Oppenheimer (2023) | a Review
originally published on 10/08/2023;
Hello everyone, I am the indefinitely staring into empty space, G.E.M.Simov, a person so profoundly aware of the consequences of my actions that I would rather not act, here to tell you about Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer”.
Simple review details - I rank movies on an out of 10 basis, granting up to 3 points in 3 categories, as well as a last, single point from my own self, depending on my experience with it.
A disclaimer - the terms 'movie' and 'film' will be used interchangeably in this review.
Presentation
Oppenheimer is a biographical drama that focuses on the major events from Oppenheimer’s life, mainly centered about his involvement in the Manhattan Project and subsequent expulsion from the AEC, as well as the events surrounding Lewis Strauss’ hearing for the position of Secretary of Commerce.
I say drama, for it uncovers a situation that is entirely downtrodden and unfortunate and has an unhappy ending, although it almost remedies it by involving the comeuppance of a villainous character. However, it is important to note that the story here is almost, if not entirely, factual, which makes my task of judging the story a tad more difficult than it would otherwise be.
Again, though, the thing that will allow me to do that - judge the story - is the manner in which it is told. The presentation of Oppenheimer is something very interestingly done, and I will try to avoid commenting on story-related things in the Presentation section of this review, though I can provide no warranty that I will not wind up talking about them, due to the fact that it is all just presentation.
So, onto the greener pastures of proper examination. This movie looks good - that much does not need to be said - and unlike previous excursions of Nolan’s, it is also audible. What the characters are saying is easily discernible, and due to the fact that what they say is the important stuff, that’s a very good thing. One other thing that this movie does, in regards to its visuals, is employ slow, even lengthy shots that linger on something for a bit longer than necessary. Long enough to convey what is being conveyed, but also long enough to urge the viewer to feel a slight unease.
That unease is very important in regards to what the film is presenting. Due to the fact that there are two trials that occur over the runtime of this movie, in which trials the individual put on trial is in the seat of the “main character”, or at least the viewer is invited to see things from their point of view, the feeling of unease is vital to making it easy for the audience to immerse themselves in the film.
First, there is Oppenheimer and there is his trial, which as is said multiple times is not a trial, but a rejection. Over the course of that trial - which takes up the majority of the film - Oppenheimer is introduced to the audience, built up as a character, maybe even experiences some growth, and all throughout he is being torn down by those performing the trial.
There is little point in noting that there are good shots and normal shots - it is important to note that there are no bad shots. Every frame, if that can be said, works well and is properly situated. It is not out of place and it fits in the puzzle. That is commendable. Another thing that I’d say is commendable is the amount of good shots that I observed over the course of the movie.
Again, unease is a very prevalent sensation that the movie wants the viewer to feel - but sometimes not for the reasons previously stated. Unease is to be felt in regards to not just one’s current situation, but their faults. Faults that are very real. For being on trial and being torn down for what one believes in is one thing entirely, but being on trial with yourself as the prosecution against you is vastly different.
This movie presents the audience with many moments which showcase just that - Oppenheimer judging himself and putting himself on trial for what he has done, trying to weigh his beliefs against his actions. These scenes, plentiful as they are, all have one thing in common - they feature “the stare”, that blank look which gazes past everything and peers into some other realm entirely. Initially, the stare is something inspiring, because it indicates Oppenheimer’s aptitude for reaching into the world of quantum physics, but then it becomes more and more unnerving.
For by the halfway point of the movie it is no longer something that refers to the difference between quantum physics and the world itself, or the contradiction between them, but, rather, it refers to the ugly incompatibility of one’s ideals, one’s internal world, and the world itself, the external world. Oppenheimer has these ideas, these beliefs, and he holds onto them for dear life, and he hopes that things will work out in accordance with them.
