The Dark History Oppenheimer Didn’t Show

I think the topic of the article is very relevant and connected to the subject of the movie.

Yes, the movie is subjective and a biography. It also seems to be interested in the necessities for the development of the bomb. What humans needed to contribute and how they saw the moral implications of the weapon, as well as what efforts were needed to realize the bomb.

The article opens with a very memorable and important scene in the movie.

Then it connects this to the realities of uranium mining.

Which are relevant until today.

Why is this not an omission? Is the movie not a document of zeitgeist itself, does it not meam to evoke any thoughts or questions?

It does not need to be a documentary to be omitting something, especially because Oppenheimer's biography has moral and political aspects that the movie seems interested in.

I don't read the headline of the article as some kind of accusation against the movie. The headline is supposed to spike interest in facts that many people don't seem to know or care about, despite having opinions on them.

Yes, not talking about the Japanese who got bombed or the miners who suffered from uranium mining is understandable from the point of a movie focused on Oppenheimer and Los Alamos. The one thing that I think is relevant is when people criticize the line in the movie that "nobody lives here [site of Los Alamos] -- there is just a boarding school and some Indians who come here for ceremonies". This wasn't true. There were farmers (mostly Hispanic) who were forced to leave their lands.

Articles keep appearing criticizing the film for a myriad of reasons, but most of those reasons turn out to be a) staying on its narrative focus of Oppenheimer, the man b) Not being enough of a commentary on the dangers and horrors of nuclear weapons. As someone who appreciates film, writing and Nolan’s first grounded, character-driven work in quite some time these criticisms are not only frustrating, but seem geared toward being nothing more than rage inducing click bait.

Where exactly are you seeing any pointed judgement of the film in the piece? The author didn't even ask Nolan about the Congo when he had the opportunity, nor does he now express regret that he didn't.

Crucially, the title is actually fairly thoughtfully worded (for once). "didn't show", not "failed" or "neglected to".

Especially when it's a movie that's made from a biography. The mines weren't in the book, so they're not in the movie.

It also chose not to show the Japanese or German nuclear weapons program. Hmmmmmm

Indeed. There's countless movies that could be made around other aspects of this period in history. Personally I found this movie kind of a disappointment as Oppenheimer's story is one of the less emotionally engaging aspects to me. It did look good though.