Ryan Luetzow (R.L.): The Oscars are 97 years old. From “Wings” to “Anora,” movies have changed a lot in that time. That's why I'm looking back at one Best Picture winner from each decade to try and understand the movies that were at one time called the best. This is The Best Picture Show. Welcome to the Best Picture Show, the show about the very best speedily built towns. My name is Ryan Luetzow, and today we're talking about “Oppenheimer,” a movie with many ethical quandaries, which is why today I have with me philosopher Sebastian Salazar. Hi, Sebastian. 

Sebastian Salazar (S.S.): Hey, how are you doing?

R.L.: We're talking “Oppenheimer.” The reason we brought you on is because we wanted someone with an interest in ethical dilemmas and philosophical situations as seen in the movie. Like half the movie is him, you know, getting the bomb ready and everything, and then the other half is like, “I can't believe I did that.” So I guess just my main question is, what is your ethical take on this movie? 

S.S.: Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of questions. I think there's a question of scientific advancement, is science always aimed at the right thing? And then, you know, the other question is, when you do invent a new science, right, how do you guarantee that it's used for the right reasons? When I first watched it, maybe I just was not as engaged with those questions. And it wasn't until I came to college that I really began to think deeply about what it means to live an ethical life, and by extent, a right life, you know, a life where my values and my actions are congruent and in harmony. And so on the second re-watch is really when I was like, “Okay, this is really a fascinating movie,” and rightfully, an amazing movie. 

R.L.: It's really, really, truly morally gray, in a way that a lot of times, when people say it's like a morally gray movie, it's like, it means there's a protagonist, but he also kills people, or whatever, you know, or someone like Jordan Belfort or something, who's like, yeah, he's a bad guy, you know? It's morally gray because the main character is a bad guy. But in this it's not really the case, like, he's not a bad guy, like you can really understand, I think, his dilemma in the movie, I think it does a good job of that.

S.S.: Hannah Arendt, she writes a paper called the ”Banality of Evil,” but that's a core theme of it is she's talking about evil in the modern era is so different in how it comes up. It's no longer this devious outlier case, you know? There's one person in the herd that ruins it for everyone. In the modern context she argues that, you know, evil is bureaucratic systems and conforming to totalitarian governments. I still do stand by that, Oppenheimer is a good person, I do stand by that. But I think you're totally correct in pointing out that the ambiguity is very different than what we traditionally think of other movies with the ambiguous characters, or the person who kills people who is a bad guy, right? This is a very different context. I think one of the values of philosophy is it helps us determine what are our values. Why is it that we value human life in itself? You know, why is that a good? And it seems so innocuous, right? That is something we take for granted. Very often, it's like, how could anyone disagree that human life is not equal and everyone is valuable? And then you know, it doesn't take very much thinking to see that that has been rejected repeatedly by so many people in history. You know, you look at our past with slavery, and then you look at, you know, other cultures, ancient Rome, right? There's also a lot of injustice in those cultures. And so a lot of our values that we have now we take for granted. And so I think part of philosophy's project is to bring to light what those values are, and to really demonstrate that these are the things we should be caring about. One of the quandaries, right? The ethical quandaries the movie really raises is whether science is inherently pointed at those values. And I think it does a very good job of, I think, and saying, no. I think that that is from my understanding of the movie. It says that science, if not guided correctly, can very easily be used to, you know, support bad in malicious agendas. 

R.L.: It's kind of the “Jurassic Park” thing, a little bit of like the “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

S.S.: Exactly 

R.L.: It's a little different, because in “Jurassic Park,” it's like, “Oh, this would be so cool.” And this is like, “If we don't do this, are we going to become all run by Nazis?”

S.S.: No, you're totally correct, though. It was so interesting, this is not a new theme that's being discovered, right? The one that came to mind is, I don't know if you're in this American literature.

R.L.: I dabble. 

S.S.: You dabble. Emerson's “Rappaccini’s Daughter?”

R.L.: I don't dabble that much. 

S.S.: Okay. Regardless, that's a theme that's explored. And then obviously you can go back, you know, to ancient times, and then talk about wings of Icarus, right? And Daedalus, right?

R.L.: I know that one. 

S.S.: You know that one, there you go. But that idea that innovation doesn't always lead to the best outcomes or can be used for the wrong reasons is something that's really central to this film. And in the case of the bomb, they're talking about, was it, they’re at the AEC meeting and they’re talking with Strauss. And, you know, they note that this weapon serves no defensive value. The only reason to use this weaponry is to target, you know, in other nations, and really the only things worth targeting, because it has such a destructive value, are large cities. And then you apply to the circumstance of Japan, you know, they know that there's no military targets that are large enough to target, so it really is only to be used on civilian targets. And so that, I think, is just demonstrating, right, that incongruity between thinking that progress, innovation is always good, versus what is actually right, what is actually morally right.

