This is an urgent transcript. The copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
We end tonight’s show at the cinema. Amid the ongoing SAG-AFTRA strike, Universal Pictures has canceled the red carpet for the US premiere of Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer.” Meanwhile, movie theaters packed this weekend to see the film about J. Robert Oppenheimer, known as the “father of the atomic bomb.” This is the trailer.
J ROBERT OPPENHEIMER: [played by Cillian Murphy] We imagine a future and our imaginations frighten us. They won’t fear it until they understand. And they won’t understand it until they’ve used it. The theory will only get you so far. I don’t know if we can be trusted with such a weapon. But we have no choice.
AMY GOODMAN: Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer developed and tested the world’s first atomic bomb in New Mexico. In this state, the film is preceded by a 15-second advertisement from the Union of Concerned Scientists stating, “Oppenheimer’s bomb sparked decades of nuclear testing across the Southwest.” Communities still suffer health effects related to the testing, many without governmental recognition or justice.”
For more information, contact Greg Mitchell, documentary filmmaker and author of numerous books on the subject, including The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood – and America – Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. In the 1980s he was editor of the Nuclear Times magazine. He has written about this new film for Mother Jones, on his substack and in an op-ed for the LA Times headlined “‘Oppenheimer’ Is Here. Is Hollywood Still Afraid of the Truth About the Atom Bomb?”
Greg, welcome back to Democracy Now! Some call it –
GREG MITCHELL: Thank you very much.
AMY GOODMAN: – the greatest anti-nuclear film of all time. They have a different and critical perspective on the film. Why don’t you just talk about your reaction to the film, what it did right, what it did wrong?
GREG MITCHELL: right, yes I saw an early screening of the film before it received a lot of critical opinion, so I watched it with a very open mind. And I think people should see the film. I think it’s very well written, well acted, well directed. And I think it probably has good intentions. So I would definitely encourage people to see it.
However, I noticed some problems that I actually write about every day in my blog and newsletter. And it’s not so much what is shown in the film. The film ends wanting to warn people of the dangers and future threats of the bomb, which is admirable. And I’m not sure any director other than Christopher Nolan, who has a long track record of success, would have made this film or could have made it. However, the omissions are quite serious.
One thing you’ve already mentioned is the actual lack – almost total lack of any mention or exploration of the radiation, the revolutionary new radiation effects of this weapon, both in the Trinity test, which is one of the main focuses of the film showing the Trinity test – it doesn’t show the radioactive plume that drifted away and the fallout that hit the people and then of course, as you mentioned, the decades of nuclear testing, the exposure of soldiers and workers and so on. So that’s one thing.
Also, no pictures of local people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be shown. There is nothing. We see Oppenheimer looking at a screen on which it sounds like the footage is being broadcast or shown. We don’t see any of these images. We just see him getting a little unsettled about it. At the same time, they fail to mention that 85% of the victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians. They don’t mention that at all. And one more thing: you barely mention Nagasaki. It’s sort of added in the last part of the movie as an afterthought. It’s just thrown in like it was somehow forced into the script.
And I think one of the most important things is certainly that it in no way challenges the Hiroshima narrative, or the official narrative, as I call it, that has reigned since 1945 about the decision to use the bomb — you know, we can talk more about that; It is very important – and the legacy for today. When people say it’s an anti-nuclear film instead, it carries the message of the dangers for today and control of the weapons etc., but it doesn’t question the use of the bomb in 1945. I think one should remove from the ghostly faces of Oppenheimer and the great actor Cillian Murphy his vague, contradictory, confusing kind of regret that he seemed to express throughout the film and throughout his life, but in fact, as shown on my blog and in my books, Oppenheimer actually defended the use of the bomb against Japan to the end of his life, to 1965 and 1966. So the film is a little misleading . But actually it’s true, and it’s quite true, that Oppenheimer really didn’t turn it down, and the film certainly doesn’t question the decision to use the bomb. From 1945 things continue to advance.
AMY GOODMAN: So if you’re talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there’s actually a hint that the footage that was shown to these scientists after that at Los Alamos melted the horror of the skin, there’s a hint of, you know, a picture of it.
GREG MITCHELL: A picture, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: But the actual film was secret for years. Is that right Greg?
GREG MITCHELL: Yes. Well I wrote a whole book about it called Atomic Cover-up and I directed a movie two years ago that got quite a bit of attention including this show called Atomic Cover-up which was about the complete suppression of Japanese footage and the US color footage that has been confiscated and suppressed for decades. Of course we don’t see that in the film – I wouldn’t necessarily expect that either.
