Oppenheimer Review: Nolan’s Nuclear Character Study
Save for a few hiccups, Nolan’s explosive efforts stuns and immerses with a masterful exploration of one of the most interesting minds in history.
It’s been one day since I finished Oppenheimer, and all I want to do is talk about Oppenheimer; both the man and the film. I annotate reviews, rewatch trailers, and feel the equally powerful and enticing sickness that Nolan effectively manages to radiate from the screen. Leaving Oppenheimer, I was blown away, but knew I was in over my head on forming a concrete opinion. After a day of clarity, I’ve realized it may be impossible to finalize my thoughts on a film as dense and grand as Nolan’s latest. Conveying a complexity in both its characters and themes at an equal level of craftsmanship that all elements of production are executed at, Oppenheimer stands as one of Nolan’s best. What is presented on screen is open, abstract, scientific, emotional, pragmatic, and deeply nuanced.The complexities manifest into paradoxes, leading to a film that is as interesting to discuss as it is to watch, and what a watch it is. With a three hour runtime that never dulled, sickening atmosphere that left viewer’s feeling the dread of the bomb upon exit, yet somewhat one note character’s and the usual Nolan faults of over-abundance, Oppenheimer proves to be a challenging film that may not hold for some on a second viewing, or for others, even a first.
If Nolan is a master of anything, it is scale. His explorative mind has brought out the best and worst of the filmmaker; jumping between stars and time itself has led to heady, shallow discussions of themes thought to be deep by mere presence rather than evolution. With Oppenheimer, Nolan has managed to strike a greater balance than ever before, resulting in a film that immerses not simply by intrigue, but magnitude. Hoyte van Hoytema has never failed to impress, but the cinematography present does more than simply shock and awe; it sickens, poisons and inspires, much like how J. Robert Oppenheimer felt during his exploration of nuclear physics and collapse into the father of the atomic bomb. I know this because the film succeeded in one of its primary goals: inserting the viewer into one of the most interesting minds of the 20th century. With jaw dropping close-up’s that tell more than words ever could, beautiful abstractions that at times feel as though they could have been inserted for the sake of artfulness rather than character, and wide shots capturing the sheer scope of the existential threat created in the hands of a few soon to be tortured souls, Oppenhimer’s visuals are effective in telling the story and amplifying the themes when mere words are not up to the task. Despite this, other aspects of the cinematography were at times questionable, though never due to the quality of the image. Was there enough thematic and narrative justification for the split between black and white? Do shot reverse shots ever get grading in a three hour film consisting primarily of scientists and government officials having wars of their own? These questions occupy my mind only after my initial viewing, as in the moment, it was impossible to not be overwhelmed into immersion by the film’s atmosphere, an atmosphere supported not simply by the camera, but every other aspect of production as well.
Scale is effectively communicated by more than visuals alone. The scenes that left my heart feeling poisoned would not have been as effective if not for the outstanding score, moody lighting, and truly creative editing and use of sound. Truly, this is not just some of Nolan’s best filmmaking, but some of the best filmmaking I’ve seen from a crew. That does not mean this is the greatest film of all time, but it does mean that watching this film on the biggest screen possible is essentially a requirement. When the writing or performances are not enough, which they rarely aren’t, the production is there to demand the viewer’s attention. The editing in particular carries the film’s narrative with a momentous pace, never leaving the opportunity to be bored, which is impressive in a film that, again, could begin to feel repetitive once realizing Nolans iconic cross-cutting is between three different rooms of politicians bickering. While a bit jarring in the opening minutes, the editing proved itself as vital to the life of this film. But the bickering, however redundant it may become, reveals the complexities of this story, film, and mind of the most tumultuous man in history.
