Film Review: Fat Man and Little Boy (1989)

Film Review: Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) | Ecency

(source: tmdb.org)

In past few months increasing number of influential commentators and opinion makers in Western capitals have begun to advocate limited nuclear war as a solution for most of the world’s problems. Such cavalier attitude to the prospect of nuclear apocalypse can be best explain that a dwindling section of world’s population today have lived through the events that led and experienced the aftermath of the first and the last use of nuclear weapons in actual armed conflict. The events that led to it are the subject of Fat Man and Little Boy, 1989 period epic directed by Roland Joffé.

The plot begins in September 1942, roughly nine months since United States entered Second World War. Things don’t go too well for the Allies and they could go even worse if intelligence reports about Nazi Germany developing secret weapon called “atom bomb” are correct. United States have decided to leave nothing to chance and US Army Colonel Leslie Groves (played by Paul Newman), an engineer who has recently built Pentagon, is appointed to development of an American atom bomb under code name “Manhattan Project”. The man who would lead scientists in the project is physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (played by Dwight Schultz) and he would spend next three years in Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico. Oppenheimer and his scientist have to deal with issues of security, hardships of living in remote locations and solve all kinds of scientific and technical problems related to the weapons many of them see as merely theoretical. But, as the project advances, tension begins to escalate between no-nonsense gung ho militarist Groves who wants to build the bomb at all costs and Oppenheimer, an intellectual with leftist sympathies who, just like some of his more outspoken peers, begins to doubt whether creation of such unimaginably destructive device is justified. Those debates further escalate after Germany surrenders in May 1945 and USA has only to fight Japan, a country that is less likely to develop atomic bomb of its own and is close to capitulation. This leads many to believe that the completion and actual use of the bomb isn’t justified.

Story about Manhattan Project which is, together with Apollo Project, one of the most spectacular scientific endeavours of 20th Century, has been covered by documentaries and few dramatisations, including 1989 television docudrama Day One. Roland Joffé, British director who became famous by previous two historic epics The Killing Fields and The Mission, tries to give it a treatment worthy of old school Hollywood “larger-than-life”. And, just like in those films, subject matter is to be covered with slightly leftist bent. However, there is one major problem Joffé and his screenwriter Bruce Robinson failed to solve – story of Manhattan Project actually lacked proper drama. This is especially evident in the first part which covers creation of research facility and everyday lives of the scientists and military personnel involved in the project. Joffé and Robinson try to artificially create tension between Groves and Oppenheimmer and give inappropriately large attention to Oppenheimmer’s relationship to Communist-sympathising girlfriend Jean Tatlock (played by Natasha Richardson), which is handled in melodramatic and unconvincing fashion. They also try to fill the blanks by introducing fictional character of young scientist Michael Merriman (played by John Cusack) who would also provide romantic subplot with the nurse (played by Laura Dern); that effort, although Merriman actually represents composite of two real life Los Alamos scientists, his character is unconvincing and his fate looks like too much melodrama. The plot actually becomes interesting only in second part, when the prospect of possible Japanese surrender brings all kinds of ethical dilemmas to the characters, but it happens too late to have the proper impact. The cast is mostly decent, although they don’t have much to work with, with the exception of Newman who plays tough military man with great ease. Dwight Schultz, actor best known for comical roles of “Howling Mad” Murdock in The A-Team and Reginald Barclay in Star Trek, obviously enjoys opportunity to play serious dramatic character for a change, but his efforts are compromised by script that fails to properly explain contradictions and internal conflict within Oppenheimer. Even more disappointing is the ending that expect audience to know what actually happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the dark shadow those events have cast throughout the decades of Cold War; it is quite likely that the younger section of the audience would be at odds what the ending have meant. Although shot well by cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond who has put Mexican locations to good use, Fat Man and Little Boy suffers from uninspired and mostly annoying soundtrack by Ennio Morricone. Although its subject might be unpleasantly relevant for our times, this film represent disappointment and shouldn’t be recommended to any but the most curious segment of the audience.

RATING: 4/10 (+)