But, you know, the decision to use the bomb is clarified in the film — I mean, there’s a precise scene that shows that in late May 1945, the Interim Committee, which was Truman’s lead advisory body on the matter, held a meeting and briefly discussed how to use the bomb and whether to use it. Oppenheimer shot this like he did in real life and said it was — you know, it couldn’t or wouldn’t work, it was the wrong idea to do a demonstration shot, you know, the bomb had to be used. And then one of the other members of the committee makes a ringing statement that became the Hiroshima narrative that, one might say, still holds true in the media and in some historians today, that just using the bomb, really using only two bombs, would prevent a bloody invasion of Japan, hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and so on. And that’s not really questioned in the film, not by Oppenheimer and not really in the film’s narrative either. Then it goes into the future, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are kind of left alone.
And you know, the danger of this and this legacy, and the reason why I’ve written so much about it for the last 40 years, is actually that the lesson for today is yes, everyone says we should never use nuclear weapons again, it’s horrible, they must not be used. On the other hand, starting in 1945, we make these two exceptions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
AMY GOODMAN: For the people –
GREG MITCHELL: And we have a – and we have a – yeah, go ahead.
AMY GOODMAN: So that people will understand, Greg, I mean, these scientists who came together in Los Alamos, this secret community that was formed to build the atomic bomb, were motivated to go up against Nazi Germany. But then Nazi Germany capitulates, doesn’t it?
GREG MITCHELL: Correct.
AMY GOODMAN: Or is beaten, is defeated. So if you can elaborate on what it meant to use that bomb against Japan at the time, because that’s something you’re so ingrained in, and also where the Soviet Union got into this, where Russia got into this?
GREG MITCHELL: To the right. right, yes Of course, the motivation for building the bomb was largely Hitler and Nazi Germany. Of course, many of the top physicists were refugee Jewish scientists, physicists from Germany. And that’s really the main reason why we beat Hitler to the bomb. Germany capitulated, and of course we were still fighting Japan, with very, very bloody battles and the bombing of their cities in the spring and summer. Then, of course, Japan became the target and focus.
And there were scientists like Leo Szilard who circulated a petition asking people to do this — asking other scientists to sign that petition, which would go to Truman, who would ask them not to use the bomb, or at least delay using the bomb. Incidentally, Oppenheimer is one of those who rejected this petition. But basically the decision was made that even though an invasion of Japan was not planned until November and December, we needed or wanted to use this bomb as soon as possible. And so we had the Trinity test and then the bomb dropped in early August.
You mentioned the Soviet aspect. And it is very important because we – at our urging and insistence – Stalin agreed to go to war by mid-August, and yet we dropped the bomb before the Soviets entered the war. Some people say that Soviet entry, along with some other negotiations, could have ended the war in practically the same time frame it ended. As I’m sure you know, Truman himself wrote in his diary, Fini Japs, when the Soviets entered the war. General Eisenhower later said the use of the bomb was entirely unnecessary and that Japan would surrender very soon.
And, you know, you have to take a step back, which the movie doesn’t do very well, to show that you intentionally aimed and detonated those bombs over the center of two cities. That was the goal. Oppenheimer was involved. Everyone on the target committee knew that the goal was really to kill as many people and cause as much destruction as possible – which they did. That was no surprise. So you really have to look back and say if it was worth it – especially of course for the people who died and for the lessons for today when we still have a first strike policy that we can use nuclear weapons in response to a crisis or a conventional attack. And the lesson that we learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that is still confirmed every year by the media and many historians is that you can make exceptions and choose to use these weapons, because not only did we use them against two cities, but we or many people are still defending that today.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, we’re going to do a post show, part 2 of this conversation, but I wanted to read a tweet from author and journalist Alisa Lynn Valdés to give people a sense of what we’re going to be talking about. She wrote, “This quote from the @nytimes review of the OPPENHEIMER film: ‘He served as director of a secret weapons lab built in a near-deserted part of Los Alamos, New Mexico.'” She notes, “It was inhabited by Hispanics. They had less than 24 hours to leave. Their farms have been bulldozed.” We have 15 seconds to get a sense of what we’re going to talk about in Part 2.
GREG MITCHELL: Well, there was — there are many aspects of secrecy at Los Alamos. I mean, there’s a lot to talk about, but the legacy of Los Alamos was a lot of those radiation effects and the secrecy, the secrecy regime that existed in the US for decades and continues to this day.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Greg Mitchell, we want to thank you for being with us. We link to your new article for the Los Angeles Times: “‘Oppenheimer’ Is Here.” Is Hollywood Still Afraid of the Truth About the Atomic Bomb?” And we’re doing Part 2 at demmocracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman. Thank you for joining us.