Oppenheimer

 

DIRECTED BY:
Christopher Nolan
STARRING:
Cillian Murphy
Robert Downey Jr.
Emily Blunt
Matt Damon
Jason Clarke
Benny Safdie
Florence Pugh
Josh Hartnett
Tom Conti
Dane DeHaan
Rami Malek
YEAR OF RELEASE:
2023
PREMISE:
The story of American scientist, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and his role in the development of the atomic bomb.

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS. 

THE NEGATIVES:

Since the film itself tells the audience about the tragedy of Prometheus with text on screen in the beginning, it felt redundant and forced to have Niels Bohr refer to Oppenheimer as Prometheus later in the film.

It would’ve been better if we got a line or two of dialogue explaining the rift between Jean and Oppenheimer even before Oppenheimer married Kitty. 

While we can assume that it was probably because of Oppenheimer’s refusal to commit to the communist party or because of Jean’s mental instability or a combination of both, some explicit reasoning provided by the film would’ve still helped in making this development feel more organic and less rushed. This would’ve ultimately also made her death feel more emotionally impactful.

I didn’t really like how Oppenheimer’s famous “Now I am become death” quote was incorporated into the movie, especially during the first instance that we get to hear it — when he’s having sex with Jean Tatlock. It felt very forced and awkward.

I would’ve preferred if the final red button that set off the bomb during the Trinity test sequence was pushed by someone that both Oppenheimer and the audience felt more connected to — such as Rabi, Lawrence, Groves, or even Oppenheimer’s little brother Frank — instead of Josh Peck’s character that the audience was completely unfamiliar with. It would’ve made an already thrilling scene even more impactful.

It could’ve been better explained HOW exactly Hill got to know about Strauss’ involvement in Oppenheimer’s security clearance hearing. If we were given one or two scenes showing how Hill ascertained Strauss’ nefarious plot (which could’ve been shown AFTER he testifies, so as to not ruin the surprise), then it would’ve made that moment feel less contrived.

Oppenheimer is three hours long, packed with A LOT of historical information, dialogues, contexts, and characters, and follows a fast-paced, non-linear structure. Hence, it can feel like you’re always catching up to the movie instead of moving along with it. As a result, viewers might feel overwhelmed or completely lost as to what’s happening during their first watch. In my opinion, you can truly grasp all the nitty-gritty details of the story if you watch the movie at least twice with your full, undivided attention. 

This brings me to my next criticism — I think the film would’ve been much more emotionally resonant for me if it didn’t jump cut to 3 different timelines so frequently for majority of the runtime. I mean, it’s no surprise that most of my personal favorite / memorable moments from the film (some of which I’ve mentioned below) are when Nolan DOESN’T decide to cut the scene abruptly to a different timeline, and instead shows restraint and decides to let a scene breathe for longer than at least 2-3 minutes. 

THE POSITIVES:

TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS / MISCELLANEOUS

The wonderful performances (which I’ll be talking about later) are enhanced by the film's well written, engaging dialogues.

The way suspense and tension is built up during the entire Trinity Test sequence, reaching its culmination with the bomb going off was executed outstandingly, aided by a powerful, tense, and nerve racking background score. 

I also really appreciated that no matter the size of the bomb, we always first SAW the bomb explode before hearing its boom. This added a lot of realism to the movie.

Speaking of the Trinity Test sequence, the cinematography, visual effects, set design, and sound design during this sequence (and during the entirety of the film) were top notch.

The background music throughout the film was also very good, with the tracks ‘Can you hear the music’, ‘Destroyer of Worlds’, and ‘Trinity’ being exceptional.

I liked how the opening shot of the film that shows raindrops falling on the ground, mirrors the final shot of the film showing nuclear explosions going off all over the Earth. Also, BOTH scenes have Oppenheimer staring off into the distance, but with markedly different thoughts. 

I also liked how subtly the identity of the spy (Fuchs) is foreshadowed — When Groves, Oppenheimer, and the rest of the team are testing miniature scale bombs, Fuchs always looks at the bombs for longer than everyone else, so much so that someone always has to warn him to get his head down. 

This is extremely subjective, but the John F. Kennedy reveal / namedrop near the end of the film made me genuinely surprised and kind of excited, as if I’m gonna be watching an MCU style Nolan Biopic universe.

