Oppenheimer (2023) | The Definitive Explanation

Welcome to our Colossus Movie Guide for Oppenheimer. This guide contains everything you need to understand the film. Dive into our detailed library of content, covering key aspects of the movie. We encourage your comments to help us create the best possible guide. Thank you!

What is Oppenheimer about?

Oppenheimer covers a great many topics over the course of its three-hour runtime. But it has a few major themes. First, chain reactions. This is most obvious with the Manhattan Project being based on the science of splitting the atom and the terrible power that follows such a microscopic event. That the movie spans most of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life—his journey from promising student to renowned theorist to the father of the atomic bomb to a morally distraught celebrity haunted by the very thing that won him his renown—is not an accident but another illustration of a chain reaction. It’s the same with the subplot involving Lewis Strauss and all the machinations that brought Strauss to the fateful day of his cabinet hearing. 

The second primary theme is an exploration of government. This begins with Oppenheimer’s interest in communism then evolves to the Nazi threat that inspires him to participate in the Manhattan Project to the perception of the Japanese government as never giving up on the war to the U.S. government. The U.S. government is the one that is most analyzed and the most criticized. The way in which the government recruits Oppenheimer, uses him, then tosses him aside is a pretty strong condemnation of those in power. 

Ultimately, those themes dovetail into a statement about powerful people with powerful weapons and how much we can trust them to do the right thing with it. Which is the ultimate chain reaction and gets back to the overall concept of an American Prometheus.  

Movie Guide table of contents

Cast

• J. Robert Oppenheimer – Cillian Murphy
• Kitty Oppenheimer – Emily Blunt
• Jean Tatlock – Florence Pugh
• Isidor Isaac Rabi – David Krumholtz
• Albert Einstein – Tom Conti
• Ernest Lawrence – Josh Hartnett
• Niels Bohr – Kenneth Branagh
• Edward Teller – Benny Safdie
• David Hill – Rami Malek
• Leslie Groves – Matt Damon
• Lewis Strauss – Robert Downey Jr.
• Boris Pash – Casey Affleck
• William Borden – David Dastmalchian
• Roger Robb – Jason Clark
• Senate aide – Alden Ehrenreich 
• Harry S. Truman – Gary Oldman
• Based on – American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin
• Written by – Christopher Nolan
• Directed by – Christopher Nolan

The ending of Oppenheimer explained

Recap

The end of Oppenheimer begins with the conclusion to the two timelines that make up the film. In the Fission section, Oppenheimer has his final war of words with the group deciding whether or not he will keep his security clearance. In the Fusion section, Lewis Strauss, waiting for the results of a Senate hearing about his nomination for Secretary of Commerce, rants about Oppenheimer and reveals the vendetta he’s held for the man for more than a decade. The former takes place in 1954; the latter in 1959. 

Oppenheimer loses his clearance but has the opportunity to defend himself for the public record. Back home, he confronts his wife, Kitty, who has tears in her eyes. She asks him, “Did you think that if you let them tar and feather you then the world would forgive you? It won’t.” To which Oppie replies: “We’ll see.” The two walk away, hand in hand. 

Strauss loses his nomination and blames it on Oppenheimer turning the scientists on him. The aide who had been advising on the hearing takes a strong, pro-Oppenheimer stance, going so far as to belittle Strauss. 

This brings us back to an earlier scene, set in 1947, when Oppenheimer went to Princeton and met Strauss. Strauss had offered Oppie the directorship of the school’s Institute for Advanced Study. During the tour and conversation, they saw Albert Einstein out a window. Strauss offered to introduce Oppenheimer but the Dr. said he and Einstein had known each other for many years. The scene that follows is one that initially plays out at a distance. The camera stays with Strauss so we don’t know what’s said between the two great physicists. Only that Einstein walks away and completely ignores Strauss. 

Throughout Oppenheimer, Strauss referred to that moment as the first instance of Oppenheimer turning scientists against Strauss, poisoning their perception of the man. It’s something he mentions to the aide several times. The aide says, “You know, sir, since nobody really knows what they said to each other that day, is it possible they didn’t talk to you at all? Is it possible that they spoke about something, uh, more important?”

Returning to that conversation, we finally learn what was said. 

Einstein: Ah, the man of the moment. You once held a reception for me, in Berkeley, you gave me an award. 

