Frankenheimer, or The American Prometheus: Representations of Frankenstein and the Frankenstein myth in Oppenheimer
Jack Watermolen
Accompanying Multimodal Project
In the summer of 2023, Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, an epic, three-hour-long journey into the man behind the atomic bomb, was released. The film was a major success, becoming the highest-grossing biopic ever (Bahr, 2023), and as it took the world by storm, I was just one of many who went to see it in theaters. Nolan’s film is based on the book American Prometheus, and much of the film’s narrative is built upon the Oppenheimer-as-Prometheus metaphor (Faux & Pullen, 2025). However, upon leaving the theater, I thought not of the myth of Prometheus, but rather the myth of Frankenstein.
In this paper, I aim to highlight how Oppenheimer provides a retelling of Frankenstein and counters some of the harmful aspects of the Frankenstein myth. I will begin by describing current scholarly views on how both Frankenstein and the Manhattan Project have evolved into myths within the collective imagination, identifying the common tropes among both of their retellings as well as the effects of these myths. Then, I will establish how Oppenheimer functions as a retelling of Frankenstein and how, through this retelling, Oppenheimer serves as a “counter-narrative” (Nagy et al., 2018a, p. 290) to the Frankenstein myth. To do so, I will utilize the “Fission-Fusion” narratives within Oppenheimer and explain how each narrative rewrites one of the tropes of the Frankenstein myth described by Nagy et al. (2018a). The results of this analysis demonstrate the ways in which popular, non-Frankensteinian media can counteract the Frankenstein myth, providing broader lessons on how harmful myths and narratives can be countered within popular discourse.
Scientific Mythologies
The Frankenstein Myth
When Mary Shelley wrote her novel Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus in 1818, the world was on the cusp of vast scientific and technological change. Figures like Johann Friedrich Blumenbach were promoting new anatomical ideas, while Giovanni Aldini was experimenting with electrical methods of resurrection. Indeed, Shelley got the idea for her novel while at the Villa Diodati on Lake Geneva with her lover and future husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, as well as the poet Lord Byron and Byron’s physician, John William Polidori. In his journals, Polidori mentions the vast discussions about the foundations of science and various scientific principles among the group while at Villa Diodati, while Mary Shelley’s journals indicated an extensive list of works read and researched prior to her writing (Holmes, 2016). It is from this backdrop of an explosion of scientific curiosity that Frankenstein was written, a cautionary tale warning of the horrors of unbridled passion, unethical research, and scientific hubris (Nagy et al., 2018b).
However, Frankenstein ultimately became more than a cautionary tale, instead evolving into a “foundational myth” surrounding science (Nagy et al., 2019). While, like all mythologies, there are variations of the Frankenstein myth, Cohen (2018) identifies the most commonly used and widely described version, hinted at in the novel’s “Modern Prometheus” subtitle, as:
“the idea that mad scientists playing God…will cause the entire human species to suffer eternal punishment for their trespasses and hubris.”
Nagy et al. (2018a) flesh out the nuances of this idea, outlining how the Frankenstein myth has five commonalities across various retellings. First, they assert, the “secrets” of the natural world can only be uncovered via “intense” scientific inquiry. Second, science is tied to the interests and ambitions of scientists. Third, the “secret” knowledge acquired through science permits the transcendence of human imperfections. Fourth, science can produce life-like entities with the possibility such creations will become hostile towards their creators. Fifth, given science can be used beneficially and harmfully, society must regulate scientific inquiry and channel its potential toward positive results (Nagy et al., 2018a, pg. 281). These tropes serve as the foundation for narratives that aim to retell the Frankenstein myth, which has been adopted and reshaped throughout the centuries.