J. Robert Oppenheimer is introduced staring at a puddle, rain droplets exploding on impact, sending ripples throughout its surroundings. A man not just interested in, but haunted by the ever expanding unknown of Quantum Physics. Plagued with abstract visions of destruction, acting on pure instinct while being the most intelligent man in the world, a womanizer and sympathizer, tenacious yet uncommitted, a communist and American, what makes Oppenheimer so interesting is his paradoxical nature. The tragic genius, Oppenheimer’s mind is certainly worth exploring, and Nolan manages to do so in a way that speaks on the greater dangers humanity exposes to themselves in the quest for uncontrollable power. Whether that take the form of knowledge, information, nuclear weaponry, or the unknown as a concept, Oppenheimer is a molecule with protons and neutrons colliding and exerting force at every moment with its barrage of heavy themes that only drew me in further into the brain behind the bomb and the story of his downfall.With such an engaging protagonist at the center of the film, it is shocking then that those surrounding him are sometimes presented in typical Nolan shallowness. Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh are particularly massacred as talented actors with roles that, while serving a purpose for Oppenheimer’s story, are reductive, and feel more like plot devices than people. Other side characters are hearts of this mechanical beast, such as Rober Downey Jr. stealing the show as much as Cilian Murphy, or Matt Damon providing a masculine-bravado laced charm to contrast Oppenheimer’s pragmatism and narcissism.
Character equals plot equals themes, at least in the best of films, and despite the lackluster development of some side characters, the narrative itself matches the fascination of Oppenheimer’s nuance with only few low points. Much like the main character changing from aspiring physician to pseudo-politician to American hero to traitor all accompanied by an ever-shifting view on his work and person, the plot is dynamic despite the aforementioned repetition. While jumping between multiple timelines can be confusing, especially with nearly every line being crucial to understanding a web of political espionage and scientific developments, Nolan only continues to hone his narrative effectiveness matched with pacing. With the previously praised editing, Nolan managed to never bore me during this brutal examination of the most devastating and haunting invention in human history. Matching the grandiosity of the weapon in presentation and themes, all that was left for Oppenheimer was to convey its truly thick messages while managing to entertain. Again, I could see audiences believing Nolan failed to capture their attention, but I found the plot to be just as interesting as the man at its center. Yes, the courtroom drama element may come as a shock to some, but an evolution on the film’s already established themes for others. This is not a story of the atomic bomb, but a cautionary character study, and all elements of the plot work to support that focus and the themes surrounding it. The addition of Strauss’ character have led some to say the film loses focus, peaks too early, etc. I could not disagree more, as the shifts between genres to eventually landing on political espionage kept the film feeling fresh and dynamic, while at the same time expanding the intimacy of the film’s focus on Oppenheimer the man, to humanity at large. Meaning, Nolan’s bio-pic still manages to be one that fits in his established filmography in terms of scale as displayed through themes and presentation, while at the same time remaining his most personal film to date. There is a reason we only hear Oppenheimer’s parsed breath when the testing of the bomb is successful: this is his story, but anyone can learn from it.
Which reveals perhaps the greatest success this film achieves: I felt something from a Nolan film. Inception entertained, Interstellar attempted at heart and was interrupted by sci-fi extravagance, but Oppenheimer left me with a feeling unlike any I’ve encountered before. I often criticize Nolan’s filmography for the lack of emotion, the pragmatism, the character’s all seemingly directed to sound the same level of uninterested in the plot they find themselves in. Not here. Watching Oppenheimer, and now sitting with me a full day after viewing, I find myself somewhere between hypnotized and terrified, much like the man himself when researching his life’s work turned world destroyer. Again, I was in the mind of Oppenheimer, completely immersed in the film to the point I felt the same excitement that comes with pushing the boundaries of science. I felt the unease when discussing the destructive potential of this weapon, but the drive and obsession to push further. And finally, I felt the blood on my hands that some so easily wash off. Did Robert know of these consequences? If so, did he simply ignore them for his own pursuits? These questions are what pulled me closer into the movie’s grasp, and while I wish Nolan left more room for the viewers to ponder in the realm of character morality, the discussions consequential of the film’s themes will undoubtedly place this film in my mind for weeks to come.
It’s been one day and one review since I watched Oppenheimer, and all I want to do is continue to talk about Oppenheimer, both the man, and the film.