I thought Matt Damon's performance is under-rated, he made it clear that Groves was a hard ass and took no bs from the scientists, but was not hostile towards them in the way that Paul Newman's performance in Fatman and Little Boy was. American Promethius makes it clear that Damon's portrayal was closer to the real man.
General Groves is the unsung hero in the Manhattan Project saga; without his relentless perseverence the Project would very likely not have concluded successfully. I think Brian Denehhy's performance as the General in the excellent 'Day One' is a very skillful depiction of a the real driving force behind the creation of the Bomb.
As a child of the 1950s and having had to make my own discoveries about the atomic bomb and its origins - my parents spoke very little about this traumatic period and never discussed the Nazis or the holocaust - I went on to read numerous books regarding this topic because it was so compelling. One highlight of my understanding about the men and politics, which lead to the birth of the Manhattan project came in the form of a bbc television series during the 1970s called' The Ascent Of Man' - lectures for TV given by Jacob Bronowski, which traced the evolution of scientific thought and discovery. Nearly one full episode was devoted to the many leading scientists involved in the Manhattan project - Leo Szilard, Enrico Fermi and the great experimental physicist and engineer, Ernest O. Lawrence as well as many others. Certainly a remarkable piece of television with a magnificent presenter who demonstrated through clear explanation and use of metaphor and mental visualisation the more baffling ideas of science.
In the 50s, when they taught about the A-bomb, they didn't say much about Oppenheimer. There was only mention that dropping the bomb was justified because it forced the surrender of Japan and averted a full scale invasion. I'm glad to see the deeper, moral dilemma being explored in this film that helps us better understand the cost. Could dropping the A-bomb on populated cities have been avoided? We'll never know, but I wish we had tried to find out.
Ultimately, the entire war in the Pacific could have been avoided, had Japan's military not lied to the Emperor, and pushed ahead with a sneak surprise attack on a naval base that killed thousands of boys.
If they didn't drop it then, they would have dropped it somewhere else later. Also even after two nukes, there was a military faction in Japan that tried to rebel and take over the govenrment just to stop the surrender, and almost succeeded. The firebombing of Japanese cities killed way more lives than the nuke anyways, as would the actual planned invasion of Japan that would have happened without unconditional surrender. (Truman called for Japan to unconditionally surrender at Postdam Conference or be destroyed, they didn't take it.) The line in the movie is apt: "They wouldn't understand it until they've used it". Even with the Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there was a faction in the US military that wanted to use nukes in the Korean War. In the end the anti-nuke faction in the military won out and if they didn't, nuclear use in normal warfare (I assume tactical as opposed to strategic) would be normalized. And one of the reasons they won that debate was because of the devastation and aftereffects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to regard nuclear as a "different" type of weapon than normal ones. Since then until now, no more nuclear weapons have been used in an actual war.
@@kicapanmanis1060 None of what you're stating conflicts with the idea of initially "demonstrating" the A-Bomb by dropping one over an uninhabited area. If it wasn't sufficient to force the unconditional surrender, then the option to drop more bombs over inhabited areas remained. Because we chose not to stage a demonstration, we will never know whether it would have been enough. Instead, we have to live with the fact that the United States didn't do everything possible to avoid using atomic weapons, and is the only nation in the world to do so. That is not trivial IMHO. As for the numbers killed firebombing Japanese cities and the estimated fatalities of the proposed invasion, I can only say that war is inherently an atrocity. It is only justified as a matter of self-defense, and even so one must not abandon the notion of a proportional response.
I’m anxious to see this movie, anxious, not in a hurry to see, but filled with anxiety because my biological father, whom I found in 2018, lost his paternal grandparents who lived in Nagasaki to the first bombing. Then lost his maternal grandparents who lived in Hiroshima. He was born in Hawaii and witnessed the bombing of Pearl Harbor at the age of six. He is 100% Japanese.
I’ve seen the film, and I can safely say that they handle the complex moral dilemmas with great delicacy and attention, and they don’t actually show the bombing, just Oppenheimer’s guilt afterwards.
@@lakshmi4224 Love this version!! Finally Hollywood is waking up to what matters and what families are justified for such early years animosity! Tell the truth... be shameful!
The story is well told, based on a Pulitzer Prize winner and a very important part of American history. And absolutely well executed in every way imaginable. The acting is some of the best from everyone involved.