Since the publishing of the novel, the Frankenstein myth has become part of the scientific and cultural mainstream. The myth has influenced an array of scientific fields, such as modern biology or medical science, and even became a source of inspiration for some scientists (Cohen, 2018). Beyond the scientific community, the myth has grown so large as to overshadow its source material, being more widely known than the original novel (Holmes, 2016). Indeed, Nagy et al. (2018a) highlight how Frankenstein has become a powerful and “overridingly negative” symbol for science and scientists, with the myth serving as a reference for people to envisage and understand the possible dangers associated with scientific inquiry and progress (p. 280). However, the Frankenstein myth has also resulted in scientists being stigmatized due to the negative images associated with it (Nagy et al., 2018b). In other words, the Frankenstein myth has framed and shaped many people’s perceptions and interpretations of science.
Nuclear Origin Myth
However, Frankenstein is not the only myth that influences people’s perceptions within popular imagination. Indeed, nuclear discourse is influenced by a set of tropes surrounding the retelling of the Manhattan Project, which Considine (2022) termed the ‘Nuclear Origin Myth’. Through the application of Kenneth Burkes’ concept of Entelechy, Considine (2022) describes how the development of the atomic bomb is depicted as 1) a perfected and inevitable conclusion of science, 2) a race against the Nazis, and 3) the product of a fetishized and masculine intellect. All of these are, of course, myths, but their proliferation, through the retelling of the story of the Manhattan Project, informs and shapes the way we think and experience nuclear discourse. In the end, this myth perpetuates “Nuclear Eternity,” or the idea that a future without nuclear weapons is impossible.
The nuclear origin myth can be seen in one of its most notable retellings: Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer. Faux & Pullen (2025) demonstrate the various ways in which Oppenheimer reproduces the nuclear origin myth, stifling anti-nuclear fears to convince the public to entrust nuclear weapons to a higher power, be it a god or human elites. However, rarely are narratives such as the nuclear origin myth present in isolation, and Oppenheimer is no exception. Indeed, the reproduction of the nuclear origin myth in Oppenheimer also follows a “hero-warrior-protector” narrative as part of its retelling of the Promethean myth (Faux & Pullen, 2025, p. 6). Ultimately, Oppenheimer is merely the latest retelling of these persistent narratives surrounding nuclear weapons.
Of course, it would be dishonest to suggest the nuclear origin myth is the only narrative surrounding nuclear discourse in popular imagination. Much has been said about how stories surrounding nuclear weapons reflect the fears of the times (Taylor, 1995), how nuclear weapons were seen by some in colonized states as prestigious (Frey, 2007; see also Taha, 2022), and how there were attempts to create a utopian narrative immediately following the end of WW2 (Zeman, 2008). Yet, while more remains to be explored regarding these narratives within popular media, that is outside the realm of this paper.
Instead, I aim to explore the ways in which media surrounding nuclear weapons can present non-nuclear narratives, mainly that of the Frankenstein myth. As with the nuclear origin myth, the presence of the Frankenstein myth within medical science, biology, robotics, and other fields traditionally associated with the myth has been well documented (See Cohen, 2018; Vacquin, 2002; Nagy et al., 2018a; Nagy et al., 2018b), as has the ways scientists can mitigate these myths (See Nagy et al., 2018b; Nagy et al., 2018a; Nagy et al., 2019). However, the applicability of the Frankenstein myth to non-Frankensteinian realms of science has received less scrutiny. As such, I aim to bridge that gap in the following sections.
A Modern Frankenstein
Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer provides a unique story of creation, with Oppenheimer pursuing the invention of the atomic bomb before suffering, both morally and politically, at the hands of his creation. Much has already been said about how Oppenheimer reproduces myths and other discourses surrounding nuclear weapons (See Faux and Pullen, 2025; Slaughter, 2024). I argue Oppenheimer goes beyond these narratives and serves as a retelling of Frankenstein through its dual “Fission-Fusion” narrative, with “Fission” documenting the lead-up to the invention of the atomic bomb and ‘Fusion’ focused on the consequences following said invention, mirroring the split narrative between Victor Frankenstein and the Creature in Shelley’s novel. In doing so, the film serves as a “counter narrative” (Nagy et al., 2018a, p. 290) to the Frankenstein myth by rewriting several problematic aspects.