He does what he is tasked with doing so as to do good things - to save innocent people and prevent further bloodshed. However, the longer he works on the bomb, the more evident it becomes that it does not matter what he, or the collective that has created the bomb, wants it to be used for, it does not matter how they would recommend it be used. The bomb will be used however those up there see fit.
And those up there, well, they don’t much care for those down here.
So the stare transitions from a very wondrous thing, if a bit inconvenient, that allows one to peer into what is essentially the untapped potential of the universe, which is by default immaculately beautiful and fantastical, into something that showcases the dreadful truth of the human condition, or, rather, the wrongful desecration of that very human condition.
One very poignant moment that features “the stare” is the ultimate situation in which the stare occurs. Pardon me for spoiling the biography of a man who died more than twenty years ago, but, after the nuke is dropped on Hiroshima, Oppenheimer holds a short speech. He is not present - he is not there, as is indicated by the way everything aside from himself becomes blurred, becomes distorted - be it the banging of the audience’s feet against the floor as it anticipates his arrival, be it their cheers and elated faces, be it the wall behind him as it starts shuddering.
Even the words he says are not his own, whilst coming out of his own mouth, and even the smile he presents and the joy he attempts to showcase through his expression and his words is foreign. What occurs there is a total destruction of the bridge between those two worlds - the one world of his ideals and his beliefs, and the other world of reality and how things truly are.
And while he is stuck on that bridge as it collapses, he sees the world of his ideals and beliefs, he sees the aftermath of his creation, sees the devastation and terror it brings, while in the world of reality he sings its praises and expresses regret that they were not done earlier, so that it may have been used to kill other people, potentially more.
The visuals, the music and the sound effects, combined with the great work done by Cillian Murphy (that’s all on Acting for the moment), all contribute to just that - the emphasis of the wrong, the generation of tension and unease, the massive injection of discomfort in the audience as it watches these things unveil before them.
And, of course, that is not all. During the trial there are some very neat scenes, especially when the topic of questioning is incredibly intimate and private, and Oppenheimer is forced to lay everything bare, he is presented naked before the judges and the prosecution, for there is nothing that can remain hidden. Nakedness, as is well known, is indicative of vulnerability and shame, and thus it is a very smart trick, if I may call it so.
But it does not end there, no, for as more and more information is uncovered, the situation worsens, and the vision changes to showcase even greater details of Oppenheimer’s transgressions, and those who have been wronged are allowed to see these deeds occur… And it is bothersome, it creates immense unease in the audience, and it also allows the viewer to peer into the thoughts of the characters in an incredibly immersive manner.
Now, let me dial things down a bit. Again, this might be more proper for the Story section of the review, but it is important to note that it’s all based on presentation. A section of the film - or rather a vast multitude of sections in the film - take place in a different time frame to other sections. Those look different - they are presented to the audience in black and white, which not only helps the viewer to figure out that this is happening at a different time from the rest, and could be treated as a different story from the rest, but it also serves a very interesting purpose.
Black and white usually denotes grays. Everything in those scenes is some shade of gray, and there is no black or white, no “proper” black or white. Funnily enough, these scenes are focused on politics, and what one does to get ahead in politics. Simply put, the movie showcases that politics, in their current form and their form as it was in the sixties of the twentieth century, are a mess of gray splotches and blots. There is no cohesion, no sense to be made of them - everything is chaos in which no proper goal is being moved towards, and instead everyone is pulling in different directions, thus creating a dissolution of any effectiveness in whatever system is being run.
One other means of interpreting it is that politics are dirty - the politics of the USA, that is, though it also applies to every other country in the world.
With all that said, I suppose it would be proper to speak of the scene in which an atom bomb goes off, but I will refrain from doing that. After all, what is the point of me telling you how I interpreted it when the movie, itself, makes it a point of asking the audience a very specific question related to that atom bomb?
What I would like to mention, in the stead of the explosion, is the bomb itself. The very appearance of it is unnerving, somewhat wrong. As it is being assembled, as work is being done, the audience is shown many scenes of pieces being added slowly, reminiscent of a prison that closes around a sphere of deathly potential.