Oppenheimer: Yes.

E: You all thought I had lost the ability to understand what I had started. So the award really wasn’t for me, it was for all of you. Hm? Now it’s your turn. To deal with the consequences of your achievement. And one day, when they’ve punished you enough, they’ll serve you salmon and potato salad. Make speeches. Give you a medal. Pat you on the back, tell you all is forgiven. Just remember, it won’t be for you. It will be for them. 

O: Albert. When I came to you with those calculations, we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world.

E: I remember it well. What of it?

O: I believe we did. 

During Einstein’s long paragraph about the award, we cut to the distant future, 1963, and see Oppenheimer having that exact experience, as John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson present Oppie the Enrico Fermi Award. It’s an award only conferred by the President of the United States and is a lifetime achievement. An older Oppenheimer plays nice with everyone but there’s the sense of the rueful about the whole thing as he knows it’s less about him and more about them because of what Einstein’s saying in that moment. Nothing encapsulates that more than Edward Teller wanting to shake Oppenheimer’s hand after stabbing him in the back all those  years ago at the security clearance hearing. J. Robert gives Teller the satisfaction, but Kitty does not, refusing to shake Teller’s hand.

After Oppie’s final, ominous “I believe we did”, the two scientists part ways. Einstein walks back past Strauss, ignoring Strauss. While Oppenheimer has visions of missiles fired into the sky, of being in a plane and seeing the rockets flying by, through the night, of explosions across the world and fire engulfing the Earth. His face grows more and more haunted, tortured, terrified. Then, he closes his eyes. 

Meaning

Oppenheimer opens with J. Robert in the security clearance hearing. There’s a notation that says “1. Fission”. Shortly after, it cuts to the black and white section with Strauss at the Senate hearing. The notation says “2. Fusion”. These are the only two such markers in the entire movie. To understand the ending, we have to understand this relationship. 

Nuclear fission refers to the act of splitting an atom into two or more smaller atoms. 

Fusion is, of course, the reverse. Two separate atoms collide to form a single, larger atom. 

In both cases, energy releases. 

Nolan’s use of these as chapter headings informs us that the story is split into two but will, eventually, come together to form a whole. The formal aspect of the storytelling and filmmaking embodies each of these concepts, as Oppenheimer’s section jumps between various points in time. It’s one story, split up. While Strauss’s section is singular. It doesn’t jump around. Rather, it unfolds in a linear way. Even though it doesn’t have Oppenheimer in it, the Fusion section is  a culmination of everything from the Fission section. 

So the formal structure of the film asks us to think about the parts then fuse them back into a singular whole. 

When looked at this way, we see a story about science and a story about government. And how the government influenced the work of the scientists and how the scientists ended up influencing the work of the government. 

With that in mind, we also need to look at our main characters and what they embody. For Oppenheimer, he’s the genius who delivered on the Manhattan Project while lost in the vastness of Los Alamos, New Mexico, removed from the reality of what creating an atomic bomb would actually mean for the world. It isn’t until this theory is practically applied that he fully appreciates what he’s wrought. He then spends the rest of his life battling feelings of regret and struggling against not only the proliferation of such a weapon but its evolution into something even more apocalyptic. 

As Oppenheimer becomes more selfless and worried about others, Strauss is the opposite. He is selfish. Everything is about him and what he’s doing and what may have been done to him by others. Because he perceived slights from Oppenheimer, Strauss went on a crusade to ruin the other man’s career, reputation, and future prospects. All to Strauss’s own gain. It’s the kind of petty abuse of power that embodies Oppenheimer’s worst fears about the people who now have nuclear capabilities. 

In other words, Oppenheimer is about the idea of the chain reaction and the way in which these events add up to something much larger. Action, reaction, action, reaction, action, reaction until the world ends. Initially, some scientists feared a literal chain reaction of non-stop fission that would ignite the atmosphere and blow up the world. While that doesn’t happen, what Oppenheimer believes occurred is something far more nuanced. The idea that the Straussess of the world now have this supreme power that they might wield simply because of the fragility of their ego. 

It’s fitting that as J. Robert and Albert Einstein talk, Nolan cuts to shots of raindrops hitting the pond. Each drop produces a ripple effect. It’s a common kind of chain reaction found in nature. It symbolizes the consequential chain that Oppenheimer can see unfolding all around him. 