Now, with two overlapping, interconnected narratives that span almost three hours, Oppenheimer retells Frankenstein and rewrites the associated mythology far more thoroughly than I can document in this paper. As such, I will center my analysis on how Oppenheimer rewrites two of the tropes outlined by Nagy et al. (2018a), those being how the secrets of the natural world can only be uncovered through scientific inquiry and how science can produce life-like entities with the possibility such creations will become hostile towards their creators. These two are, in my view, the most substantively rewritten and, as such, the tropes the film best counters. They are, in other words, the best examples of what I seek to illustrate, although more examples merit investigation from future researchers
Fission – Victor Frankenstein
The first narrative present in Oppenheimer is “Fission,” which documents the lead-up to the Manhattan Project, the Project itself, and its immediate aftermath through the eyes of J. Robert Oppenheimer (Nolan, 2023). For the sake of simplicity, “Fission” can be understood as the scenes in color and “Fusion” as the black and white scenes, although there is no clear distinction as to where one ends and the other begins. Given both Oppenheimer and Frankenstein characterize their titular character as Prometheus, with both narratives focused on and told through the experiences of the titular character (Shelley, 1818/1993), I assert the portrayal of Oppenheimer is best understood as Nolan’s version of Victor Frankenstein. From there, the “Fission” narrative can be understood as a retelling of Frankenstein’s past prior to his creation and the few months immediately afterward.
The first parallels between Frankenstein and Oppenheimer become apparent within the first minutes of the film, as during the beginning of Oppenheimer’s security hearing, he describes going to Europe to study “new physics” and says he was troubled by “visions of a hidden universe” (Nolan, 2023, 0:03:02-0:03:42). The use of words such as “new” and “hidden” establishes that there is “secret knowledge” (Nagy et al., 2018a) to be uncovered, keeping Oppenheimer up late at night akin to his 19th-century counterpart, and serving as motivation for his scientific inquiry. Much like how Frankenstein was guided in his quest for knowledge by M. Krempe and M. Waldman (Shelley, 1818/1993), Oppenheimer was guided by Niels Bohr and Patrick Blackett, with the former dismissive of his potential and the latter encouraging. Additionally, the intensity of Oppenheimer’s inquiry can be seen as the film alternates between Oppenheimer’s different experiments, such as tossing a ball up and down or watching how glass shatters, and him rapidly drawing equations onto a chalkboard, interspersed by more of Oppenheimer’s intense visions.
From there, Oppenheimer’s inquiry follows the path of Frankenstein, growing ever larger and more consuming. While Oppenheimer does not deprive himself of “rest and health” (Shelley, 1818/1993, chap. 5), he does abandon his political pursuits, mainly the unionization of the radiation lab, after Dr. Lawrence tells him those pursuits are preventing him from working on the Manhattan Project. Once General Groves involves him, Oppenheimer opts for isolation from the rest of society to pursue his work. Much like how Oppenheimer’s counterpart in the novel isolates himself within his apartment, Oppenheimer tells General Groves he’ll need a remote location for the Manhattan Project, ultimately choosing to build it in Los Alamos, a place with “Nothing. Forty miles. Any direction” (Nolan, 2023, 0:47:38). Isolation from society isn’t the only parallel, as both dedicate significant time and resources to their work, with General Groves at one point telling Oppenheimer his progress required two years and a billion dollars. This intense scientific inquiry culminates in the Trinity test, where the extreme power of Oppenheimer’s creation is revealed.
Through the depictions of Oppenheimer’s life pre-Trinity, the film rewrites the trope of the Frankenstein myth that dictates the secrets of the natural world can only be uncovered via intense scientific inquiry (Nagy et al., 2018a). Within the novel, this inquiry is depicted as extreme to the point of harming Frankenstein as he isolated himself while neglecting his health. Furthermore, as part of Frankenstein’s recollections and warning to Walton within the novel, much of the detail surrounding the trials, tests, and tribulations Frankenstein went through to get his secret knowledge goes unmentioned (Shelley, 1818/1993). It should come as no surprise, then, that the notion of scientific inquiry being harmful is reflected within the Frankenstein myth, with the process seen as little more than a mad scientist attempting to unleash powers reserved for the divine (Nagy et al., 2019).