Then it is complete, and it looks wrong. Macabre might be an applicable word, but it is not enough to describe it. The sheer look of it - that circular, yet angular black thing, with countless wires protruding out of it, and the ambience that accompanies it whenever it is on screen, coupled with the knowledge of what it is - that really works.
The atom bomb is a dreadful thing, and the movie does a spectacular job of showcasing just that, even if it barely does anything aside from recreating what was made all those years ago… And that’s good enough, for the horrors mankind is capable of are more than enough to present a challenge for one’s restful sleep.
Lastly, this movie portrays the absolute insanity of the USA’s politics in regards to folks who were supportive of communism quite well. I have little to say on the topic, because a similar mindset still permeates through the USA and leaves a bad taste in my mouth at just thinking of it, but the sympathetic light it sheds on people who have sympathies towards socialist or communist movements inspired by Marx’ writings is a nice touch.
Overall? The movie handles its presentation immaculately. As previously stated, there are no bad scenes that I can think of, there are no pointless scenes, everything is prim and proper. The only issue that might arise will be tackled in the Story section of the review, so the Presentation gets the highest possible score. 3/3
Acting
The star studded cast should have been enough of an indication that, if this movie were to fail, it would not be due to the performances. Now, not only is the cast full of established actors, these actors also perform very well.
The two big names that come to mind are, naturally, Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr., though there is very little to be said about their performances other than that they are very good. Cillian Murphy, who already has experience staring melancholically in a direction, in part due to his role in Peaky Blinders, in part due to the way his eyes simply appear, is a very decent choice for the role of Oppenheimer.
Robert Downey Jr., on the other hand, plays a very successful asshole, which he already also has experience playing, as a result of which everything is prim and proper.
However, there is one character I did not expect to find portrayed as well as she was portrayed, and that was Kitty Oppenheimer, played by Emily Blunt. In all honesty, she had some very, very good moments wherein it was her acting that elevated the scenes - mostly via facial movement and expressions. Very good stuff.
Overall, there is nothing I can complain about in this department, and since I am no expert here, I will just leave it at that. 3/3
Story
The story, as previously stated, cannot be critiqued, because it is ripped out of the history books (and not those that make use of fiction to color the tale). However, the means through which the story is presented, and what the presentation of the story does to it, are definitely something that can be spoken of.
Firstly, this movie is a chronological mess. There are countless scenes that feature Oppenheimer in time period A, then time period B, then time period C, there are also scenes that feature Strauss in time period A, then time period B, then time period C, and while some of them have visual distinctions, others do not.
An example would be the meetings that are had between the members of the AEC, which are shot in black and white. Also in black and white is shot Strauss’ trial, which takes place a decent amount of time - actually a very lengthy amount of time - after the AEC meetings.
Then there are other scenes that take place between these two time periods - A for AEC meetings and B for Strauss’ trial - which are shot in color, namely the scenes of Oppenheimer’s trial. This creates a bit of confusion, visual, certainly, but mostly chronological. Because when we have something that is black and white, we assume it to be older than that which is in color - when that is proven not to be the case, then there must be some other difference between that, which is in black and white, and that which is not in black and white.
However, that difference does not present itself to the audience. In fact, it remains so obscure and esoteric that there might as well be no difference - it could be argued that the scenes featuring black and white are all scenes featuring Strauss, but then there are scenes that feature Strauss and are not black and white.
It could be attempted to reason that the scenes in black and white are all taking place after the events at Los Alamos, but that is not the case, as the scenes of Oppenheimer’s trial are in color and they also take place after Los Alamos. Not only that, but the scenes in which Oppenheimer converses with Einstein, following the utilization of the atom bombs, are also in color, even though they take place long after Los Alamos. AND EVEN THEN the very last scene of the film is also in color, even though the events that transpire take place at a very different point in time.