CHARACTERS & PERFORMANCES

Now, I’d like to review/analyze some of the central characters of the film, starting with —:

Leslie Groves

Matt Damon’s character entering around the 45 minute mark puts the film into full throttle and brings some refreshing levity and grounded-ness to the narrative. He plays the part of a rugged, conservative, arrogant, out-of-his-depth colonel extremely well. 

Watching Groves and Oppenheimer’s polar opposite personalities clash (yet still work together) was quite entertaining and definitely a highlight of the film. 

To mention a couple of scenes between them that I really liked-:

The scene where Groves just cuts straight to the point by blasting through the myth and hype around Oppenheimer in their first meeting:

And the scene where Groves and Oppenheimer have to recruit scientists but have to also frustratingly tip-toe around what the Manhattan project actually entails:

I liked how even though these two characters could not be more opposite in their background, personality, ideology, or even physicality, there is eventually an eccentric bond formed between the two men, borne out of their shared experience of creating something that would change the world forever. 

This bond is  perfectly represented in Oppenheimer’s grueling private hearing scenes — where it’s revealed that Groves chose to save Oppenheimer from the wrath of Pash,

And in the scene where Groves proudly and fearlessly defends Oppenheimer’s honor and credibility:

Lewis Strauss

First and foremost, let’s get this out of the way - Robert Downey Jr. did a great job playing Lewis Strauss. It was surprising how well he fit into the role of an antagonist even after having played a beloved superhero in one of the most popular movie franchises of all time for over a decade.

Even though Strauss’ public humiliation in front of Congress, his stark opposing views from Oppenheimer on nuclear policy, and his apprehension about Oppenheimer’s role in a aiding a leak from Los Alamos, all played a huge role in his hatred towards Oppenheimer, I liked how the film gave us many more scenes of Strauss clearly being personally offended by some of Oppenheimer’s actions, to further drive the point home, and to show that the seeds of vitriol were sown much earlier, in fact right from their very first meeting — when Oppenheimer refers to him as a “lowly shoe salesman”. Oppenheimer’s tone while making this comment was very clearly humorous and ironic, but it makes sense that someone as petty and with as huge an ego as Strauss wouldn’t simply let it pass. Strauss therefore makes it a point to right away let Oppenheimer know that he didn’t like that comment. 

Now that Strauss is already kind of hostile with Oppenheimer, we have Einstein ignoring him and walking by, which Strauss’ self-centered brain comprehends as Oppenheimer’s manipulation of Einstein against Strauss. 

Finally, the fact that Oppenheimer said he “will consider the position” at his Princeton institute instead of immediately accepting his offer further hurts his ego. 

To make things worse, Oppenheimer later also rudely refuses to greet Strauss’ daughter at his birthday party.

All of the above instances might have seemed inconsequential in the moment, but they definitely piled up and were significant in further fueling Strauss’ vindictive agenda. 

Oppenheimer

I would like to first highlight different aspects of Oppenheimer that the film uses to highlight his geopolitical naivete and idealism. 

Initially, Oppenheimer’s clear, explicit stance on building a weapon of mass destruction is essentially that it’s a necessary evil required to fight off greater threats and end World War II. 

It’s made clear what he HOPES the world would be like AFTER the bomb has been used — it would act as the best deterrent to escalated conflict and ensure peace and cooperation among countries. After the terrible tragedy gets revealed, he hopes the world would take steps to never repeat it again. 

Hence, his vehement opposition to decisions that would start an arms race (such as making a hydrogen bomb) make sense. 

And, it makes sense that he wants USA to be transparent with its allies about the atomic bomb so as to not be seen as a threat or an ally with ulterior motives.

Another one of Oppenheimer’s fundamental traits was that he lived his life by sticking to his principles/morals and not by adhering to any one particular ideology. He had a strong moral compass (barring the adultery) and used it to guide him in every situation, regardless of the repercussions he might face. Hence, he had a friend circle filled with communists, he donated to the Spanish revolution, and helped organize unions. He did these things not because he subscribed to a particular ideology (he himself never joined the communist party) but because he bravely believed they were the right things to do. 

Another example of this can be observed after the war, when Lomanitz, Frank, and Chevalier were all blacklisted/exiled (for their ties to communism). At this point, Oppenheimer knew he was in a vulnerable position and yet he still advocated against building the Hydrogen bomb. He continued to stand for what he believed in, using his fame and reputation as a shield that would protect him. He also later admitted that Chevalier is still his friend in the private hearing, despite of the cruel grilling he’d received unto that point for having left-wing associations. 

