Christopher Nolan’s latest directorial effort straddles two timelines as we follow the creation of the atomic bomb led by Robert Oppenheimer. The timeline of “fission” is in color and told from Oppenheimer’s viewpoint, while the timeline of “fusion” is in black and white and from the perspective of Lewis Strauss. These are not told in linear fashion – there are frequent flashbacks and a lot of skipping around. Eventually, the two timelines merge.
Cillian Murphy plays the part of Oppenheimer well, but the part is not as well written as it could have been. Scientists in movies are stereotypically pompous and eccentric, and Oppenheimer is no exception here. Filmmakers usually rely on flashy shots and montages that indicate genius without really amounting to anything insightful. I thought the characterization was mediocre. Oppenheimer’s personal life feels like an afterthought, and I didn’t think there was much complexity in his introspection. Instead, Nolan opts for the most basic moral conflict – a successful science project leads to the destruction of fellow man, and people cheer about its success. The abstract shots of stars and fire are meant to signify creation/destruction, but these just felt out of place and slightly pretentious. Terence Malick has used these types of shots to great effect in many of his movies, but Nolan lacks the artistic finesse to pull them off.
Robert Downey Jr. plays the part of Lewis Strauss. When the first trailer for “Oppenheimer” came out, I did not know that RDJ was in it and did not recognize him on screen. He turns in a great performance, even if he’s still relying a bit too much on his own idiosyncrasies to pull it off. A political conflict exists in tandem to the scientific conflict, that is putting another man down for the sake of career progression. The politics feel superfluous in comparison to the development of the atomic bomb, but they played their part in Oppenheimer’s legacy and provide some engaging drama.
I enjoyed Damon and Murphy playing off each other in their scenes. Damon shows up about 50 minutes in and brings some much needed humor. Blunt does her best with what she’s given, but her character comes across as very monotonous. Pugh is basically given a throwaway character, but that’s fair given Oppenheimer’s actual attitude towards her. There are some choices Nolan makes in the scenes with Murphy and Pugh that did not work for me. Nolan is just not adept with handling his female characters or portraying romance. He tries to take a psychosexual angle with Pugh’s character, but she has such little screen time that it doesn’t amount to much. The scenes involving her in the second half of the film are jarring and distasteful.
The film is constructed and edited similarly to Nolan’s other works, meaning there are a lot of quick cuts and exposition-heavy montages to keep the story from dragging. This type of construction works well for action/sci-fi, but not so well for historical dramas. Sure, the story never dragged for me, but I also didn’t feel the gravitas of the events that were unfolding onscreen. The film honestly feels like one long montage, with the exception of the bomb test. Nolan should have had the confidence in himself and his actors to linger on more scenes.
Sound mixing continues to be an issue, though it’s not as obnoxiously handled as it was in “Tenet.” Nolan seems to think that the only way to make the experience visceral is by blaring loud music, even at the expense of his actors. There is standout dialogue from Murphy, Blunt, and Clarke that is obstructed by loud obnoxious sounds. The music is just horrifically bad. I am so sick of high-profile directors relying on these loud, ugly, synthetic, amorphous sounds that lack any nuance. The music is so irritatingly on-the-nose most of the time. There is a scene involving Florence Pugh and Murphy that is made even more sickening and distasteful than it would be alone thanks to the music.
I don’t think I would recommend this movie to just anyone. If you are a cinephile or take a particular interest in the interweaving of politics and science, then you’ll probably love this, or at least walk away with positive things to say about it. This movie for three hours just hammers its audience with political hearings and trial details, and intentionally makes it difficult to discern what is going on when. I enjoyed viewing this intellectual biopic as a summer blockbuster – no one presents such material in digestible fashion better than Nolan. The ending scene rubs me the wrong way though; apparently it didn’t go down like that in real life. The dialogue was all made up. The scene conveys the message that Nolan wanted, but it basically rewrites history for a lot of people that won’t bother researching the events or reading the book.
Screen DJ 