However, in Oppenheimer, scientific inquiry is portrayed more positively. Before the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer’s visions of the universe during his experiments are accompanied by a whimsical, energetic score that emphasizes the beautiful and majestic nature of scientific inquiry (Nolan, 2023). Once he returns to the United States, Oppenheimer is shown channeling his passion into teaching the mysteries of quantum mechanics and pioneering research on Black Holes, with that only being interrupted by the outbreak of WW2. Furthermore, during the Manhattan Project, scientists are shown as stressed but ultimately able to enjoy their work. They celebrate at news of progress, be it the further enrichment of radioactive elements or the arrival of Niels Bohr, and do so while looking happy and healthy, standing in stark contrast to Frankenstein’s emaciation. These portrayals can help destigmatize scientists, as they demonstrate what scientists do daily and provide a more holistic view of the scientific process (Nagy et al., 2018b).
Now this is not to suggest scientific inquiry is portrayed only in a positive light. Oppenheimer’s intense dedication to his scientific studies detrimentally harms his family, with one of his friends telling him “there is a price to be paid” for his scientific gifts (Nolan, 2023, 0:42:08), while several other scientists quit or almost quit due to intense disagreements and a harsh work environment imposed by the military. However, when combined with the positive aspects mentioned above, a more nuanced view of scientific inquiry is established, one that allows audiences to see the potential harms without stigmatizing scientists and blinding viewers to the positives of scientific inquiry.
Fusion – The Creature
The second narrative present in Oppenheimer is “Fusion,” characterized via black and white. While the narrative focuses on Admiral Lewis Strauss’s confirmation hearing for Commerce Secretary in 1959, with flashbacks to Strauss’s history with Oppenheimer throughout, “Fusion” begins following the atomic bombing of Japan and the end of WW2. This narrative is primarily focused on Oppenheimer’s version of the Creature, the atomic bomb, as the decisions made by Oppenheimer and other characters all revolve around it.
From here, the film adopts the nuance of the novel and, in doing so, rewrites the fourth trope of the Frankenstein myth: that science can produce life-like entities with the possibility such creations will become hostile towards their creators (Nagy et al., 2018a). A prominent theme in the novel is that the Creature could, and indeed wanted to, have been good, but through his isolation, he was turned hateful and bitter (Shelley, 1818/1993). This nuance, however, is largely lost in the myth, which instead focuses on the negative consequences of invention (Cohen, 2018; Nagy et al., 2018a; Nagy et al., 2018b). Oppenheimer’s Creature, the atomic bomb, not only rewrites the myth by showing how harmful inventions don’t need to be life-like, extending the applicability of the myth’s warning, but also reflects the nuance of the novel. Oppenheimer himself and other scientists pushed for the Creature to be good by promoting arms control, the peaceful use of atomic energy, and advocating against the fusion bomb. Yet, the Creature ultimately becomes harmful once outside its creator’s control, as Strauss and the military do not use the power of the atom for good but instead pursue policies that, as Oppenheimer hints at during the end of the film, will result in the end of the world. Once the Creature has committed harm in the form of destroying two cities and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, Oppenheimer, like Frankenstein, has a moral awakening and refuses to make more, actively insisting the United States both could not and should not pursue the development of the fusion bomb. And just like Frankenstein, Oppenheimer is punished for his refusal to make even more Creatures, with Oppenheimer and his wife made thoroughly miserable by the end of the ordeal.
