kev@apollo.HP.COM (Kevin Romano) (10/26/89)
FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY
A film review by Kevin Romano
Copyright 1989 Kevin Romano
It is said that after the Pythagoreans of ancient Greece discovered the
existence of irrational numbers they sought to keep it secret from the general
population. Apparently because it contradicted their entire philosophical view
of the universe. One story has it that they murdered a member of their own
sect, Hippasus, for telling outsiders the secret. (See footnote 1.)
A good portion of FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is frittered away recalling just
such secrecy as it regarded the development of the first atomic weapons. The
title refers to the names of the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
and, by extension I suppose, to the two main characters in the film, J. Robert
Oppenheimer and General Leslie R. Groves. If any film story ever deserved to be
treated in epic proportions, surely it must be this one. But FAT MAN AND
LITTLE BOY is no epic. To describe it succinctly, this movie's production fits
like Mickey Rooney's suit on Hulk Hogan. It has a lot on nicely framed
cinematography, a couple of inspired moments of lighting and screenwriting, a
journeyman performance by Paul Newman, and little else to recommend it.
The problems are numerous. John Cusack is miscast as a scientist. He
looks and acts more like a high school senior. There are no characters for
whom to root. In fact, J. Robert Oppenheimer is portrayed as a sort of
egomaniacal Commie psychopath who beguiles himself by his own seeming technical
omnipotence. General Groves, the Pentagon man assigned to oversee the project,
would have been better named General Gross for this picture. He has all the
moral finesse of some of the members of Ronald Reagan's regime. The part is,
however, well-rendered by Paul Newman. There are many seemingly insignificant
details that do this movie in. For instance, the recent addition to the
language the word 'bimbo' is used. Remember this story takes place in the
early forties. Yogi Berra's oft-quoted statement, "It ain't over till it's
over," had not yet been uttered, much less popularized. Modern looking diesel
locomotives had not yet completely replaced steam engines. I myself can
remember going from Boston to Chicago with my mother in 1947 on a train with a
steam engine that had to be replaced at night because it was so loud it kept
people awake in the sleeper cars. And the gigantic trainyards at Erie
Pennsylvania were chock full of steam giants with nary a diesel to be seen.
The score for this film, by Ennio Morricone, at one point makes a line of
trucks, meant, I suppose, to portray the earnestness of the project, look
ludicrous. The material itself just does not lend itself to anything less than
epic proportions. For one reason it is an historical drama. We all know how
the story turns out. This removed the crucial element of suspense from the
film. But nothing stepped in to take its place, no characters to root for, no
convincing love interests, not even any emotional range - which goes from mad
to angry and back. A film should definitely have a greater emotional range
than a mother-in-law. :-)
The production itself is expensive and authentic, except for what was
previously noted. The drama in the production is "Who cares!" If it weren't
for the fact that these awesome weapons still threaten us today, I don't think
anyone would have any reason at all to go see this film, except if maybe you be
an inveterate Paul Newman fan, or your mother-in-law has announced she's coming
over.
Catch this one on cable and save your money for something more important
like a six-pack and TV wrestling on Saturday night.
1 About Mathematics
Richard S. Hall
Prentice Hall, Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1973
Page 120
--Kevin Romanoeugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (10/26/89)
FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY
A film review by Eugene Miya
This review is in the public domain
This is yet another telling of the story of the development of the atomic
bomb. I have been informed by a knowledgeable person (L. Badash) that the
total count of such films is between 4-6. This story is well documented by
many historians: Hersey, Jungk, most recently, Rhoades, and dozens of other
authors.
The story is important to the history of science because it happens about
the time when science in America became "big" even before Sputnik. This makes
the story complex: few single people who stand out. The perspective is largely
from Leslie Groves (whom many people don't realize built the Pentagon) played
by Paul Newman for star value.
The second is from a new young physicist fresh from Chicago. He is
involved in many aspects of the development (ignoring compartmentalization).
The other notable members of the physics and science communities are simply
blurs. Time is compressed and distorted. A post-war event with Plutonium is
added for dramatic effect. In fact lots of stuff is sacrificed for dramatic
effect.
The "affair" that Oppenheimer has in the movie did take place, but it was
overblown. J. R. had more problems with his brother Frank (who founded the SF
Exploratorium and DID work at Los Alamos) and his Berkeley friends. These are
the basic characters.
Laura Dern plays a nurse involved the the young physicist. The other real
people from Szilard to Stimson make appearances, but you have to know the
players in advance to know who they are.
The scenery is spectacular. It rivals (nearly) the real Los Alamos. Oh,
to answer one quick question: NO, Richard Feynman does not appear as a
character.
The film does not convey the fear that the physicists and other felt at
the beginning of the war. If this film has been made closer to WWII, it would
have probably told a different story. Such advantage different perspectives
allow. Note that one scene involving radiation sickness probably had Dr.
Robert Gale (UCLA and Chernobyl) as a consultant.
Place names, code names had to be removed (who ever heard of Oak Ridge
before the War?).
The American Playhouse PBS series Oppenheimer with Sam Waterston is a
better accounting. But it tends to make the physicists looks innocent.
If you want a numeric rating an a scale from -4 to +4 (mine is Gaussian):
-1 to -0. If you want a solid historical reference (non-standard):
%A Lawrence Badash
%A Joseph O. Hirschfelder
%A Herbert P. Broida, eds
%T Reminisences of Los Alamos, 1943
%S Studies in the History of Science
%V 5
%I D. Reidel Publishing
%C Holland
%D 1980
Quick additional rating since, I was at odds with the IN COUNTRY review: -0 (contrasting to the +2).
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
{ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene