. When Oppenheimer spoke it himself, he was reflecting on the Trinity Test in the same 1965 program mentioned above. Including this quote directly after the imagery of the explosion gives the audience a connection from the spectacle they just witnessed to the weight Oppenheimer himself felt. This allows the audience to be affected for the rest of the film as Nolan including this quote has them have a better realization of the weight. 

HOW TO MOVE FORWARD

The central question this raises is how films made in the future can tackle these important ethical decisions and still show the full weight of the situation without simply being a recreation of events. Oppenheimer (2023) is a strong example of this balance being done well as it’s an authentic depiction of the emotional and moral realities experienced by those involved. That is what allows the audience to leave with a better understanding of the context behind the decision made, rather than just a surface-level understanding of what happened. When a film is able to achieve that, it gives the audience the tools to form a more informed opinion about the ethical decisions being depicted.

However, this standard should primarily apply to films dealing with true stories and real people. A film like Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), directed by Stanley Kubrick, also deals with nuclear weapons but is a parody. Because it doesn't deal with real people or real events, it shouldn't be held to the same standard. Giving parody films that freedom is actually important for cinema, as it allows these topics to be explored in ways that a straight historical film couldn't. The distinction matters though as films based on true historical events have a responsibility to present those events in a way that allows the audience to genuinely engage with what happened and why it mattered, however, parody operates under a completely different set of expectations.

IMPACTS VS. DECISIONS

As more films are made that tackle topics surrounding important events in engineering history that caused devastation, a new issue emerges. Oppenheimer (2023) focuses almost entirely on the decision maker, with only a few moments that touch on the actual impacts of the bombing. While there are films that focus on the impacts and the human cost of what happened, none of them come from the United States. Instead, these perspectives come from international productions such as Barefoot Gen (1983) and Hiroshima (1953), both produced in Japan, and Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), produced in France. Without these films, the other side of the story is left out entirely, leaving audiences only with the depiction of the decision being made. By focusing exclusively on the decision and leaving out the actual impact on human life, films like Oppenheimer risk leaving audiences with an incomplete picture of what the situation actually was.

CONCLUSION

As more films tackle these important engineering ethical decisions, the approach shown by Oppenheimer (2023) where it gives the audience the space to truly sit with the weight of what they are watching and should serve as a model for how future filmmakers handle these real historical events. Given that films are clearly able to shift the opinions of their audiences, as shown by the University of Cambridge study, directors have an ethical obligation to make sure the material is being presented in a way that gives viewers a genuine understanding of what happened. Along with that, future films should also confront the consequences and impacts of the decisions being depicted, not just the decisions themselves. That gap still exists within American cinema and remains to be resolved. Only when audiences are confronted with both the decision maker and the full impact of that decision will they be able to get a complete picture of the ethical weight involved.

REFERENCES

• Hancock, D., Rousseau, C., Slee, J., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2025, April 30). Global Film Production Hits Historic High, Surpassing Pre-Pandemic Levels. Global-Innovation-Index. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/global-innovation-index/w/blogs/2025/global-film-production
• Pautz, M. C. (2015). Argo and Zero Dark Thirty: Film, Government, and Audiences. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(1), 120–128. doi:10.1017/S1049096514001656
• EASTON, N. J. (1989, November). From "A-Team" to A-Bomb : Movies: Dwight Schultz portrays : J. Robert Oppenheimer as a brilliant man torn ove. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-11-01-ca-67-story.html
• (1965, July 16). OPPENHEIMER: The Decision to Drop the Bomb [Review of OPPENHEIMER: The Decision to Drop the Bomb]. NBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JWxIVVeV98
• (2023, July 11). Oppenheimer (J. Lame, Ed.) [Film Oppenheimer]. Universal Pictures.
• (1989, October 20). Fat Man and Little Boy (F. Bonnot, Ed.) [Film Fat Man and Little Boy]. Paramount Pictures.
• Ebert, R. (1989). Fat Man And Little Boy [Review of Fat Man And Little Boy, by R. Joffé]. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fat-man-and-little-boy-1989