Dinosaurs and Atomic Bombs

Jurassic Park and Oppenheimer's themes are in dialogue with each other more than ever before.

There’s a six second shot midway through Jurassic Park that starts on a person’s photograph. It’s at the forefront of the frame and is clearly more than a cute Easter egg, but it didn’t linger on the photo long enough to warrant my pre-teen self looking up who that photo might be of.

Fast forward to August 2023, the 30th-anniversary theatrical re-release of Jurassic Park, and my jaw dropped as this photo enters the frame. I didn’t have to think twice about who was in it. Because now, in 2023, the person in the photo is arguably more recognizable and popular than he’s been in 75 years. It’s J. Robert Oppenheimer.

The photo of Oppenheimer in Jurassic Park.

Now I won’t spend too much time on today’s blog comparing Oppenheimer’s creation and John Hammond’s in Jurassic Park. Spielberg himself is telling the audience all they need to know in this simple shot: just as Oppenheimer built a weapon he couldn’t fully control or comprehend, Hammond has now done the same by creating dinosaurs.

But I do want to briefly examine the lens through with the film Oppenheimer approaches the titular character and his creation, a compelling mirror to Hammond’s portrayal in Jurassic Park.

“They Won’t Understand It”

I’ve watched Oppenheimer multiple times this year, and while it leaves me reeling for a multitude of reasons, I’m always struck most by the film’s portrayal of Oppenheimer’s remarkable blindness to the potential consequences of the atomic bomb he’s building.

Maybe it was his sense of duty. Maybe it truly was to stop the Nazis at all costs (“I don't know if we can be trusted with such a weapon. But I know the Nazis can't.”). But most of all, the text of the film seems to be of the mind that Oppenheimer’s theoretical mind simply refused to engage with the real, tactical implications of the bomb until it was too late.

Oppenheimer frequently opines himself as a theorist, and those around him confirm as much. Early in the film, his professor speaks of him, saying “Nobody’s denying his insight. It’s his labouratory skills that leave a little to be desired.” Multiple times throughout the film, Oppenheimer and his colleagues repeat the mantra, “theory can only take you so far.”

These quotes and others point to the fact that Oppenheimer was well aware of his limitations, and yet makes a decision far beyond the theoretical - to spearhead the very real creation of an atomic weapon. He dives head first into the project, arguing its necessity but never quite taking responsibility for the prospective ramifications. He even dryly jokes with a supervisor minutes before the bomb is tested that the chances of destroying the world are “near zero.” After all, “what do you want from theory alone?”

It’s only once he sees the Trinity test (the detonation of the first nuclear bomb) that he realizes, or at least begins to realize, the danger in what he’s unleashed. We get his infamous quote at this moment (“I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”), pointing to his sudden understanding of what the audience has already known - there are vast repercussions to the creation of such a weapon.

Jurassic Park’s John Hammond shares many of the same traits as Oppenheimer, his blindness to the dangers of his own creation among the most relevant for my argument here. In a poignant moment mid-film, he reflects upon his movement from the theoretical to creating “something real.”

HAMMOND: You know the first attraction I ever built when I came down south from Scotland? Was a Flea Circus, Petticoat Lane...They all moved, motorized of course, but people would swear they could see the fleas. But with this place, I - - I wanted to show them something real, something that wasn't an illusion, something they could see and feel. An aim devoid of merit. We're over-dependent on automation, I can see that now. But that's all correctable for the next time around.

ELLIE: John, you're still building onto that Flea Circus, that illusion. And now you're adding onto it by what you're doing here. That's the illusion.

HAMMOND: Once we have control again we - -

ELLIE: Control?! You never had control! I was overwhelmed by the power of this place. So I made a mistake too. I didn't have enough respect for that power, and it's out now.

Both Oppenheimer and Jurassic Park seem to argue that humanity is incapable of fully comprehending the consequences of a decision until they see those consequences play out. Much like a little kid ignoring a parent’s warnings and eventually getting hurt, humans obsess over powers we really shouldn’t – and ultimately can’t – control. We see that in Ellie’s comments about never having control of the dinosaurs, and we see Oppenheimer reach a similar conclusion after witnessing the power of his nuclear test, saying “They won't fear it until they understand it. And they won't understand it until they use it.”

“Dinosaur Eats Man”

The irony of these films (and perhaps of the human condition) is the destruction that is wrought at the hands of our own creations. We the audience know the inevitable outcome while watching these films, making the characters’ blindness to the consequences of their actions all the more infuriating. No one went into Jurassic Park thinking that the dinosaur theme park would be full of only happy memories. And in a true film like Oppenheimer’s case, we’re well aware of the historical consequences of what’s being shown to us.

While partially joking early in Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm and Ellie Sattler reflect on the chaos and destruction that such a reckless creation would likely bring:

MALCOLM: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man.  Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs - -

ELLIE: Dinosaur eats man. Woman inherits the Earth.

Man re-created something that God had destroyed, and was left to suffer from the repercussions. The opening text of Oppenheimer also ominously makes mention of gods and man, stating, “Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. For this he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity.”

Whether through supernatural destruction, evolution, or human limitations, it seems there are some powers beyond our understanding that would be better off left alone. But history shows us time and time again - we just can’t help ourselves.

So we’re left with two films with massive warnings against trying to control certain ultra-powerful and unnatural creations. Viewing these films and themes through a 2023 lens, generative A.I. inevitably comes to mind, a “flea circus” technology that steals rather than creates, and whose applications and power we still don’t fully understand.

Indeed, Oppenheimer’s final supposition to Einstein in the film could just as well be said about A.I. as it could about the bomb. “When I came to you with those calculations...we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world. I believe we did.”

The “Godfather of AI” left Google earlier this year to speak freely about the dangers of the technology he helped pioneer, a move stunningly similar to Oppenheimer’s vocal opposition to the bomb following its creation.

And so we’re left to grapple with our recklessness as a species. Whether it’s a 30-year old film or a new film about events of the 1940s, cautionary tales such as these serve as reminders of humanity’s timeless struggle to wrangle forces beyond our comprehension, a sobering reflection on our collective hubris.

These films warn us that all too often, our pursuit of innovation outpaces our understanding of its repercussions. It seems that humanity only realizes the consequences of our creations in the aftermath, and we find ourselves echoing Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”