This unwavering, almost naive and stubborn adherence to principles puts him in a position of conflict with the government and politicians around him, because they, for better or worse, run fundamentally on ideologies instead of individual morals. 

His moral compass ultimately causes him to feel regret and guilt for what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the film shows the manifestation of this guilt in several interesting ways, like-:

The scene in which Oppenheimer addresses a crowd after the Hiroshima bombing and has haunting visions of the death and destruction caused by the bomb. 

I liked how as he’s giving his speech, he can’t hear the crowd despite their loud, enthusiastic cheering and clapping — signifying his disconnect from the elation that the crowd is feeling in that moment.

The film also chooses to portray his guilt in another more subtle way, by showing him almost submissively accepting the torturous private hearing sessions and the destruction of his reputation as a form of penance for his part in a terrible tragedy, something that Kitty also calls him out on.

Finally, I would be very remiss if I complemented Oppenheimer without appreciating the fantastic job done by Cillian Murphy in bringing the titular character to life.

Oppenheimer’s conflicts as a character are often more internal than they are external, and they are very rarely stated out loud by Oppenheimer himself. Yet, Cillian does an outstanding job at depicting all of the character’s struggles and emotions through his restrained yet effectively understated expressions, body language, and dialogue delivery. 

Kitty

Emily Blunt also played the role of Kitty very well. She is a fairly well written and layered character despite not having a lot of screen time. 

Even though she is clearly not cut out for the role of a mother and has a drinking problem, she is always there for her husband despite his extramarital affairs. 

She truly understands and recognizes both the genius as well as the vulnerability of Oppenheimer and plays the role of a supportive rock that not only bolsters him but is also one of the few people who gives him a reality-check from time to time and urges him to stand up for himself.

Oppenheimer doesn’t easily assume the worst in others (something that leads back to his naive and idealistic traits), has a very mild-mannered, soft-spoken, and polite personality, and is easily forgiving of people. In contrast, Kitty is way more blunt (no pun intended), straightforward, emotionally hardened, and unforgiving (something that the film shows in a great moment near the end where she refuses to shake Teller’s hand). 

All of these traits of hers are further portrayed beautifully in the scene where she doesn’t let Robb get to her during the private hearing and is one of the only “witnesses” who boldly fights back his biased line of questioning.

THEMES

Before talking about the main theme of the film, I would like to talk about another, more subtle theme present in the film, that of the burden of scientific achievement — explored obviously through Oppenheimer (which is evident throughout the film showcasing his internal and external struggles after the creation of the bomb), but also interestingly, a little bit through Albert Einstein. 

This is evident during the scene where Oppenheimer goes to Einstein with the "apocalyptic" calculations to seek his advice. When Oppenheimer is leaving, Einstein says, “This is yours, not mine”, while handing over the paper that contains the aforementioned calculations.

It’s impressive how this one line of dialogue from Einstein has three different meanings in this context —: 

1. One — The most surface level meaning — “This paper is yours not mine.”
2. Two — “This invention / discovery is YOURS, not mine (you deserve the credit, not me)”
3. And Three - “The BURDEN to deal with this discovery is yours, not mine. I already had mine (Theory of Relativity) and now it’s unfortunately time for you to go through yours.”

The film’s predominant, significantly heavy themes, however, are that of nuclear damnation and existential dread  — primarily explored through the psyche of Oppenheimer and the depiction of not only his guilt from the destruction but also his fear of what the future holds. 

No other scene drives this theme home more perfectly than the final scene of the film, in which we see the “hypothetical” nuclear chain reaction being set off around the Earth leading to global annihilation.

This is accompanied by a beautifully haunting score and perhaps the film’s most simple yet undoubtedly most powerful line of dialogue from Oppenheimer — “I believe we did”.

CONCLUSION:

Although Oppenheimer is certainly not Nolan's best, it is definitely a strong return to form after the colossal misfire that was Tenet. The film, slightly hindered by a few narrative and structural drawbacks, delivers on all other fronts, whether it be its gorgeous cinematography, melodious and often frightening music and sound design, intelligent character writing, thought provoking themes, or impeccable performances. It also works as an intriguing look into the geopolitics and paranoia of the time, the origins of The Cold War, groundbreaking scientific revolutions, and a harrowing tale about how personal prides and political ambitions could start a domino effect that would lead to the end of our civilization.

RATING-: 7/10