Oppenheimer quoted from an old Hindu text "I have become the destroyer of worlds" He was a part of the post war culture and the cold war. Growing up in the fifties and sixty's we were very aware of nuclear weapons and their destructive capability. Building the first nuclear pile under a squash court in Chicago literally in the heart of the city was inherently reckless, especial as they didn't know if the boron they had could contain a nuclear reaction. Their boldness was entirely justified. It would of been only a matter of time before Hitler's regime would have caught up.
This dude is keeping it casual but he definitely has a mad crush on Emily and would hook up with her in a split second if she wasn't happily married. Who could blame him?
Matt has also been happily married for almost 20 years and he and his wife are friends and neighbours with Krasinsky and Blunt. They go on vacations together, have dinner parties, Matt wrote a script with John etc. Hence why they are so comfortable with eachother. So no, he wouldn't.
The fact that these people in their 40's + didn't know about Oppenheimer until they got a script is scary. But I guess if you're ambition is to be a movie star you ain't paying attention in history class
I don't think there are many people with detailed knowledge of Oppenheimer. When you talk about him it's more specific knowledge that mostly scientists tend to have. Everyone ( including them) has heard his name at some point and knows that he is the creator of the atomic bomb but it's not the first name that comes to someone's mind when you hear WW2.
The fact that someone thought themselves so superior to know about an 80+ year old historical event but still used the wrong your/you're really speaks volumes about you individually and the internet in general. But I guess you never paid attention in English class
I thought Matt Damon's performance is under-rated, he made it clear that Groves was a hard ass and took no bs from the scientists, but was not hostile towards them in the way that Paul Newman's performance in Fatman and Little Boy was. American Promethius makes it clear that Damon's portrayal was closer to the real man.
General Groves is the unsung hero in the Manhattan Project saga; without his relentless perseverence the Project would very likely not have concluded successfully.
I think Brian Denehhy's performance as the General in the excellent 'Day One' is a very skillful depiction of a the real driving force behind the creation of the Bomb.
you know u are old when u start seeing wrinkles in Matt Damon, lol. time isnt waiting for anyone
matt was terrific as general groves
As a child of the 1950s and having had to make my own discoveries about the atomic bomb and its origins - my parents spoke very little about this traumatic period and never discussed the Nazis or the holocaust - I went on to read numerous books regarding this topic because it was so compelling. One highlight of my understanding about the men and politics, which lead to the birth of the Manhattan project came in the form of a bbc television series during the 1970s called' The Ascent Of Man' - lectures for TV given by Jacob Bronowski, which traced the evolution of scientific thought and discovery.
Nearly one full episode was devoted to the many leading scientists involved in the Manhattan project - Leo Szilard, Enrico Fermi and the great experimental physicist and engineer, Ernest O. Lawrence as well as many others. Certainly a remarkable piece of television with a magnificent presenter who demonstrated through clear explanation and use of metaphor and mental visualisation the more baffling ideas of science.
Saw you guys on the big screen last night in Chattanooga. It was awesome and plan on seeing it again.
Great acting from all involved in this film. Matt Damon almost stole the show. What a mustache! What a film! 👏
In the 50s, when they taught about the A-bomb, they didn't say much about Oppenheimer. There was only mention that dropping the bomb was justified because it forced the surrender of Japan and averted a full scale invasion. I'm glad to see the deeper, moral dilemma being explored in this film that helps us better understand the cost. Could dropping the A-bomb on populated cities have been avoided? We'll never know, but I wish we had tried to find out.
Ultimately, the entire war in the Pacific could have been avoided, had Japan's military not lied to the Emperor, and pushed ahead with a sneak surprise attack on a naval base that killed thousands of boys.
If they didn't drop it then, they would have dropped it somewhere else later. Also even after two nukes, there was a military faction in Japan that tried to rebel and take over the govenrment just to stop the surrender, and almost succeeded. The firebombing of Japanese cities killed way more lives than the nuke anyways, as would the actual planned invasion of Japan that would have happened without unconditional surrender. (Truman called for Japan to unconditionally surrender at Postdam Conference or be destroyed, they didn't take it.)
