Review of Real Genius (1985) by Cori Z — 26 Jun 2011

I always enjoyed this movie, as a child. It has all the necessary ingredients for an 80's teen comedy. And that's how I always saw it growing up. After reading Robert Oppenheimer's biography, I have come to see Real Genius as a very subversive movie hidden in brainless comedy.

Behind the laughter and akwardness of smart people in their teen years(and yes I can assure you, it is a very stressful situation to be in to understand, before you can drive, the complexities of theoretical physics and mathematics and history, and still have no idea how to talk to a woman)the movie actually possess a very serious philosophical question.

The question concerns the explotation of scientific naivety(which is usually bounded by lack of funds)by the military-industrial complex(which lacks the creativity and ingeninuity to realize some of its more fanciful applications).

I think of the scene in the bar, after the creation of the 5MW laser(wonder have they made of those yet?) and Lazlo(who I think is supposed to be an Oppenheimeris character) says 'what would you use something like that for?' And Kilmer says, 'who knows, let them figure out a use for it.

' And Lazlo says, 'maybe they already have.' Only then does the serious moral and ethical problem of their creation hit them, much like the Trinity test at Los Alamos did for the scientents when the true pratical power of their theoretical bomb was made clear.

The ensuing comedy of that follows, including the destruction of Hathoway's house by popcorn, once again, cover a very subversive movie. How else can the last act be described by an act of treason for a higher moral purpose? It would be akin, to what they shamed Oppenheimer for supposedly trying to do, prevent the invention of a fusion bomb.

Behind the comedy is a bunch of acts that would result in a very very long prison stint. The power of the film, I believe is encapsulated in Kilmer's monologue about Lazlo, 'All science and no philosophy.

' You can't close your eyes to scientific knowledge but you must not succumb to myopic pursuit of it either, philosophy must inform your science and vise versa. And this is a very subversive statement, it essentially is what lead to Oppenheimer's trials, suggesting this very thing.

In 1986 the Cold War was waning, greatly, so the message is not as prevalent or relevant, practically. But scientists create things for the theoretical possiblities, without thinking of the practical consequences is very powerful and has always informed my way of thinking of the world.

"it's a moral imperative!".