One of the scenes that best demonstrates the insanity of trusting people like Strauss with such power is when the one government official won’t allow them to drop a bomb on Kyoto because he and his wife vacation there. His personal experience means he finds value in the place and the people. But he’s unable to extend that same sympathy and compassion to Nagasaki and Hiroshima because they’re outside of his personal experiences. 

Having contextualized all of that, we come back to the reason Einstein ignored Strauss. It’s because, just like Oppenheimer, Einstein is caught up in visions of what happens next, of the potential end of the world caused by the nuclear weapons that now exist. Given the heaviness of such thoughts, it makes sense why Einstein would walk past Strauss without looking at the man. The man is, in that moment, entirely insignificant. 

Except Strauss could only see that conversation as about him. In this way, Strauss comes to represent the arrogance of those in power, those who think everything is about them, and the way in which they react when they feel belittled. These are the people with atomic weapons. 

That’s why Oppenheimer’s final look is so full of horror. He has given the world a new kind of fire. And, just like Prometheus, what happens next is out of his control.  

Why is the movie called Oppenheimer?

The choice of Oppenheimer for the title is interesting because the book the movie is based on is called American Prometheus. That is more poetic, mythological, and theme-driven than simply the last name of the protagonist. 

But, in movie culture, there’s a terrific legacy of biopics that use the name of the subject as the title. JFK, Amadeus, Malcolm X, Lincoln, Lawrence of Arabia, Elvis, Ali, Ed Wood, Ray. It conveys something much more monolithic and specific than, say, Walk the Line, or The Social Network, or Moneyball. 

So the title of a biopic tends to emphasize a concept or the individual. The Wolf of Wall Street tells you a lot more about the story than Jordan Belfort. Just like Moneyball has more heft to it than Billy Beane. If Nolan wanted to stress the larger themes of the Prometheus myth, then he’d have gone with American Prometheus. But it seemed he wanted to place the majority of the attention on the man, not the myth. Hence, we get Oppenheimer. 

Nolan also made a big deal about his use of the subjective. In an interview with Empire, he said: There’s the idea of how we get in somebody’s head and see how they were visualizing this radical reinvention of physics. One of the things that cinema has struggled with historically is the representation of intelligence or genius. It very often fails to engage people. The first person I showed the script to when it was finished after Emma [his wife] read it was Andrew Jackson, the visual effects supervisor. I said to him, “We have to find  a way into this guy’s head. We’ve gotta see the world the way he sees it, we’ve gotta see the atoms moving, we’ve gotta see the way he’s imagining waves of energy, the quantum world. And then we have to see how that translates into the Trinity test. And we have to feel the danger, feel the threat of all of this somehow.”

Later in the interview: I actually wrote [the script] in the first-person, which I’ve never done before. I don’t know if anyone’s ever done it before. But the point of it is, with the color sequences, which is the bulk of the film, everything is told from Oppenheimer’s point of view—you’re literally kind of looking through his eyes… I wanted to really go through this story with Oppenheimer; I didn’t want to sit by him and judge him. That seemed a pointless exercise. That’s more the stuff of documentary, or political theory, or history of science. This is a story that you experience with him—you don’t judge him. You are faced with these irreconcilable ethical dilemmas with him.

So if Nolan wrote the script in the first-person and grounded most of the film in Oppenheimer’s perspective, it makes sense to reinforce those choices by naming the movie Oppenheimer rather than anything conceptual or poetic. 

The themes and meaning of Oppenheimer

Chain reactions—the consequences of our actions

Oppenheimer is chiefly concerned with actions and reactions and the causality between events. It explores this in the story, in the themes, and even through the formal aspects of its filmmaking and narrative structure. 

The Fusion chapter with Lewis Strauss is a direct byproduct of the Oppenheimer-focused Fission chapter that makes up most of the movie. Fission is the action, Fusion the reaction. Likewise, the Fusion section is a collection of various points in Oppenheimer’s life and told roughly in linear order but jumping around as needed. These temporal jumps allow us to have a better understanding of certain actions and reactions in Oppie’s life. 