The line in the movie is apt: "They wouldn't understand it until they've used it". Even with the Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there was a faction in the US military that wanted to use nukes in the Korean War. In the end the anti-nuke faction in the military won out and if they didn't, nuclear use in normal warfare (I assume tactical as opposed to strategic) would be normalized. And one of the reasons they won that debate was because of the devastation and aftereffects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to regard nuclear as a "different" type of weapon than normal ones. Since then until now, no more nuclear weapons have been used in an actual war.
@@kicapanmanis1060 None of what you're stating conflicts with the idea of initially "demonstrating" the A-Bomb by dropping one over an uninhabited area. If it wasn't sufficient to force the unconditional surrender, then the option to drop more bombs over inhabited areas remained. Because we chose not to stage a demonstration, we will never know whether it would have been enough. Instead, we have to live with the fact that the United States didn't do everything possible to avoid using atomic weapons, and is the only nation in the world to do so. That is not trivial IMHO. As for the numbers killed firebombing Japanese cities and the estimated fatalities of the proposed invasion, I can only say that war is inherently an atrocity. It is only justified as a matter of self-defense, and even so one must not abandon the notion of a proportional response.
I’m anxious to see this movie, anxious, not in a hurry to see, but filled with anxiety because my biological father, whom I found in 2018, lost his paternal grandparents who lived in Nagasaki to the first bombing. Then lost his maternal grandparents who lived in Hiroshima. He was born in Hawaii and witnessed the bombing of Pearl Harbor at the age of six. He is 100% Japanese.
I’ve seen the film, and I can safely say that they handle the complex moral dilemmas with great delicacy and attention, and they don’t actually show the bombing, just Oppenheimer’s guilt afterwards.
it still might trigger u
@@lakshmi4224 Love this version!! Finally Hollywood is waking up to what matters and what families are justified for such early years animosity! Tell the truth... be shameful!
You've got the order of the bombs wrong. The first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and the second on Nagasaki. Sorry for your loss.
Emily Blunt is so gorgeous
The story is well told, based on a Pulitzer Prize winner and a very important part of American history. And absolutely well executed in every way imaginable. The acting is some of the best from everyone involved.
Oppenheimer quoted from an old Hindu text "I have become the destroyer of worlds" He was a part of the post war culture and the cold war. Growing up in the fifties and sixty's we were very aware of nuclear weapons and their destructive capability. Building the first nuclear pile under a squash court in Chicago literally in the heart of the city was inherently reckless, especial as they didn't know if the boron they had could contain a nuclear reaction. Their boldness was entirely justified. It would of been only a matter of time before Hitler's regime would have caught up.
Emily looks like she is wearing a table cover 😂
They knew basic facts, but not in such detail
GREAT
They should make a movie about the USA, and allies, fire-bombing Japan and killing about 700,000 civilians
in WWII.
That'll put butts in the seats.
Imagine Matt laughing at one of Emily's wigs from her movies.. The media would have come down on him 🤣🤣
It's good to know that Emily also grew a moustache for the movie, but she should shave it off now.
This dude is keeping it casual but he definitely has a mad crush on Emily and would hook up with her in a split second if she wasn't happily married. Who could blame him?
Matt has also been happily married for almost 20 years and he and his wife are friends and neighbours with Krasinsky and Blunt. They go on vacations together, have dinner parties, Matt wrote a script with John etc. Hence why they are so comfortable with eachother. So no, he wouldn't.
@tdrmn Of course I meant if he was single. If he was single he definitely would. Absolutely no question.
The degree of ignorance of this crucial history shown by all three of these people is astounding
both of you all?
He may look like a complete moron with his baseball cap on backward but that's not what he said.
😂
The fact that these people in their 40's + didn't know about Oppenheimer until they got a script is scary. But I guess if you're ambition is to be a movie star you ain't paying attention in history class
I don't think there are many people with detailed knowledge of Oppenheimer. When you talk about him it's more specific knowledge that mostly scientists tend to have. Everyone ( including them) has heard his name at some point and knows that he is the creator of the atomic bomb but it's not the first name that comes to someone's mind when you hear WW2.
Most people I know have very little, if any, interest in history. I feel sorry for them.
They don't know about detail. Of course they know about who he is and what he create. You're ignorant and twist to suit your narrative
Damon went to Harvard
The fact that someone thought themselves so superior to know about an 80+ year old historical event but still used the wrong your/you're really speaks volumes about you individually and the internet in general.
But I guess you never paid attention in English class