Why did James Cameron call Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer a “moral cop out?”

Filmmaker James Cameron has a critique of fellow director Christopher Nolan’s award-winning film, Oppenheimer. In a recent interview with Deadline, Cameron responded to a question about the success of Oppenheimer at the box office as well as in the awards circuit, and said,

“Yeah…it’s interesting what he stayed away from. Look, I love the filmmaking, but I did feel that it was a bit of a moral cop out.”

Cameron called Nolan’s film a “moral cop out” because he claimed that the British filmmaker did not adequately capture the impact of dropping the atomic bombs on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nolan’s film was an exploration of the creation of atomic weapons by real-life scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his team during World War II.

Continuing, Cameron, in his conversation with Deadline, commented on Nolan’s film and added,

“Because it’s not like Oppenheimer didn’t know the effects. He’s got one brief scene in the film where we see — and I don’t like to criticize another filmmaker’s film – but there’s only one brief moment where he sees some charred bodies in the audience and then the film goes on to show how it deeply moved him.”

According to Cameron, Christopher Nolan’s film did not explore in detail the impact of the bombs on the Japanese people. He said,

“But I felt that it dodged the subject. I don’t know whether the studio or Chris felt that that was a third rail that they didn’t want to touch, but I want to go straight at the third rail. I’m just stupid that way.”

Cameron also shared that he is in the process of developing a film based on the experiences of the blasts centered around Hiroshima and Nagasaki, based on the upcoming book, Ghosts of Hiroshima, by writer Charles Pellegrino.

Christopher Nolan has previously been candid about Oppenheimer’s take on the atomic blasts

Christopher Nolan has openly responded to questions about the main character’s moral predicament in his film Oppenheimer, which was released in 2023. During a conversation that same year with The New York Times, Nolan emphasized the moral ambiguity at the core of the scientist, and said,

“I think it’s very easy to make the case for Oppenheimer as the most important person who ever lived, because he is the person who facilitated and achieved atomic weapons and indeed the hydrogen bomb…His story is central to the way in which we live now and the way we are going to live forever. It absolutely changed the world in a way that no one else has changed the world. You talk about the advent of the printing press or something. He gave the world the power to destroy itself. No one has done that before.”

Talking about the moral implications of creating the atomic bomb, Nolan told the publication at the time,

“That’s a pessimistic view if his invention actually ended the world. If it didn’t, he’s still the most important man because the bomb would’ve stopped war forever. We haven’t had a world war since 1945 based on the threat of mutual assured destruction. So there are two ways of looking at this contribution. And we don’t know which one is right.”

Nolan also referred to the geopolitical dynamics shaping Oppenheimer’s story and added,

“A lot of what he said about arms control and the way in which events would unfold has proven to be absolutely true. A lot of it has also seemed hopelessly naïve. This is a story that doesn’t have an ending yet. For better or for worse, I really believe him to be one of the more clearly ambiguous figures in history.”

Despite doing increasingly well at the awards circuit and grabbing seven Oscars, the film, upon its release, had its fair share of critics. Film critic David Ehrlich of Indiewire noted that the film fell short of representing the devastating impact of the bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In fact, Ehrlich called the film “frustratingly vague at the precise moment it seems poised to reckon with the unique burden of its namesake’s brilliance.” The critics reckons that the filmmaker should have attempted to explore at least its protagonist, Oppenheimer’s conflicting mental processes around the bombings.

Christopher Nolan’s response to the critics of the film has been consistent. In a conversation with Variety, he noted,

“My research and my engagement with this story tell me that anyone claiming a simple answer is in denial of a lot of the facts. Obviously, it would be much better for the world if it hadn’t happened. But so much of the attitude toward the bombing depends on the situation of the individual answering the question. When you speak to people whose relatives were fighting in the Pacific, you get one answer. When you look at the devastating impact in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you get another.”

Providing a defense of his characterization of Oppenheimer, Nolan told Variety,

"The film presents Oppenheimer’s experience subjectively. It was always my intention to rigidly stick to that. Oppenheimer heard about the bombing at the same time that the rest of the world did. I wanted to show somebody who is starting to gain a clearer picture of the unintended consequences of his actions. It was as much about what I don’t show as what I show.”

Ultimately, Christopher Nolan emphasized that his film was intended to encourage debate and discussion.