―Basically a True Story:‖ The Beginning or the End, Fat Man and Little Boy, and American Remembrance of the Atomic Bomb By Theresa Lynn Verstreater B.A. in History, December 2008, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville A Thesis submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of the George Washington University in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts January 31, 2015 Thesis directed by Charles Thomas Long Assistant Professor of History Abstract of Thesis ―Basically a True Story:‖ The Beginning or the End, Fat Man and Little Boy, and American Remembrance of the Atomic Bomb The impact of film as a vehicle for dissolution of information should not be discounted because it allows the viewer to experience the story alongside the characters and makes historical moments more relatable when presented through the modern medium. This, however, can be a double-edged sword as it relates to the creation of collective memory. This thesis examines two films from different eras of the post-atomic world, The Beginning or the End (1947) and Fat Man and Little Boy (1989), to discover their strengths and weaknesses both cinematically and as historical films. Studied in this way, the films reveal a leniency toward what professional historians might consider to be historical ―truth‖ while emphasizing moral ambiguity about the bomb and the complex relationships among the men and women responsible for its creation. While neither film boasts outstanding filmmaking, each attempts to educate the viewer while maintaining entertainment value through romantic subplots and impressive special effects. The mainstream relatability of both films makes them useful points from which to launch discussions about the subject matter and the way Hollywood has chosen to remember it. ii Table of Contents Abstract of Thesis…………………………………………………………………………ii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………….iv Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 1 – The Beginning or the End………………………………….………………..6 Chapter 2 – Fat Man and Little Boy…………………………………...……………….. 24 Chapter 3 – Reflecting and Creating Remembrance……………………………………..40 Conclusion – So What?.……….……………………...……………………………….…55 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Drawing of the Chicago pile…………………………………………………….8 Figure 2. The Chicago pile in The Beginning or the End…………………………..……..9 iv INTRODUCTION When I was a young teen, I saw a movie about the American Revolution called The Patriot. There were only two reasons I went to see this movie: first, because my dad raised me to love history in all its forms, and second, because like most girls my age, I was mad for the supporting star, Heath Ledger. The film told the story of a South Carolina farmer who owned no slaves and wanted no part of independence but who was drawn into the conflict to protect his family. Mel Gibson played Benjamin Martin, the family patriarch and an amalgam for several real revolutionaries. While the story was based on actual battles and some real historical figures, the central plot regarding the Martin family was fiction invented to represent the experience of reluctant Southern rebels during the American Revolution. The film has been criticized for its omission of race as a major issue during the war and its altruistic portrayal of Southern farmers. While the film may not detail all the issues of the American Revolution, it inspired at least one young viewer to seek out her own facts about the people Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger represented and to learn a thing or two about the Revolution in the southern states. 1 While I didn‘t learn all I needed to know about the Revolution in the South from The Patriot, I did learn that history most interested me when it was relatable; Heath Ledger was someone I could relate to, or at least focus on long enough to get the film‘s message. I have always been a lover of film, and never am I more captivated by history than when it is presented in Technicolor on a giant screen as a well-written and well- acted story. The impact of film as a vehicle for dissolution of information should not be discounted because it allows the viewer to experience the story alongside the characters and makes historical moments more relatable when presented through the modern medium. This, however, can be a double-edged sword as it relates to the creation of collective memory. When seeing a horror film or a ridiculous comedy where characters make stupid decisions and seemingly impossible things happen, it is easy to remind ourselves that ―it‘s only a movie.‖ But when we‘ve been lulled into familiarity by historical figures or events we know were real, it can be more difficult to remember that we may be seeing more than ―just the facts.‖ Collective memory implies that different demographics might remember a single event in dramatically different ways depending on how people within each demographic experienced it and passed down their own memories, and how the group has reacted to and adapted conflicting narratives about the same event. For example, the American Civil War might also be referred to as The War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression, depending on where one hails from and how one‘s family or societal demographic has chosen to remember the war‘s events and causes. Each group‘s remembrance of the event is no less true to those within 2 the demographic, but it will likely differ from the remembrance of another group depending on which facts are considered most relevant to the group‘s own narrative. The primary discourse among historians of history and film centers on whether or not history as entertainment is truly historical and if it is beneficial or detrimental to viewers. The most commonly asked question in such discourse is, does it matter if historical films take liberties with historical fact for the sake of cohesive storytelling and entertainment? Whether historians like it or not, historical films are more successful than professional written history at inspiring the general public to study history. In his essay, ―In Defense of the Filmmakers,‖ historian Robert Brent Toplin discussed the popular impact of the wildly successful 1998 World War II film Saving Private Ryan: Visitors [to Normandy] wanted to see locations depicted in the popular film that starred Tom Hanks. The movie also boosted sales of books about D-Day and its aftermath written by Stephen Ambrose, the popular historian who had served as an adviser to Spielberg‘s movie project…In fact, Saving Private Ryan helped spike a general return of book readers and moviegoers to themes related to the Second World War.1 Toplin posits that moviegoers so easily remember history they see on film because the images create an emotional memory of previously learned history. On film, viewers get to see human characters experiencing history and bringing it off the page. Toplin recognizes that while historical films help to flesh out history and make it relatable, the historical genre has its flaws. He lays out five major issues present in most historical films: they usually feature ―great men‖ storylines, they focus on events rather 1 Robert Brent Toplin, ―In Defense of the Filmmakers,‖ in Lights, Camera, History: Portraying the Past in Film, ed. Ricard Francaviglia and Jerry Rodnitzky (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007), 116. 3 than ideas, their history is not comprehensive, they tell one-sided stories, and they focus ―disproportionately‖ on war.2 While all of these are valid arguments against historical film, they are circumstantial to limits of the medium. For the sake of time, several figures are condensed into a single character, as with Mel Gibson‘s character in The Patriot. Hollywood is incapable of explaining comprehensive historical arguments in a single film or even in a series, and it cannot back the arguments on screen with historiography as a historian can in a book. A film may take creative license with facts in order to maintain the overall message. The central question is: do these creative liberties invalidate the history or the film itself? Very simply, the answer is no. This thesis will examine two films about the creation of the atomic bomb, The Beginning or the End and Fat Man and Little Boy.3 Each film tells the story of the creation of the bomb from the perspective of the Manhattan Project‘s military leader, Gen. Leslie Groves, and its scientific leader, J. Robert Oppenheimer, in addition to some smaller characters created for dramatic and narrative effect. Produced in 1947, The Beginning or the End was the first film about the atomic bomb and was released barely eighteen months after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed. Released in 1989, after the Red Scare, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Reagan era, Fat Man and Little Boy is a similar story which starred famous anti-armament liberal Paul Newman as a brash and driven General Groves in the race to beat first Germany then Japan to the ultimate military weapon. The production style and tone of each film are representative of the times in which they were produced, and comparing two such similar films released more 2 Toplin, ―Filmmakers,‖ 122-126. 3 In Atomic Bomb Cinema, Jerome Shapiro claimed the latter was a remake of the former, although I have found no further evidence to prove this. It could be easy to assume this, however, because the two films share a very similar storyline and cast of characters. 4 than four decades apart presents a useful model for examining the evolution of American collective memory about the atomic bomb throughout the twentieth century. Studying them side by side reveals how little historical accuracy matters to the meaning of a film that has clearly taken a side in a historical debate.