
Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer delves into various themes, with the psychological horror of creating the atom bomb being one of the most talked about. However, there's another theme that I believe isn't discussed enough, one that I believe carries a message with significant implications for our understanding of human psychology and relationships. This theme is most evident in the character of Lewis Strauss, whose story centers around his belief that J. Robert Oppenheimer holds a personal grudge against him.
Strauss, portrayed as a proud yet insecure figure, becomes fixated on the idea that Oppenheimer and the scientific community are conspiring against him. His insecurity is apparent from the start, especially in moments where he feels belittled by Oppenheimer. For example, when Oppenheimer dismisses him as “just a lowly shoe salesman,” it strikes at Strauss’s fragile self-esteem. This perceived slight leads Strauss to believe that Oppenheimer is actively working against him, a belief that only grows when he mistakenly assumes that a private conversation between Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein is about him.
However, the film subtly reveals the flaw in Strauss's thinking: just because something feels true doesn’t mean it actually is. Strauss’s assumptions are driven by his own insecure perception. This is a common issue many people face, where they jump to conclusions based on how they feel rather than what they know.
In the film, this idea is visually represented through the use of black-and-white scenes during Strauss’s story. These scenes symbolize his rigid, all-or-nothing way of thinking. Strauss views the world in extremes—he’s fully convinced that Oppenheimer’s actions are entirely motivated by a desire to undermine him. This black-and-white thinking leaves no room for other possibilities, such as the idea that Oppenheimer’s actions might have nothing to do with him at all.
This kind of thinking is not unique to Strauss; it’s something many people experience in their own lives. For example, when someone doesn’t respond to a message, it’s easy to assume they’re upset with us, rather than considering other possibilities like they might be busy or simply forgot. This tendency to jump to conclusions based on limited information can lead to unnecessary stress and misunderstandings.
The movie provides a beautiful antidote to this kind of thinking in one of the pivotal moments of the third act. Senate aide challenges Strauss’s assumption about Oppenheimer and Einstein’s conversation, saying, “Since no one really knew what they said to each other that day, is it possible they didn’t talk about you at all? Is it possible they spoke about something more important?” Later, the film reveals this to be true—the conversation had nothing to do with Strauss. This revelation is symbolized by the scene’s transition from black and white to color, representing the shift from a narrow, rigid perspective to one that embraces complexity and nuance.
This shows us that making assumptions and personalizing people´s behavior towards us, is actually just a black and white view of the world. Our assumptions about others are often more about our own fears and insecurities than about reality. Just because something seems logical or feels true to us doesn’t mean it reflects the actual situation. The world is complex, and there are usually many different factors at play that we might not initially consider.
We can apply this by being more critical of our assumptions. Whenever we think someone doesn’t like us or feel insecure about a comment, it’s important to look for factual evidence that supports these thoughts. For example, consider whether there are objective signs—like someone consistently giving one-word answers to your questions (though even this could be due to them being shy or busy)—that might validate your concern. However, if you find no concrete evidence, it’s important to reassess your perception.
We should also consider positive, objective actions. For instance, if someone gives brief responses over text but smiles when they see you and asks about your life, there is conflicting evidence and not enough support for the belief that they have something against you. If you’re interested in this way of thinking, you can read about "putting thoughts on trial" from cognitive behavioral therapy. Of course, the best approach is to communicate directly if you truly feel something is wrong. Generally, this doesn’t mean ignoring your intuition or signs; it just means viewing situations with color and nuance, rather than seeing the world in black and white.
Support Young Creators Like This One!
VoiceBox is a platform built to help young creators thrive. We believe that sharing thoughtful, high-quality content deserves pay even if your audience isn’t 100,000 strong.
But here's the thing: while you enjoy free content, our young contributors from all over the world are fairly compensated for their work. To keep this up, we need your help.
Will you join our community of supporters?
Your donation, no matter the size, makes a real difference. It allows us to:
- Compensate young creators for their work
- Maintain a safe, ad-free environment
- Continue providing high-quality, free content, including research reports and insights into youth issues
- Highlight youth voices and unique perspectives from cultures around the world
Your generosity fuels our mission! By supporting VoiceBox, you are directly supporting young people and showing that you value what they have to say.