Through this nuanced approach to the Creature, I argue Oppenheimer problematizes the decisions made regarding what to do with the Creature, in contrast to the implicit problematization of the entire process of discovery present in the myth, which can be seen in the fact the mere act of discovery is viewed as an attempt to play god (Nagy et al., 2019). In the context of the tale of Frankenstein, this can be understood as shifting the scrutiny on Frankenstein’s decisions to those made after awakening his Creature, the decisions that, in the Creature’s view, made it isolated and angry. This nuanced view allows for questions of morality, as many scientists did question if the bomb should’ve been dropped, and many advocated against it being used. Yet, it also prevents those questions from hindering all scientific progress since the act of scientific discovery isn’t portrayed as problematic, but rather what should be done with said discoveries. While Oppenheimer largely fails to make that problematization productive regarding fears of nuclear war (Faux & Pullen, 2025), it still provides a more nuanced viewpoint that is ultimately better than the “overridingly negative” narrative (Nagy et al., 2018a, p. 280) portrayed in the myth.
Conclusion
Ultimately, despite not coming from the traditional Frankensteinian scientific realm, I argue Oppenheimer serves as a reproduction of Mary Shelley’s classic tale and, in doing so, serves to rewrite two problematic tropes associated with the Frankenstein myth and create a more nuanced portrayal of science. I do not argue that the two tropes identified are the only ones counteracted by Oppenheimer, nor that Oppenheimer is the only non-Frankensteinian piece of media to reproduce both the myth and story of Frankenstein. Instead, I aim to highlight how Oppenheimer is a non-traditional example of retelling Frankenstein while rewriting problematic aspects associated with the myth. Given that the Frankenstein myth shapes the way many people view scientists and science as a whole, more research needs to be done as to how media like Oppenheimer serves to counter these harmful narratives. Going forward, the way we approach narratives like the Frankenstein myth will have major implications regarding the way the public views, and ultimately trusts, science.
References
Bahr, L. (2023, September 19). For filmmakers, ‘Oppenheimer’s’ $900M-plus haul is an important moment for Hollywood and theaters. AP News. Retrieved April 6, 2025, from https://apnews.com/article/oppenheimer-box-office-success-christopher-nolan-imax-413bc36ac6ae68f422c06c9b1cc0ab0a
Cohen, J. (2018, January 10). The specter of Frankenstein still haunts science 200 years later. Science. Retrieved April 6, 2025, from https://www.science.org/content/article/specter-frankenstein-still-haunts-science-200-years-later
Considine, L. (2022). Narrative and nuclear weapons politics: The entelechial force of the nuclear origin myth. International Theory, 14(3), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971921000257
Faux, E., & Pullen, R. K. (2025). A cinematic catalyst for (Re)thinking nuclear narratives. Critical Studies on Security, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2025.2471658
Frey, K. (2007). The psychology of nuclear choice. Journal of Genocide Research, 9(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520701528916
Holmes, R. (2016). Science fiction: The science that fed Frankenstein. Nature, 535(7613), 490–491. https://doi.org/10.1038/535490a
Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2018a). The enduring influence of a dangerous narrative: How scientists can mitigate the Frankenstein myth. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 15(2), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9846-9
Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2018b). Why Frankenstein is a stigma among scientists. Science & Engineering Ethics, 24(4), 1143–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9936-9
Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2019). Facing the pariah of science: The Frankenstein myth as a social and ethical reference for scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(2), 737–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00121-3
Nolan, C. (Director). (2023). Oppenheimer [Film]. Universal Pictures.
Shelley, M. W. (1993). Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved April 6, 2025, from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/84/84-h/84-h.htm.(Original work published 1818)
Slaughter, A. (2024). Nuclear Imaginaries and Power in Oppenheimer. Technology and Culture, 65(1), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2024.a920526
Taha, H. (2022). Atomic aesthetics: Gender, visualization and popular culture in Egypt. International Affairs, 98(4), 1169–1187. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac115
Taylor, B. C. (1995). The bomb in pop culture. Technology Review, 98(6), 62.
Vacquin, M. (2002). The monstrous as the paradigm of modernity? Or Frankenstein, myth of the birth of the contemporary. Diogenes, 49(195), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/039219210204919506
Zeman, S. C. (2008). “Taking hell’s measurements”: Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines and the atomic bomb from Hiroshima to Bikini. The Journal of Popular Culture, 41(4), 695–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2008.00543.x