Promethean Perspectives in Cinema: A Comparative Analysis

Oppenheimer (2023)

We have to make the politicians understand, this isn’t a new weapon. It’s a new world. I’ll be out there doing what I can, but you… you’re an American Prometheus. A man who gave them the power to destroy themselves […] (Oppenheimer min. 00:48:15).

The first movie to be analyzed is Oppenheimer (2023), written, directed, and produced by Christopher Nolan and it is based on the 2005 biography American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. This movie displays many aspects of the Prometheus mythologeme, and it does it in a more explicit manner. As a matter of fact, in the very first scene of the film, this is precisely what it can be read: «Prometheus stole the fire from the Gods and gave it to men. For this, he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity» (Oppenheimer min. 00:01:02). It is evident, therefore, that this is a highly explicit reference to the mythologem that Aeschylus recounts in his tragedy Prometheus Bound.

The work can be classified in the biopic genre as it is centered on the historical figure of Julius Robert Oppenheimer, in this case portrayed by the actor Cillian Murphy. Oppenheimer was an American physicist involved during World War II in the “Manhattan Project”, whose goal was very specific: to find the quickest and most effective way to develop an atomic weapon capable of ensuring the definitive superiority of the U.S. military, especially over the Nazi regime.

Oppenheimer is dense with details, laden with pathos, and primarily structured through dialogues that form its backbone. What’s more, the film is not linear; in fact, from the very beginning, a bilinear narrative is presented: one in color and one in black and white. The black-and-white narrative is projected towards the future, as suggested by the nature of the dialogues presented with this chromatic choice: for example, discussions about the explosion of the atomic bomb or the consequences it is having in the world. The colored narrative, on the other hand, focuses on the timeline of the bomb’s development and how Oppenheimer came to lead this project. This cinematic dichotomy invites viewers to oscillate between past and future, facilitating a nuanced exploration of Oppenheimer’s moral conundrums and existential dilemmas. In fact, depending on the perspective we choose to adopt, we are presented with either flashbacks or flash-forwards. Both timelines intertwine and add complexity to the movie.

However, film critics have divergent interpretations of the narrative chromatic symbolism. Some posit that the color timeline simply represents the scientist’s point of view, while the black-and-white timeline represents the perspective of Lewis Strauss, the entrepreneur portrayed by Robert Downey Jr., who brings the protagonist of the story to trial.

In crafting the character of Oppenheimer, Nolan aims to explore the moral and human ambiguity and frailty that Oppenheimer embodies and symbolizes. Oppenheimer emerges as a figure oscillating between conflicting impulses, navigating the precarious terrain between ambition and ethical responsibility, duty and necessity. Much like the mythological Prometheus, he is guilty of hubris, an audacity towards the gods and men, enough to disrupt the order of things. Just as the restless Titan Prometheus stole fire from the gods to give it to men, so does Oppenheimer by giving humanity the atomic fire. However, when he tried to control it, to make us understand its terrifying threats, institutions like Zeus struck to punish him. Similarly to Prometheus, Oppenheimer challenges the limits of the possible, of nature, and gave humanity the means to self-destruct.

Oppenheimer was tortured not with chains, but with a torment perhaps even more lacerating, the psychological suffering, depression, and anxiety, and it is due to the fact that his creation killed innocent lives. Indeed, the recurring motif where he closes his eyes refer precisely to this feeling, to that desire to keep those monsters of his conscience at bay and to that futile attempt to shield himself from the monster within himself. Yet, once knowledge has been unleashed, there’s no turning back. The fire that Oppenheimer gave to humanity only aims to destruction and domination: it basically shows the negative part of the mythologem.

The fire present in Oppenheimer and its terrible consequences can be well connected to Bachelard’s study in The Psychoanalysis of Fire. In his book, he explains how fire is fundamental to our childhood; it is both an intimate and universal element, and it is more a social reality than a natural reality. In fact, it is a source of general prohibition. What we learn from fire is that we must not touch it, otherwise we would burn ourselves and violate our parents’ command. Bachelard states: «The child wishes to do what his father does, but far away from his father’s presence, and so like a little Prometheus he steals some matches» (Bachelard 1938: 11). Oppenheimer perfectly embodies that child who surpasses the prohibition, takes possession of the fire, and transforms it into a weapon of total destruction.

As the narrative unfolds, Oppenheimer foresees that the chain reaction triggered by the bomb will lead to the end of humanity, to an arms race that will bring about an ecological apocalypse caused by the advancement of technology, the same technology that worried Mary Shelley and that she herself discusses in the Preface to her novel Frankenstein.