R.L.: And they keep talking about this very clear theme, because they literally use the word so many times: “the theory.” From the very beginning, when they have the two like, when he's talking to Josh Hartnett about in the two classrooms, theory, theory, theory. And then at the end, they bring it all together with the Albert Einstein scene. If our discoveries are going to set us on a course to bring about the end of the world, he's like, I believe we did. It's a very apocalyptic movie, I think, in some ways, at least for me, when I watch the ending, I'm like, “We're so screwed. This is the tipping point. When the world ends. It'll probably involve nukes.”

S.S.: No, I think you're totally right. This is a changing point, and the world was forever changed by Oppenheimer and his teams and discoveries in Los Alamos.

R.L.: Just to bring back your point about progress, I think that's something we talk about more now than at least we were in the past few decades. Because I feel like, with phones and everything, I mean, people complained about them, but they weren't really seen as, like, world ending. But with AI, I think people are really like, you, like, “Stop,” like, “Stop,” like, progress is going to happen. I mean, does it have to? I don't know. It's interesting. Yeah, I mean, someone's probably going to discover whatever the next discovery is, no matter what. But does that mean everybody has to use it? I don't know. I don't know. I remember when this movie came out, there was some, I hate this word, but there was some like discourse. People were saying like, and this was probably a small group, but that it was like, really disrespectful that they didn't show like Hiroshima or like, they didn't show any Japanese people. And I really disagree with that. I think it would have cheapened that, because it's not, it's a very subjective movie. It's, like, very focused on Oppenheimer’s state. And if there was like, some weird, like action scene where, like, all the bombs were dropping or something, I feel like I wouldn't like that, and what they do, and having them show the footage, and then just showing his face watching and you hear the sound, I think is infinitely more unsettling than if they had just shown it.

“I think that's something we talk about more now than at least we were in the past few decades. Because I feel like, with phones and everything, I mean, people complained about them, but they weren't really seen as, like, world ending. But with AI, I think people are really like, you, like, “Stop,” like, “Stop,” like, progress is going to happen. I mean, does it have to? I don't know. It's interesting. Yeah, I mean, someone's probably going to discover whatever the next discovery is, no matter what. But does that mean everybody has to use it? I don't know.”

S.S.: I think you're totally correct. I'm trying to think, like, when Oppenheimer goes in and talks to Truman himself, right? And then I just, I just love, like, the little quip Truman gets out when he's leaving, it's like, “Don't bring that cry baby back in,” right? But I think you're totally correct, because part of the ambiguity of the movie is whether Oppenheimer is actually responsible for all those deaths, even though he didn't actually decide how the weapon would be reused, right? His whole argument by the end was, I think we need the bomb because we can't trust the Germans with it, and so long as we have it, we can force people to negotiate with us, right? That's his whole argument. And then obviously people end up deciding to use it because they think that the only way to use this theory is to actually prove that we can do it. And I do agree with you that I think that it would have cheapened that, and it would have been conclusive, right, saying that Oppenheimer was responsible for this, which I think part of what I love about this movie is the interpretation of whether he actually is responsible for all that murder and all that death.

R.L.: I think it's really true of Nolan's movies. And I mean, it's a lot of people, but, like, he's never made a movie about making movies, but all of his movies are kind of about making movies to an extent. And what I mean by that is obviously making a movie and putting it out there is not as consequential as making a bomb or whatever, but I do think this movie speaks to, kind of the fear that anybody who's creating anything has of like, what is going to happen to this after it leaves my head, leaves my hand, like I saw the movie and among other things, I really felt the bomb is like his movie. He made this movie, and for a good reason, he thinks, you know, once it's out there, like what people say about it, or what people use it to say. But it's not just movies. It's anything anybody makes. The assembling the crew in Los Alamos is very, you know, assembling a film crew and, like, they build sets and everything. And then there's a lot done with, like, video footage.

S.S.: In terms of art and doing something and then people take it in a certain way. I think that, I mean that happens in communication all the time. You know, you send a message over text, and somebody interprets it one way. I mean, the example that immediately came to my mind with philosophy was Nietzsche's work. He's a nihilist, and he wrote a lot of stuff denying, you know, a lot of core values, but he did try to present a case to why we should still care about human life. And so he died. And the unfortunate reality is that a lot of his work was taken by his sister, who filled in the gaps. She wasn't a philosopher, but she basically would read his work and be like, “Oh, I think this is what he meant.” Historically, his work ended up being used to justify a lot of Nazi regimes, but it is unfortunate that a lot of it, you know, the good parts of it, are lost. 

