The Day After Trinity

Often gripping documentary detailing the father of the American atomic bomb. Two interesting themes emerged throughout the film. The first is the tension between the delight of scientific discovery and the social responsibility for its results. The second was the story of how the American government co-opted the scientific brilliance of a generation of progressive/left-wing scientists (who were rallied by anti-fascist fervour) to ignite a so-called Cold War with Communist Russia.

In both cases the hubris of the scientists (that nuclear weapons can be controlled, that politicians will act selflessly and share the knowledge, and enter into an international stewardship of the Bomb) reminds us of the gulf between technical skill and political savvy.

All of this is well presented well in the film, focused through the lens of the story of Robert Oppenheimer, and his triumphs and failings - his genius and short-sightedness - are laid bare. It does falter a bit after detailing the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - seeing anything after the presentation of this destruction leaves us emotionally exhausted - but Oppenheimer's fall from grace does feel like an anti-climax, and seems a little rushed.

Rating 7 out of 10 (quite good).

I first saw this documentary in 1981 and I am not exaggerating when I say it changed my life. A few years later I took an 18 month unpaid leave from my professorship to work as a full-time volunteer trying to defuse the nuclear threat. While many factors contributed to that decision, "The Day After Trinity" certainly was one of them.

The thing that impressed me most about this film was that it showed me how we can fool ourselves as to our motivation. We think we base our decisions on a rational foundation, but this film helped me to see places in my own past where I had made major decisions and not been totally honest about some of my motivation. We have socially acceptable and socially unacceptable reasons for doing things and hide the socially unacceptable ones even from our own consciousness. But they are at work in the unconscious, where they can take over and do great harm. Watching this film made me vow to do my utmost never to do that again. (It's not as easy as it might sound!) It is not light fare, but definitely worth watching. Aside from what a viewer can learn from it, the film is very well done, with much high drama.

Can't wait for Nolan's 'Oppenheimer', so decided to see this docu. Quiet old but the story itself is pretty amazing. No wonder Nolan picked this story. Guess even without an advance in Germany with the allied troops, this is where the Nazis lost. Innovation is key! Glad Hitler and the Nazis didn't invest much in it. Got me curious how Nolan will use this powerful story of the Manhattan Project and Oppenheimer to his weird but entertaining storytelling.

Jon Else's documentary, The Day After Trinity, is about the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a genius who helped develop the atomic bomb and whose life ended in criticism by Joseph McCarthy. The film also documents the establishment of Los Alamos and the length of time that led up to the Trinity test along with interviews of the people who worked with Oppenheimer. It is the best document involving nuclear weapons that I have seen and I highly recommend it to those would like to know more about the people who assisted on the world's most dangerous weapon. The actual footage of the hoisting of the bomb is excellent.

I came to look at this television documentary shortly after seeing Christopher Nolan's OPPENHEIMER (2023). The principal difference in the story is that in Nolan's movie, he tries to mislead the security forces about his sources concerning Russian spying at Alamogordo, and is later surprised to discover that it centered around Haakon Chevalier; in the documentary, he is the source for suspicions about the man.

It's not enough to change the story about Oppenheimer, but with the same set of facts, one can construct many stories. Nolan's movie is much more about Oppenheimer's personal life, and begins much earlier. This offers a viewpoint of his activities after the war, to control and limit the damage caused by his work. Each takes advantage of considerable hindsight to reach very different conclusions, both of which seem impeccable given the facts chosen by each. Based on having seen both within a short period of time, I can only conclude that they are both brilliantly done, and both badly lacking in completeness.