NOW SHOWING: Oppenheimer (2023)

 

            I had been waiting for some time for the release of this film.  I am not particularly a Christopher Nolan fan and I was unimpressed with his previous war film – “Dunkirk", but this is a must-see film.  I purposely did not read any reviews of “Oppenheimer”, but I knew it would be an experience that was best seen in a theater.  Unfortunately, there is no IMAX near me, but I did see it on the biggest screen in this area.  Nolan adapted the biography “American Prometheus” by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin.  It is over 700 pages and is the best biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer.  His first choice for the lead was Cillian Murphy.  This was their sixth collaboration, including “Dunkirk”.  Murphy, who will clearly be nominated for Best Actor, lost a lot of weight for the role and learned over 1,000 words in Dutch.   Something Oppenheimer did.   Method acting!  Besides an amazing cast, the movie also used real scientists as extras.  Nolan did not use any CGI.  All the explosion effects were actual explosions.  However, the Internet suggestion that an actual atomic bomb was used just proves how stupid some people are.

            The film begins with a reference to Prometheus.  For those of you that are a little hazy in your Greek mythology, Prometheus stole fire and gave it to man.  Zeus punished him by taking away his security clearance.  The movie is nonlinear with three threads.  One is Oppenheimer heading the Manhattan Project.  This is shown in flashback from the second thread which is the investigation into Oppenheimer’s affiliation with the Communist Party.  The third covers the confirmation hearing for Richard Strauss (Robert Downey, Jr.).  Strauss is revealed to be at the heart of Oppenheimer’s fall.

            The scenes that cover Oppenheimer’s life begin with him at Cambridge where he establishes himself as an eccentric genius who comes close to poisoning his professor.  Or Neils Bohr (Kenneth Branagh).  He meets the famous physicist who passes the torch to him and emphasizes that he will be in a race with the German Heisenberg to create the bomb that Einstein prophesied.  Oppenheimer is recruited by Gen. Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) and they start one of the most consequential partnerships of the 20^th Century.  The film does not get bogged down in the dysfunctional relationship between these opposites.  The movie gives the impression that Oppenheimer ran Los Alamos.  (Groves was in charge, but he did learn to give the eggheads some slack.)  The scientists revolve around Oppy.  The one that gets the most coverage is Edward Teller (Benny Safdie).  Teller is used as a bridge to Oppenheimer’s post-war quandary over the hydrogen bomb.  The movie hits its crescendo with the Trinity test.  The movie manages to make this seminal moment exhilarating.  The aftermath foreshadows Oppenheimer’s future as he goes from soaking up the applause of his fellow bomb makers to the guilty conscience that would have come to any intellectual (except Edward Teller).  Nolan shows this turn in a scene where Oppenheimer gives a speech to a cheering audience reminiscent of the Nuremberg rallies.  He is buffeted by images of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  He dares to confide that he feels he has blood on his hands during a visit with President Truman (Gary Oldman).  Truman calls him a “cry baby”. 

            The movie is vague about the nine years following WWII.  The second thread is set in 1954.  Oppenheimer is brought before a kangaroo court where he is persecuted for his communist sympathies.  Joseph McCarthy does not appear in the film, but his minions hound Oppenheimer.  It is not just his flirtation with communism, he is also in trouble because of his opposition to the hydrogen bomb.  Oppenheimer is the stereotypical scientific genius who is naïve when it comes to politics.  He made an easy target for the Red Scare. 

            The third thread is something of a redemption arc by showing the confirmation hearing for Strauss.  It takes place in 1959.  We learn that this supposed friend was actually scheming to take down Oppenheimer for a reason that is not obvious up to this point.  Their relationship reminds of that of Mozart and Salieri in “Amadeus”.   It’s the weakest of the three and comes off as a showcase for Downey.  I bet you already know that politics can be a dirty business.

            “Oppenheimer” has been called a masterpiece.  It may be the next Best Picture.  It is a very good movie, but I think it falls short of greatness.  It clearly is the best movie about the Manhattan Project.  It easily outclasses the disappointing “Fat Man and Little Boy”.  I am always a proponent for movies that cover deserved persons and events.  Oppenheimer was once one of the most famous humans.  But today few know anything beyond his heading the Manhattan Project.  Very few know that he went from celebrity to persona non grata within ten years of one of the greatest inventions in history.  The movie does an excellent job making the development of the bomb interesting without relying on Hollywood enhancements like scientists getting radiation poisoning.  Instead, Nolan emphasized Oppenheimer’s soap operaish love life.  He has an affair with a communist (Florence Pugh) and marries a woman (Emily Blunt) who is mentally unstable. 

The nonlinear structure is intriguing.  Nolan treats Oppenheimer’s Manhattan Project arc as subjective, through the eyes of Oppenheimer.  The security investigation thread is also subjective and also in color.  The Strauss thread has an objective viewpoint and is in black and white.  One problem is the movie does not make it clear when scenes are occurring.  It is easy to follow the chronology of the Manhattan Project, but most audience members would have trouble realizing the security investigation was nine years after the war and the Straus confirmation five years later.  The movie could have used some time stamps.  And it could have used some on-screen identification of all the notable individuals that appear in the film.  For instance, you have to be familiar with the bombing to catch the appearance of Col. Tibbet’s of Enola Gay fame.  Speaking of which, the cast is full of recognizable faces playing famous people.  (Even at 3 hours, Nolan was not able to make the Manhattan Project an ensemble affair.  Only a few of the remarkable and fascinating group of scientists get significant roles.)  And the acting is outstanding.  Besides Murphy, there will be several actors vying for Best Supporting Actor recognition.  And certainly Hoyte van Hoytema will be nominated for Best Cinematography.  The soundtrack does a great job making the movie seem like a thriller

The cinematography was a drawing card for the movie because the marketing of the movie trumpeted it being made for IMAX viewing.  I was skeptical as to why a biopic needed that venue.  It turns out my skepticism was confirmed.  There is little in the movie that struck me as something I wished I was seeing it on IMAX.  The explosion was awesome, but other than that, Nolan’s penchant for closeups simply means you will see more pores on an IMAX screen.  Another odd marketing decision was insisting on making the movie R-rated.  This rating was the result of two nude scenes involving Florence Pugh.  Don’t get me wrong, I did not close my eyes in disgust, but I did shake my head wondering why the movie limited its audience by showing nudity that could have easily been avoided.  Other than breasts, there is absolutely nothing else that would warrant an R-rating.  The movie does not even show the results of the Hiroshima bombing.  Nolan handles this by focusing on Oppenheimer’s reaction to pictures taken there.

I have not yet vetted the movie for accuracy, but I have seen that historians have commended the film (including Kai Bird).  It gets Oppenheimer’s life and legacy correct, but Nolan had a goal of sending a message about nuclear weapons.  The Prometheus theme is carried through to the conclusion with the movie implying that Oppenheimer had set the world on a path to destruction.  Teller and his hydrogen bomb triumphed over Oppenheimer’s attempts to put the genie back in the bottle.  The fortuitous timing of the movie with the Ukrainian war has put the fear over the use of nukes back in current events.  You leave the theater with Oppenheimer’s “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds” echoing in your mind.  (He never said the phrase and definitely not during foreplay.  He did think it at the time of the Trinity test.)  However, the truth is Teller was right.  If we had not developed the hydrogen bomb, the Soviets certainly would have.  And mutually assured destruction, as insane as it seems, actually worked in keeping nukes on a leash for 78 years and running.  One must wonder whether a modern-day Oppenheimer would have worked to develop AI or tried to stop it.

GRADE  =  A-