So then maybe the black and white scenes are meant to indicate the ugly truth of politics, but then why is Oppenheimer’s trial not black and white?
Thus we have a very odd thing which could be associated with the presentation of the film, but it is far more tightly related to the story, as while it supposedly serves to indicate the specific timeframe of the scene, it fails to do that as well as it should. This is something I’d refer to as a foul, but there might not be many more of those.
As mentioned, the story is really convoluted by the way it is told. It simultaneously does follow a chronological line - that of Oppenheimer’s academic life from Europe, through his teaching years and then his endeavors in Los Alamos - but then it also features another chronological line, that of his trial. Interspersed are also scenes from two other chronological lines - those of the AEC meetings and Strauss’ trial - as well as another pair of temporal tidbits - the introduction of Oppenheimer to Strauss and the AEC, the conclusion of the film, the scene in which Oppenheimer talks to Einstein.
Overall, there are far too many threads, which threads are constantly being cut up and replaced. If we say that the threads all have different colors and each color symbolizes one of the chronological lines, the movie is a constantly shifting sequence of red, yellow, green, red, blue, yellow, purple… Which requires very good execution to pull off.
I am under the impression that the execution was, indeed, pulled off quite well, though maybe not sufficiently well, as there were a few moments, over the course of the film, during which I found myself confused. Those were mostly the first time these chronological lines were being presented and there was no context yet, but they did require some piecing together that was not very well aided by the film itself.
One thing that the film does well is how it paints Strauss as the villain of the story, but only when it’s almost over. For a decently short amount of time, he seems to have won, for the story is presented in a manner that makes it seem so, only to then be stricken down and given what he deserves for his deeds. That was quite neat.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that the film is historical, rather than not, it does not have a clearly defined message, nor does it have a point to make. The atom bomb was made - maybe there is a question related to its creation that means something, but there is no answer that the movie gives the audience. Oppenheimer was torn down ruthlessly - did he deserve it?
The questions that the audience is left with are not bad at all, but they are ones that we have either already asked ourselves or ones that have an irrelevant answer. It does not matter whether Oppehneimer and the scientists at Los Alamos were right to make the atom bomb, nor does it matter if they were right to build the hydrogen bomb, nor does it matter if the US government was right to drop the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though it seems as though those are the questions being asked by the film.
What the film weasels its way into almost asking, but also stops itself from truly presenting it as a central question, is how we should deal with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), now that we have them. Unfortunately, it does not ask that question, for it is one that is heavily dependent on a number of other questions, each more politically charged than the next - for the use of WMDs, or their sheer possession, is affected by the type of government in place, the external policies of the country that is in possession of those WMDs, and so on and so forth.
Due to the chronological oddities and this unsatisfying taste left in my mouth, due to the lack of an explicit question that is meaningful in my eyes, I will have to only award a passing grade. 2/3
Legendary Point
Does this film get the legendary point, so craved and wanted by all and none at the same time? I want to say yes. I very much want to say yes, if only because of the portrayal of the atom bomb - excluding its explosion, just the visual of the atom bomb sitting there in its submarine-esque, black metal cage - that’s phenomenal.
But at the same time I can not find any reason to actually say yes. The movie was an enjoyable watch, yes. Would I watch it again? No, I would not. Would I be able to draw something from it that is not already public knowledge? No, I would not. It feels to me as though this is just a neat film that was made, that it is good for one viewing, an appreciative “hmm” and a cessation of all engagement with it.
As a historical piece, it does its job well, but history, following the industrial revolution, is more dreadful than not, as a result of which I do not find it enjoyable for the right reasons. Thus, I can not give it the Legendary Point, even though the sight of the atom bomb almost made me do it. No. 0/1
Conclusion
8/10. A very good movie that I’d say should be watched by everyone in the age group it was meant for, which portrays the atom bomb in a very fitting manner that should be seen.
I tuck it under my belt, another shining achievement that I proudly display.