<PERSON>
Definitely not in tone, but it kind of reminds me of <PERSON>’s Solaris. Questions surrounding the servitude of science to morality dominate both of them, perhaps more interestingly in the latter, but it’s <PERSON> so, of course it is. Solaris is a lot more philosophically fundamental though, as <PERSON> takes a more case study approach.
I’m glad the movie takes a more psychological approach to those questions though. For instance it doesn’t show anything about Japan at all. There’s mention by a character that “we dropped a bomb on an enemy that was already defeated” but most of the moral grappling is separated from the actual facts of the historical situation, which is a good thing I think. It never appeals to evidence and never attempts to answer historical questions. If the movie actually asked historical questions about the legitimacy of the bomb, it would have to expand its scope massively, instead of being a bio-pic about a morally confused and traumatized psyche. 952
Its not about “was it moral to drop the bomb.” It’s about the maker of the bomb and the psychological consequences. I want that more.
I looked to bombing surveys and historical reviews to answer the question of the Bomb, not <PERSON>. And if I seek something more philosophically dense, I look to <PERSON>, not <PERSON>. I don’t think <PERSON> has anything to do with questioning the bomb as a philosophical or historical dilemma. It’s focus is the paranoia, motivated reasoning, and complexity of the central subject and time as a psychological case study. And it succeeds in that, And I’m glad it’s that and nothing more tbh.
From a filmmaking perspective, the editing and performances are what stand out to me. And both of these come together perfectly in the scene where he gives a speech following Hiroshima. It is a massive task to convey <PERSON> from this perspective and I can’t imagine anyone doing better than <PERSON> here. 80