You even have a few seemingly throw away lines from characters that reinforce this theme. Like when a character tells Oppenheimer something along the lines of “I won’t let 300 years of physics culminate with the destruction of the world.” It’s quick. It’s easily overlooked. But it reminds us that what’s happening with the Manhattan Project isn’t an isolated event. It’s the climax of centuries of scientific theory, research, and application. You can’t split an atom without discovering the atom, and you can’t discover the atom without a microscope. The microscope without glass. Etc. etc. All these little discoveries and revelations snowballed to the point of the Manhattan Project. 

Many macro events led up to the atomic bomb even being possible. Just like many micro events prepared Oppenheimer to be the one to lead the Manhattan Project. For example, near the beginning of the film, as a student, Oppenheimer’s so mad at his lab professor that he injects the guy’s apple with cyanide then leaves it on the desk for the guy to eat the next day. When Oppie wakes up, he immediately regrets what he did so races to the lab to retrieve the apple. Only to encounter the professor with the famous physicist Niels Bohr. The conversation that follows is what sets Oppenheimer on the path to the atomic bomb. 

But what would have happened if Oppenehimer hadn’t arrived in time? What if the professor had eaten the apple? Or Bohr? Does Oppenheimer confess and go to jail? Does he get away with it but flees the school only to be crushed by guilt for the rest of his life? What if he hadn’t poisoned the apple in the first place? Does he get the one-on-one with Bohr that pushes Oppenhimer to Germany that leads to Berkeley that leads to Ernest Lawrence that leads to Leslie Groves? Maybe instead of leading the project, Oppenheimer’s merely on the project? Or maybe he’s in a different field altogether? Maybe he’s working in Russia, for Russia? 

This theme is developed subtextually over the course of the 3 hours until that final conversation with Albert Einstein. There, Nolan makes it explicit. Even though the world didn’t end on August 6th, 1945, or August 9th, Oppenheimer believes that because this weapon now exists that it’s inevitable that, one day, somewhere down the line of the chain reaction of events, the Doomsday Clock will strike zero and nuclear war will destroy humanity. It’s no longer a matter of if so much as when. 

Now, I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds

In 1965, twenty years after the dropping of the bombs, Oppenehimer did an interview for The Decision to Drop the Bomb. Speaking with NBC News, he delivered his famous lines: We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed. A few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, “Now, I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.” I supposed we all thought that, one way or another.

The context for this in the Bhagavad Gita is that the prince, Arjuna, is leading the Pandavas army against the Kauravas. Just before the battle, he hesitates. Amongst the “enemy” are Arjuna’s very own friends and family. How could he possibly engage in this battle? Vishnu, in the form of a guide named Krishna, explains that Arjuna doesn’t have a say in whether or not the war will happen. As a soldier, it’s the prince’s duty to fight and leave the fate of those involved up to the gods. It’s a complicated lesson. Because it implies a powerlessness in the face of these much larger powers, while also absolving Arjuna for what happens. Even if his sword might strike someone down, the decision wasn’t his. He was merely the agent of the gods. 

There’s a major emphasis on cause and effect, which brings us right back to the idea of chain reactions. 

Oppenheimer is Arjuna. It’s something Nolan expands on through the security clearance hearing when Roger Robb presses Oppie at the end of the film. Robb confronts Oppenheimer with the number of dead, over 200,000, then presses about the hydrogen bomb.

Robb: Would you have been opposed to the dropping of a thermo-nuclear weapon on Japan because of moral scruples? 

Oppie: [hard to hear] I would, sir. 

R: Did you oppose the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because of moral scruples? 

O: We set forth our—

R: You, you, you, you!

O: I set forth our arguments against dropping it but I did not endorse it. 

R: You mean after working night and day for 3 years building the bomb, you then argued against the use of it?

O: I was asked by the Secretary of War what the views of scientists were. I gave them the views against and the views for.

R: You supported the dropping of the atom bomb [hard to hear]. 

O: What do you mean support? 

R: Well you helped pick the target, didn’t you?

O: I did my job. I was not in a policy making position in Los Alamos. I would have done anything I was asked to do. 

R: Well then you would have built the H bomb too wouldn’t you?

O: I couldn’t! 

R: I didn’t ask you that, doctor! In the AEC report, [hard to hear], you said “a super bomb should never be built”!

O: What we meant—What I meant…What I meant—

R: Wouldn’t the Russians do anything to increase their strength?!