R.L.: But I also think this movie is, like, hyper aware of the fact that it is a fake movie based on a real guy and real people, and it like, takes great strides. Every person in the movie, except for Alden Ehrenreich, I believe, who's the Senate aide, is a real person. They don't combine anybody. That's why there's so many, like characters. Like, I don't know, a lot of movies, they would have combined a lot of these people in, like, one guy, but the movie is very interested, I think, in the you know, how many people it takes to do something like this for one but also just making sure that it's like, this is what happened, you know? Like, I mean, it is subjective, and it gets, like a little experimental at times, but that's because it's in the headspace of Oppenheimer. But it's not trying to, like movie-fy what actually happened, I think, which I really appreciate. I think they pull that off partially also because they have, like, a lot of big name, great actors playing these really small parts. Like, you know, Casey Affleck comes in for like, one scene. Only, someone like Nolan or like Spielberg does it in “Lincoln,” Oliver Stone does it in “JFK.” Like only these, like big name guys can do this where, like, they build, like a massive historical epic, and like, the 30th billed guy would be the first billed guy in a different movie. But it's always fun when they do it. It moves so frequently from timeline to timeline, style to style and it's non sequential, but I think it's so digestible without ever feeling like it's talking down to people. And I think that's because of the edit. I've heard people be like, I didn't like it, like it was just people talking in rooms, and like, yeah, on paper, but I feel like, if you watch it, it's very exciting. I mean, the reason it won Best Picture, like, it's like, palatable, and it's also the reason I made almost a billion dollars. Like, it's palatable, but it's also not giving anybody any easy answer. It's just, I think, an incredible work. My first time I saw it, I saw it the same day as “Barbie.” I actually liked “Barbie” more. It's a funny thing that happened, like, that's like, one of the main legacies of this movie is the Barbenheimer. Yeah, I think it's a great movie. I think it's super fun, super weird and sad and I just, I love actors, and I think there's so many great roles. It's just an incredible ensemble. Casey Affleck, super scary in his scene. Oh, my favorite, I think maybe my second favorite performance in this movie, besides Cillian Murphy, is David Krumholtz as Isaac Rabi. I think he's so lovely. And he's like, 30th billed or whatever, but I think he's so great. Everybody in the movie is so great at standing out with their few scenes. And I think it does speak to how big this project was, the movie, and also the Manhattan Project.

“But I also think this movie is, like, hyper aware of the fact that it is a fake movie based on a real guy and real people, and it like, takes great strides. Every person in the movie, except for Alden Ehrenreich, I believe, who's the Senate aide, is a real person. They don't combine anybody. That's why there's so many, like characters. Like, I don't know, a lot of movies, they would have combined a lot of these people in, like, one guy, but the movie is very interested, I think, in the you know, how many people it takes to do something like this for one but also just making sure that it's like, this is what happened, you know?”

S.S.: Yeah, that's, like, that's a great like, I'm just thinking like the parallel when, you know, they first meet, the train ride and he offers him the food, and at the end, you know, when he's getting indicted, he's like, take some food, take the orange. Like, that's a powerful scene. And it's like, it's very simple, but you can tell the, you know, in that room of animosity, you know, that's some hope that comes through. 

R.L.: Yeah, he's like a beacon of light in this movie. 

S.S.: Yeah, he is the one that really brings the moral scruples, and is really hesitant, and it's only you know when Oppenheimer admits that, you know, I hear you, but I don't know if we can be trusted with the bomb, but I know the Germans can't, right?

R.L.: And like, there's so many, I keep thinking of more people like Matthew Modine, Roderick from “Diary of a Wimpy Kid,” Devon Bostick is in this, he throws up in one scene. Jack Quaid’s in this. And then obviously, Florence Pugh and Emily Blunt are the two women, which, you know, Nolan's not like the best guy at writing women. Jean Tatlock, I mean, she is important in this movie, but kind of only as, like a past love of Oppenheimer. 

S.S.: Exactly, yeah.

R.L.: But, I mean, I don't know, there's so much going on in this movie. 

S.S.: Like what? There's like, the one scene where he's like, he just feels coupable for her death, which, I mean, that kind of mirrors what later happens in the movie.

R.L.: And they have the “I am become death, destroyer of worlds” line during their sex scene, like that is actually made up. That was not real life. But I think it's a great scene. It's super stupid. I thought, I love it. And I think Emily Blunt does a good job of her kind of big scene at the end, where she’s like, “I don't like your phrase.” Rami Malek does a good job of kind of blending into the background the whole time, because there's so many famous people in it. You're like, “Oh yeah, Rami Malek’s just one of the guys.” And then the end, you're like, “Oh wait, he kind of was important.”

S.S.: Because it seems so on initial watch.

R.L.: It's like out of nowhere.

S.S.: Exactly.