In summary, Oppenheimer stands as an exploration of moral ambiguity and existential dread, offering a sobering reflection on the ethical implications of scientific innovation and leaving us with some debatable reflections: what if the Nazis had discovered the atomic bomb? What would have happened? Would it have been worse?

The Current War (2017)

A situation analogous to that depicted in Christopher Nolan’s movie can indeed be observed in The Current War, a 2017 film directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon. While this movie did not achieve the same level of success as Oppenheimer, it similarly conveys a powerful Promethean theme. In Italy, the movie was released under a different title that appears to focus on a single character: Edison – L’uomo che illuminò il mondo. However, despite what the Italian title might imply, the film is a biopic that does not center solely on one individual but on two key figures. On one hand, there is Thomas Edison, portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch, the American inventor renowned for his creation of the incandescent light bulb and his advocacy for direct current. On the other hand, there is George Westinghouse, played by Michael Shannon, an entrepreneur and engineer who championed the use of alternating current, considering it more efficient and suitable for long-distance distribution. A formidable rivalry ensues between these two protagonists, a contest over who will succeed in bringing electricity to homes and industries.

The pivotal aspect of this analysis is that the electricity at the core of the film also possesses dark facets. While it facilitates illumination, progress, and technological advancement, it also harbours the potential for great destruction. Much like Promethean fire, it can provide warmth and light but also has the capacity to devastate.

At the very beginning, Edison refuses to sanction the use of electricity for any purpose other than lighting the bulb. However, as the narrative progresses, his psychological stance evolves, particularly when pressured by his business rival Westinghouse. At a specific juncture in the movie, Edison is engaged in experiments, notably involving the patent for the electric chair. Initially, electricity is tested on an animal, a horse, and subsequently employed to execute those convicted of murder, thus replacing death by hanging. Consequently, the electric chair emerges as an instrument of execution.

Furthermore, I would like to focus on another aspect of the movie: the term “electricity”. It is undoubtedly a recurring word throughout the film and represents the foundation of the rivalry between the two protagonists. However, a deeper analysis reveals that it is also a frequently occurring term in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In the novel, electricity serves as the bridge between the “living” and the “non-living”, and it embodies the enthusiasm and the drive for discovery that propels Victor from the very beginning of the story. In his mind, it works as a ritual, a magical word that pushes him to seek answers in new science, abandoning the old one.

Indeed, in the first chapter of the novel, Victor recounts how his fascination with the new science of electricity began during a violent storm:

The catastrophe of this tree excited my extreme astonishment; and I eagerly inquired of my father the nature and origin of thunder and lightning. He replied, “Electricity”, describing at the same time the various effects of that power (Shelley 1818: 24).

He witnesses the raw power of nature as lightning strikes a tree, an event that ignites his curiosity and drives his subsequent experiments. This moment of revelation mirrors the pivotal role that electricity plays in Frankenstein.

But if we delve deeper into the novel, new aspects can be uncovered. In chapter four, we can observe:

It was on a dearly night of November, that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet (Shelley 1818: 41).

Mary Shelley refers to a «spark» that brings Victor’s creature to life, hinting at the use of electricity to reanimate a body, an innovative idea at the time the novel was published. In the late eighteenth century, Luigi Galvani demonstrated how electrical currents could stimulate muscle movement in dissected frog legs. Shelley was well aware of these experiments, and Galvani’s work was a major influence in shaping the concept for her novel.

Electricity embodies a dual nature: it serves both as a catalyst for life and a sign of death. This theme resonates strongly in both The Current War and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In the former, electricity illuminates cities and fuels progress, yet it also becomes a tool for execution via the electric chair, revealing its destructive potential. Similarly, in Frankenstein, electricity animates Victor’s creation, symbolizing scientific advancement, but also leads to tragic consequences, underscoring its perilous nature.

This dichotomy is further emphasized by a pivotal scene in The Current War (The Current War min. 1:26:22). A split-screen sequence juxtaposes George Westinghouse’s presence at a fair showcasing his innovations, while Edison’s electricity is used for the electric chair. Here, Edison’s ambition is laid bare: a man who once shunned violence now resorts to taking a life in his quest to outdo Westinghouse.

A.I. – Artificial Intelligence (2001)

I am alone, and miserable; man will not associate with me (Shelley 1818: 144).