O: If we did it, they would have to do it! Our efforts would only fuel their efforts just as it had with the atomic bomb. 

R: Just as it had with the atomic bomb, exactly! No moral scruples in 1945, plenty in 1949. 

Another Person: Dr. Oppenheimer, when did your strong moral convictions develop with respect to the hydrogen bomb.

O: When it became clear to me that we would tend to use any weapon we had. 

The line about “Our efforts would only fuel their efforts” gets back to the earlier theme of chain reactions. But the key here is Oppenheimer stating that he would have done anything he was asked to do. While at Los Alamos, he felt like Arjuna, bound by duty, urged by the powers that be to engage in an activity that he feared but was chosen to accomplish. 

Loss of faith in government

In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna has faith to help him deal with the awful thing that has been asked of him. The gods have a plan. They’re asking this of him. Even if it hurts, he can take solace in the fact that there’s a plan. That forces greater than him are at work. He can believe in reincarnation and karma and dharma and all these other facets of Hinduism that will bring him closure. His story ends with getting to go to heaven. 

For J. Robert Oppenheimer, it’s much different. A god did not ask him to build the bomb. It was the United States government. And he felt a duty to help, especially given what was happening in World War II. Except, when all was said and done, the people he put his faith in had revealed themselves to be, for lack of a better phrasing, a bunch of a**holes. They wielded the weapon in a way that Oppenheimer forever regretted. Not only that, they then began a campaign to undermine Oppenheimer’s credibility and authority because he wanted to limit the continued use and escalation of this power. 

Where Arjuna found salvation, Oppenheimer only saw a kind of existential damnation. There was no greater plan by the gods. These were fickle, craven people who are capable of anything. And even if this group of people managed to limit the use of force, who knows if others would be able to do the same. Eventually, some day, someone will come along who uses the atomic bomb again, or unleashes the hydrogen bomb. 

In short, while Arjuna faith was rewarded, Oppenheimer’s was not. The culmination of this is found in Oppie’s final line at the hearing, when asked about his strong moral conviction against developing the hydrogen bomb. “When it became clear to me that we would tend to use any weapon we had.” That’s such a condemnation of the government. And it also serves as a reminder for anyone who watches Oppenheimer—just because you have power doesn’t mean you have to wield it. There are other answers. Other solutions. 

Placing such an emphasis on the power of the government and the prior ways in which the government was so cavalier about wielding such force, Nolan has turned this story into a challenge to those in power now, who will be in power later, and all future generations who might watch this movie—can you be part of the solution to this problem that now exists? Can you keep the chain locked? Can you restore our faith in government and those who might wield this kind of divine power? 

It also reminds the Oppenheimer’s of the world that they don’t have to build something they’re morally opposed to. Even if it seems imperative at the time, or the height of duty to one’s country. Some things, especially weapons such as this, might be worse than the problems they’re attempting to solve. 

How does Promtheus relate to Oppenheimer?

Oppenheimer opens with a caption that reads: Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. For this he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity. 

The myth:

The myth of Prometheus is a famous one. Wikipedia notes that the “first recorded account…appeared in the late 8th-century BC Greek epic poet Hesiod’s Theogony.” The tragic tale has been a tremendous source of inspiration for poets, novelists, and visual artists. 

What makes Prometheus stand out is how much he helped humans even though he was a god. It started when Zeus, the head of the Greek gods, was upset about the sacrifices humans were making in honor to the gods. Apparently we weren’t doing it right. Prometheus, though, decided to make things interesting. Maybe that was because he liked people or disliked Zeus or just enjoyed playing tricks. Regardless of the reason, he had slaughtered an ox and presented a version of sacrifice that was just the ox’s “grotesque stomach” and a version that was a pile of “shining fat”. Whichever Zeus picked would be what the Gods received and whatever was left went to the humans. 

Sure enough, Zeus picked the thing that looked the best: the shining fat. Except inside of it was a pile of bones. If that wasn’t trickery enough, what was inside the stomach? All of the high quality, appetizing meat. This meant humans got to keep the good stuff. Zeus was, of course, angry. So how did he punish humanity? By withholding fire. Which made nights pretty miserable as people no longer had anything to light and warm them. 

