Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer Acceptance Speech Was Disappointing, But Unsurprising

First of all, congratulations to Christopher Nolan for winning the Best Director Academy Award (and to the whole team winning Best Picture) for Oppenheimer. The film bro favourite is, finally, an Oscar winner! Although I am not someone who knows a lot about the technical aspects of filmmaking, from what I’ve read about the movie-making feat that is Oppenheimer, it’s an award that’s well deserved. When that test bomb goes off, you feel it physically.

I’m more of a story person (not a surprise, right?). The story woven by Nolan, who wrote as well as directed Oppenheimer, asks us a powerful question – as all good art does. Was it worth it? Not just for humanity, democracy, the West… but did the ends justify the means, personally and morally, for J. Robert Oppenheimer, the man who invented the damn thing?

The moral question at the heart of Nolan’s Oppenheimer could not be more relevant and urgent for our times right now. Which is why it is bitterly disappointing that Nolan did not use his Best Director acceptance speech to call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

How powerful would it have been for Nolan to point out that Oppenheimer’s dilemma is not only a historical one? The U.S. and its allies are currently supporting and directly funding the aggressive expansionism of a nuclear power – Israel. Anyone moved by Oppenheimer’s own grappling with the fact that he killed over 200,000 people in the pursuit of ‘peace’ (and harmed countless more) must also question the indiscriminate death and destruction the U.S, Western allies and Israel are raining down on Palestinians.

I have to assume Nolan himself was moved by the art he created. In his BAFTAs acceptance speech for Best Director, Nolan took the time to recognise the importance of anti-nuclear campaigners. “While the film ends on a dramatically necessary note of despair, in the real world there are all kinds of individuals and organisations who have fought long and hard to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Since its peak in 1967 they’ve done it by almost 90% – of late that’s gone the wrong way. And so in accepting this I do just want to acknowledge their efforts and point out that they show the necessity and potential of efforts for peace.”

Cillian Murphy won Best Actor for his portrayal of Oppenheimer, which he dedicated to “peacemakers everywhere”. But calls for simple ‘peace’ at this time are a cop out. Stronger language is needed. As I wrote in this newsletter back in October, people interpret ‘peace’ as a “lack of bombs and bullets. Peace’ is a call to end the ‘warring’, but does not offer much after that.”

There is no greater effort for peace right now than a permanent ceasefire. It’s not a whole solution on its own, but there can be no ‘peace’ without it. 

Using his time on one of the biggest stages of cultural influence in America to call for a ceasefire would be morally consistent with the piece of art that Nolan has created. Hollywood and U.S. politics are deeply intertwined. Art is political. This was absolutely the place to call for the U.S. government to use its power to stop a genocide, to stop actively escalating a conflict that could very well expand to nuclear violence. 

Why bother making art that’s critical of a historical war if you refuse to use its platform to criticise war in the here and now? Why explore the damage caused by McCarthyism in America’s political and cultural spheres (Oppenheimer was accused of being a communist), if you won’t point out how another version of the same is unfolding again, right now?

Sir, this is quite literally what your movie is about!

Other directors have been unafraid to speak up. Jonathan Glazer’s Zone of Interest – a German-language film about the Holocaust – won Best International Feature, and Glazer did not miss his chance. On stage, he said: “All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present. Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many innocent people — whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza — all the victims of this dehumanization… how do we resist?”

Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon was also nominated in Best Picture, and him for Best Director too. Regardless of whether you liked the movie or not (whether you think it did the job well enough or not) Scorsese has been very direct about what he wants audiences to understand about the story’s relevance to the here and now: “The most important thing to remember is that while the story is set in the 1920s, it’s not a ‘historical’ film. What I mean by that is, that the effects of the tragedy are still felt within the community.”

Against these two examples, Nolan’s refusal to connect his historical war biopic to the present day sucks the significance right out of his win and his work.

We put so much pressure on women and diverse creatives to use their fame, big moments and their art to make political statements, even when the work itself is not explicitly political. They are not exempt from critique either – lord knows I’ve written more than my fair share of commentary interrogating the feminist and political impact of Barbie. But you rarely see the same pressure to draw parallels to injustice in the present day asked of male creatives, especially white men.

Nolan had an opportunity today to stand behind his award-winning work in the most meaningful way possible. He squandered it. I’m not entirely surprised, but as someone who has insisted on the power of arts, culture and entertainment as a vehicle for change… I’m disappointed. 

Smart people read more:

Rejecting the Marvel-ization of Culture: How to Find Entertainment Outside the Mainstream

How Hollywood’s Anti-Communist Crackdown Made TV and Movies Bland and Boring – Jacobin

‘Who wasn’t complicit?’ How Martin Scorsese won the trust of the Osage Nation – Guardian