At the Oscars, a reiteration of American exceptionalism

In the Oppenheimer universe, the US is right even when the US is wrong.

Seven awards, including Best Picture, for Oppenheimer, tell us something about Oscars 2024. We need not spill ink or use up gigabytes to claim for the millionth time how Cillian Murphy is a remarkable actor. Or how Christopher Nolan used the material at hand, the bestselling biography of a scientist, into a cinematic experience that swept both critics and lay cinemagoers alike. Oppenheimer’s awards sweep nudges us away from cultural debates towards realpolitik. And geopolitics beyond the subject matter of the film. The firm establishment of American exceptionalism — every once in a while a film ends up doing it masterfully.

American exceptionalism — a belief that the United States of America is exceptional — became one of the dominant leitmotifs not just internally but also on the global stage post-9/11. However, within a decade, it became severely disputed. Political scientist Seymour Lipset argued that this exceptionalism is based on the genesis of the nation. The US was, arguably, born out of a revolution and continues to “define its raison d’etre ideologically”. Americans are as Americans do. Like, believing in institutions like religion and family, and putting their faith in absolute moral authority.

The many wars of the US in the 21st century have both fostered and dismantled this exceptionalism. The US is exceptional in its single-mindedness in pursuing what it perceives as its national goals — its foreign policy is crafted accordingly. There are no essential ideological engagements — positive or negative—with any country or culture. Except in the case of communism. This single-mindedness, however, undercuts the moral authority, an important peg of American exceptionalism. The Biden administration’s role in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, for example, is for everyone to see.

In the US, national identity, nation-building, and even electoral politics are affected by a marriage of the State and cinema. According to David Haven Blake, entertainment is often imbued with civic responsibility. Hollywood has been liaising with the US government since Roosevelt’s presidency in the World War II years. Hollywood has been relentlessly engaged in copious production and export of militainment products. Everyone loves Captain America. Even those who don’t, don’t really mind the Boy Scout ethic.

But what has Oppenheimer’s success at the Oscars to do with it all? Simply put, the biopic of the father of the nuclear bomb, J Robert Oppenheimer, is a cinematic portrayal of the American Creed. According to Lipset, this idea “fosters a high sense of personal responsibility, independent initiative, and voluntarism even as it also encourages self-serving behaviour, atomism, and a disregard for communal good.” The esoteric theoretical physicist “Oppy” lives his life by the rules of the American Creed. The Academy loves this kind of celebration of Americanness. Just as it loves films that are about films.

All awards are political in nature, only differing in degrees. Instituting prizes is a mechanism for establishing hegemony. In Pierre Bourdieu’s worldview, cultural elites reward and award works that confirm their ideas and exclude from this altar the others. This “consecration” results in a much broader audience for not just cultural goods but also the ideas they manifest.

In the Oppenheimer universe, the US is right even when the US is wrong. A scientist devoted to his karma, a military commander working in the best interest of his country, a Congress doing its job by giving a hearing to the objectionable deeds of leadership — American institutional integrity is upheld by individuals who have a high sense of moral responsibility. These individuals are the cogs in the wheel of American exceptionalism.

The US needs moral currency to spare. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war may appear like a deja vu to many, owing to its interpretations using the Cold War lexicon. In a geopolitical scenario where regional blocs — from Europe to Africa to West Asia to Asia-Pacific — are beginning to look out for their interests instead of being patronised or bullied, the US is attempting to go back to the idea of exceptionalism. When allies seek equal partnerships and enemies do not fear you enough, there needs to be a show of irrefutable material and moral strength — even if played at the level of the superstructure.

More than a decade ago, the 85th Academy Awards bestowed three prizes on Ben Affleck’s geopolitical rescue thriller Argo, including Best Picture. Set in 1979 Tehran, Argo depicted the plight and eventual rescue of the US embassy staff after the revolutionary mob stormed the premises. Americans care for their own, no matter what costs or risks it entails, Argo seemed to say. With Barack Obama’s second presidency almost confirmed, and 9/11 almost avenged with the sea burial of Osama bin Laden, Argo was a further reminder that America is truly exceptional. Has always been so.

It is another matter that the film depicting the Osama bin Laden operation carried out on foreign soil, apparently without the permission of the host country Pakistan, was consoled with a shared trophy (with Skyfall of the James Bond franchise) for Best Sound Editing. Competing with Argo in several award categories, Zero Dark Thirty showed America in not such a glorious light — it emphasised torture as an essential tool to get to Osama bin Laden. But, America is an honourable country. President Obama proclaimed in a Congressional address on February 24, 2009, “I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture”. American exceptionalism cannot have any chink in its armour.

Nishtha Gautam is an author, academic and journalist. She’s the co-editor of In Hard Times, a Bloomsbury book on national security. The views expressed are personal