Prometheus, feeling partially to blame, stole the fire back and returned it to humans. Twice now, Prometheus had gone behind Zeus’s back. So he went all out. Having chained Prometheus to a rock, every day Zeus would send an eagle over to eat Prometheus’s liver. Part of being a god means divine regeneration from physical wounds. So the eagle would show up, rip Prometheus open, snack on liver, then leave. Prometheus would heal. Then the next day the whole thing would repeat. This went on for, quote, “eons”, until Hercules showed up and slew the eagle and freed Prometheus.

So with that context, what does “American Prometheus” mean?

Oppenheimer

Fire has both positive and negative qualities. Its heat can be used to cook food to feed a family. But it can also turn into an inferno that consumes an entire forest and every living thing in the forest. People use it for warmth and they use it in war. It’s powerful. Which makes it a complicated thing for humans to have. Because some will only ever use it for good. While others will absolutely take advantage of the negative aspects for their own gain. 

Without fire, human civilization as we know it can’t exist. Having it was a turning point 

The title of American Prometheus connects the idea of fire with the atomic bomb. And essentially makes the case that the same way human civilization changed after they had fire, so too did it shift after the development of nuclear weapons. But it wasn’t just the weapons themselves. The work and research done as part of the Manhattan Project had a tremendous influence on science as we know it. It ushered in what’s known as the Atomic Age. 

On the one hand, you had this terrifying weapon the likes of which had never existed and now threatened the entire world population. On the other hand, atomic research led to revolutions in scientific processes, federal funding, reinvigorated the world’s interest in science, and revolutionized our understanding of energy, medicine, biology, and more. An article from Princeton University called “Beyond the bomb: Atomic research changed medicine, biology” states: “In the post-World War II era, the U.S. Government produced radioisotopes in some of the same nuclear reactors that had been built to produce material for nuclear weapons.” Those radioisotopes were used in cancer treatments, medical diagnostic tests (“still used widely”), and biological and environmental research. 

And then Oppenheimer is, of course, Prometheus. Except his punishment wasn’t so literal and visceral. It was existential. In the sense that he had to bear the weight of knowing he brought this horrific thing into the world. And could no longer control it. No eagle would show up. But you know there wasn’t a day that went by where he didn’t think of the hundreds of thousands of lives lost to his work. Every time he laughed, there was probably that pang of guilt. The metaphoric beak taking a piece from the liver of his guilty conscience. And each morning, that guilty conscience would mend. And the inner torment could begin again. Guilty over not just what had been done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but what could/would be done in the future. 

Questions and answers about Oppenheimer

Why was Lewis Strauss so mad at Oppenheimer?

There were two things. 

The first time they met was at Princeton. We see this early in the film. Strauss wants to impress Oppenheimer by offering to introduce him to Einstein. Oppenheimer counters by saying he and Einstein go way back. That would already make Strauss feel “small”. A bit later, at the pond, Strauss watches Oppie and Einstein talk. Then Einstein walks away and straight past Strauss without saying a word or even making eye contact. Once again, Strauss feels small. 

The second conflict has to do with Strauss being chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Because Oppenheimer was so anti-atomic at that point and advocating for a more friendly international tone, it put him in direct opposition to many of Strauss’s stances, both privately and publicly. We see this with the meeting at the hotel where the AEC attempts to discuss next steps and Oppenheimer argues with Strauss. Then there’s the scene at the public hearing where Oppenheimer critiques Strauss’s stance on radioisotopes. 

From Strauss perspective, every interaction with Oppenheimer led to a kick in the self-esteem. Not because Oppenheimer was purposefully trying to hurt or belittle or make an enemy of Strauss. But because Strauss, as portrayed by Christopher Nolan, was an insecure and vindictive man who wanted to feel more important than he was. In short, Strauss was a bully. 

Why didn’t Kitty shake Edward Teller’s hand?

Pride. While Oppie didn’t mind being the bigger man, even in situations where it made him look weak, Kitty couldn’t stand the thought of shaking the hand of someone who had said such ugly things about J. Robert. Because she didn’t respect him, and because she wanted to show him up, she refused to shake his hand. Optics be damned. 

Now it’s your turn

Have more unanswered questions about Oppenheimer? Are there themes or motifs we missed? Is there more to explain about the ending? Please post your questions and thoughts in the comments section! We’ll do our best to address every one of them. If we like what you have to say, you could become part of our movie guide!