Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer begins with a young troubled Oppenheimer, who isn’t good at lab work. After his mentor Patrick Blackett at the University of Cambridge tells him he cannot attend a lecture by Niels Bohr, he retaliates in the most dramatic fashion—by poisoning his mentor’s apple. “This is in the book, too, where we spend pages examining the evidence of what had happened. But it remains a mystery. We know something had happened, but we don’t know what exactly, and we make it clear to the readers that it remains a mystery that the biographer hasn’t solved,” says Kai Bird, co-author of Pulitzer-winning biography, American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer (2005), on which Nolan’s latest is loosely based. “In the movie, however, it comes across as if the poisoned apple incident actually happened and I’m fine with it, as understandably Nolan didn’t have time to do everything, and this poisoned apple incident captures the complexities of Oppenheimer’s personality, and his vulnerability and weakness,” Bird, who co-authored the book with American historian Martin J Sherwin, adds.
At the recently-concluded Samsung Galaxy Tab S9 Series Jaipur Literature Festival, Bird spoke with FE about the experience of seeing his work being adapted on the screen, relevance of the scientist in the wake of wars in Ukraine and Palestine, and what drew him to Oppenheimer. Edited excerpts:
You call Oppenheimer an American Prometheus. What drew you to the scientist in the first place?
I knew he was an important historical figure, and I had written briefly about him in my previous two biographies, on John McCloy and McGeorge Bundy. But it was Sherwin, who had signed a contract to do Oppenheimer’s biography in 1980, and 20 years later, he came to me and asked me to join the project, which was completed five years later. So he had done most of the research, and I started with writing. I wrote fast, and he would see what was missing, as he knew the material. One of my regrets and sources of sadness since Nolan’s film came out has been that Sherwin is no longer with us. He died in October 2021.
How did you feel seeing your work being adapted on the screen?
The film is heavily based on the book, but there is nothing, for example, on Oppenheimer’s childhood or what happened after 1954 after the trial. But I understand those choices. It’s a three-hour film, and you cannot tell the whole thing. But Nolan conveyed the important parts of the Oppenheimer story—his intense personality, his intellect, his politics, his relationship with his wife and lovers, and the story of the building of the atomic bomb.
However, when we were writing, Sherwin one day turned to me and said, “We wouldn’t have been spending so many years on this book, or this life if it was simply about the building of the atomic bomb.” In fact, what really gave his story an emotional arc was the triumph— the scientific achievement of building of the bomb— followed by the tragedy —both, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Oppenheimer’s personal tragedy of what happened to him in the trial, where he was humiliated and stripped off his security, and made out to be a pariah. That’s the story people are interested in, I am pleased to say that the film concentrates on that—the trial.
You have written biographies on distinct personalities, from Wall Street lawyer John McCloy and Robert Oppenheimer to president Jimmy Carter and CIA official Robert Ames. How do you choose your subjects?
I’m drawn to figures who explain how power works in America. My first book was on McCloy, the Wall Street lawyer whom I was critical of in many ways. Next was Bundy, who was one of the major architects of the war in Vietnam. Here my motivation was to explore why this liberal, intellectual former Harvard dean could have been so mistaken in getting the US involved in this long, endless, fruitless war. This is true with Oppenheimer, where I was exploring how America deals with nuclear weapons and issues of war and peace, and likewise with Carter. You can say I am interested in power.
You say, ‘biographies are novels with footnotes’. However, is it at times challenging to dissociate one’s personal perception of the subject from the facts?
I would put this differently. I choose the facts that I want to include in the story. It’s just a question of personal interest, on what motivates you, what interests you. It’s a very subjective art, but one that’s based on footnotes, and citations to sources.
Oppenheimer, ‘the father of the atomic bomb’, also made attempts to constrain the new technology. How do you look at the need for scientists to be public intellectuals, especially with the advent of artificial intelligence?
Oppenheimer was unique and he was such a good scientist precisely because he was able to be a public intellectual. Along with being a quantum physicist, he read literature and wrote poetry, he was a polyglot and studied Sanskrit to read the Bhagavad Gita in the original, and all of this made him capable of asking good questions about science, and explaining science to the rest.
But what happened to Oppenheimer in 1954 also made it difficult for scientists to speak out as they were forewarned that if they spoke out about politics and public policy, they could be attacked and destroyed by politicians. So they’re taught to stay in their narrow lane and that’s an unfortunate thing, especially since we are on the verge of a new scientific revolution with the advent of AI. The reality is, we need scientists who explain to us the choices we have, on how to manage the new technology, regulate, and humanise it, so that it isn’t damaging. This is exactly what Oppenheimer was trying to do after Hiroshima. He never regretted what he did, but worried about the consequences, the tragedy, and hence, warned American politicians not to build more weapons. He said this is a weapon for aggressors, whose only use is to terrorise.
How do you look at Oppenheimer’s relevance in the wake of wars in Ukraine and Gaza?
It’s terrifying. After living with the bomb for 75 years, we have become complacent. We think it’s okay to live with the bomb, but it’s not.
In Russia, president Vladimir Putin had threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and this could lead to a larger war. In the Middle East, Israel has an atomic bomb, and tomorrow, Iran can build the same.
And the war in Gaza is so terrible. You can understand the anger and hatred are so awful that non-state actors could get hold of the bomb. Hamas could get a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is much easier to construct. It’s just radioactive waste and explosives, and it could make all of Tel Aviv uninhabitable. Oppenheimer even warned about the threat of dirty bombs back in 1947.