To close the circle on the Promethean theme explored in the previous movies is A.I. – Artificial Intelligence. Directed by Steven Spielberg, this film diverges from the classic Promethean myth to investigate more intimate and complex aspects. The movie, an adaptation of Brian Aldiss’s 1969 short story Supertoys Last All Summer Long, fully embraces the science-fiction genre. While remaining faithful to the original work, Spielberg delves deeper into the themes without altering the basic plot.

A.I. transports us to an apocalyptic future where climate change has caused the polar ice caps to melt and major cities to flood. In this context, a scientist, in an attempt to fill the emotional void of childless families, creates David, a robot capable of love, played by the actor Haley Osment. But can humanity reciprocate this love? The creation of David represents the pinnacle of human obsession with creating life in its own image, a recurring theme in Promethean literature. This desire to play God is dangerous, as already demonstrated in Frankenstein. In A.I., the destroyed world and limited resources impose strict population control, with many couples unable to have children. The protagonist family has a sick and cryogenically frozen child, awaiting a cure: another attempt to defy death and prolong life. David, whose name in Hebrew means “beloved”, is initially met with reluctance by the family but gradually forms an emotional bond, calling the woman who cares for him “mom” for the first time. This event marks a crucial moment, breaking the barrier between humans and androids. However, in the second part of the movie, the mother, exhausted from maintaining a fictitious relationship, abandons David. This event highlights the human cruelty and utilitarianism, since David is seen at first as a useful object to cherish the human needs and then cruelly discarded once he is no longer useful. David then embarks on a journey to find his mother, a journey that is both physical and psychological. And it is in this precise point that the parallel between the Creature and David emerges.

As observed, the movie approaches the Frankenstein without making direct references: both David and the Creature are abandoned children of their creators, forced to seek themselves and face a hostile world. David, like the Creature, is a being in search of love and acceptance, but destined to confront human indifference and fear.

The reference to Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is evident and significant in A.I. – Artificial Intelligence. It is no coincidence that Brian Aldiss was a great admirer of Mary Shelley. Aldiss explores similar themes in his novel Frankenstein Unbound, which further attests to his fascination with Shelley’s works and the Promethean myth.

For this analysis, it is useful to explore the aspects that David and the Creature share through a list.

• Artificial origin: both characters are the result of scientific and technological experiments. Frankenstein’s Creature is created through science and the manipulation of human tissues by Dr. Frankenstein, while David is an android designed and built by humans;
• Desire for connection and belonging: both Frankenstein’s Creature and David long for the affection and recognition of their creators and human society. They are both marginalized and rejected by society due to their artificial origins and their differences from human beings;
• Experience of human emotions and desire: both characters exhibit a complex range of human emotions and desires. Frankenstein’s Creature seeks affection, understanding, and a sense of identity, while David desperately wishes to become “real” and gain the love and acceptance of his creators;
• Journey of self-discovery and identity: both Frankenstein’s Creature and David embark on a journey of self-discovery and identity. They explore the world, strive to understand themselves and their relationships with others, and face the challenges and difficulties of being “different” in a society that often rejects them;
• Complicated relationship with their creators: both characters have a complex relationship with their creators. Frankenstein’s Creature harbors feelings of anger and revenge towards Frankenstein for abandoning him, while David desperately seeks the love and approval of his creators, even when it becomes clear that they cannot fully meet his emotional needs.

These similarities highlight how both characters embody universal themes related to identity, the search for meaning, and social acceptance, despite their artificial origins. They offer a profound reflection on the ethical and moral consequences of creating and treating artificial beings by humanity.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of the movies Oppenheimer, The Current War, and A.I. – Artificial Intelligence in relation to the Promethean myth and Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein allows us to glean critical and philosophical reflections on scientific and technological progress. In Oppenheimer, the appropriation of the “atomic fire” by the scientist translates into a destructive power beyond human control, raising ethical questions about the use of scientific knowledge. The Current War presents a similar duality, where electricity, while a symbol of progress, can become a tool of death, revealing the dark side of innovation. Finally, A.I. – Artificial Intelligence explores the emotional and moral implications of creating artificial life, highlighting the complexity of the relationships between creator and creature and the human desire to transcend natural limits.

These movies, through the lens of the Promethean myth, invite us to reflect on the risks of hubris, the arrogance of challenging the gods and natural laws, and the moral dilemmas that arise when humanity pushes beyond its boundaries. The figure of the modern Prometheus emerges as a symbol of the duality of knowledge: a source of enlightenment and progress but also of potential destruction. In light of these considerations, it is imperative that scientific research and innovation are guided by an ethical framework and an awareness of their possible consequences to prevent the Promethean fire from becoming an uncontrollable flame of devastation.