R.L.: I think just the point is that, like any one of these guys could see that he's more good and complicated than they're making him seem in this trial. I also love that this movie says the word scientist like, it's like Avengers. Like, “We need to get the scientists.” It's like, “It's the opinion of scientists that J Robert Oppenheimer is,” whatever. Matthew Modine says it a lot. I just love they really emphasize, like, scientists, as like a group. They also treat Oppenheimer's hat and pipe like Captain America's shield, like, it's so, I don't know, it's very silly, but I love it. Now it's like, “Yeah, his hat and his pipe, that's Oppenheimer's uniform. That's Oppie’s.” They call him Oppie a lot.

S.S.: I found that jarring.

R.L.: It is weird. It's true, they did call him Oppie, 

S.S.: I know.

R.L.: It’s in the book.

S.S.: It's just like, I am, just like, imagining the actors, like, saying that.

R.L.: I like it a lot.

S.S.: No, it's good. And it does bring the characters to life.

R.L.: It makes him seem so cute. He is weirdly cute, like, when he's an old man, he's, like, so stressed out. Like, there's something about it, like, I could squeeze that guy's face. He's got this big head and, like, this skinny little body. He’s just a little cutie.

S.S.: He’s like a bobble head. 

R.L.: Yeah, I think he's so good in this movie. He's not flashy at all, but he has to carry the entire thing with basically, just like, his eyes. He does not talk a lot, and there's no, like, inner monologue, but you always know what he's thinking. And he has to play all these different ages, and he has to, like, change back and forth all the time, and it's all just subtle expression stuff.

S.S.: No, that was something I loved about the film, was seeing how the interactions changed, right? You could see how, you know, when Oppenheimer is talking to his subordinates, or even, like the scientists, how comfortable he feels, you know, in asserting what he feels. So you see that change when he goes in and talks to anyone above him, or any of the generals right? General Groves, he's much more docile.

R.L.: A lot of my favorite performances are from actors who really underplay things. And I think that's what Cillian Murphy is really good at. And I think Robert Downey Jr. also, in a very different way, is really good at underplaying. 

S.S.: By underplay, what do you mean?

R.L.: Yeah, there's a written emotion or line that they're saying and they're acting out, but they're not necessarily playing that emotion as someone might automatically think is the right way to do Playing emotion, covering a different emotion. And I think Robert Downey Jr. is really good at what they call throwing away the line, saying these quips and stuff, but he says them like, he doesn't care about it, like, I remember, he does it all the time in the Marvel movies. The lines that you might want to deliver as like a big punch, and he delivers it like nothing and that kind of makes him seem cool and aloof. He's really well utilized in this movie because he's, like, the opposite of Oppenheimer. He's the guy who, like talks a lot, but is so insecure they keep hitting the beats of Robert Downey Jr.'s few interactions with Oppenheimer. And like, first you see what Robert Downey Jr. thinks of it, well, he ignored me because of all our beef or whatever, and it's not till the very, very last scene of the movie that you're like, that's what he just heard when he was ignoring Robert Downey Jr., that like he caused the end of the world, like it has nothing to do with him. This guy is so small, and now we understand that by the end of the movie, it's a really great through line.

R.L.: Every episode, I ask my guest the same question at the end, are you a plane guy or a train guy?

S.S.: Planes. The classic movie trope of you talk to the guy on the plane like, I have had that. 

R.L.: Really?

S.S.: Yeah, I think I'm somebody who is an extrovert in that sense. So I do sometimes like to just notice the person next to me, like, “What are you reading?” The commercial like planes, I think, will always beat the commercial train. 

R.L.: That's a good point. 

S.S.: All right. I think that's why I'm drawn to. 

R.L.: Maybe the best of the best trains are better than the best of the best planes, but in terms of what you're actually going to experience on a regular day, and planes do defy the laws of physics, I mean that’s cool.

S.S.: I think that’s fascinating. 

R.L.: Yeah, you know, that's more impressive. I was really into trains. I still like them, but not so much as I was last year. Well, the music's playing and they're yanking me off the stage with the cane. I never say this, but the best guest award goes to you, Sebastian Salazar, thank you so much for being on the show. 

S.S.: Yeah, no, thank you. It was wonderful being here. 

R.L.: Do you have anything you want to plug for the audience? I don't know if you're like a public figure at all.

S.S.: Philosophy of nature club? Pull up.

R.L.: Philosophy of nature club! All right, great. That's it, yeah. Thank you. 

S.S.: Thank you. 

R.L.: The Best Picture Show is a podcast hosted by Ryan Luetzow and produced by ROAR Studios. Opinions and ideas expressed in this podcast are those of individual student content creators and are not those of Loyola Marymount University, its board of trustees or its student body. You can subscribe to us on Spotify and Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and be sure to follow us at watch listen roar. This episode was produced by Ryan Luetzow. Special thanks to Emma Russell for technical guidance and associate producer Emma Singletary. Thank you to Sebastian Salazar for joining us and thank you so much for listening. Play us out.