TLDR
and more joy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs
----
Oppenheimer
One of my biggest fears for Oppenheimer was that it would celebrate the Manhattan Project but gloss over Oppenheimer's haunting guilt or his harrowing experiences defending his integrity during the red scare. Fortunately, the film is holistic. The entire narrative is framed around Oppenheimer, a man crushed by the weight of his accomplishments, defending himself against insidious accusations.
The result is a good movie, but not an enjoyable one. And perhaps some people genuinely appreciate Nolan or filmmaking in general who will find it enjoyable. But I doubt the average Joe can enjoy the film.
This is in no way a criticism of the film. Technically it's brilliant. Each person in the stellar ensemble cast gives a beautiful performance. Cillian Murphy, in particular, is brilliant as Oppenheimer, perfectly capturing his hubris and insecurities through various life phases. Emily Blunt's role isn't meaty, but she steals the show as Kitty, Oppenheimer's alcoholic and unstable wife. Matt Damon is formidable as Groves, Oppenheimer's commander and often sparring partner at the Manhattan Project. But the show stealer is Robert Downey Jr as Lewis Strauss, who has wholly shed his Iron Man persona for something else.
The direction and camera work are also brilliant. The sequence of the Trinity explosion is just stunning. The way the audio goes into counterintuitive silence before the climactic booms is a stroke of genius. The portrayal of Oppenheimer's doubt through hallucinations and camera close-ups of his face is also something.
But it is also true that the entire exercise feels tedious. There is an element of thrill and exhilaration in most Nolan movies. Even the bleak retreat from Dunkirk has your heart racing - I saw it on a small screen and was enthralled. But instead of excitement or immersive experiences, every frame of Oppenheimer is filled with this vague sense of existential dread. The nonlinear and languid narrative shuttling sporadically between Oppenheimer's and Strauss' points of view creates both a sudden whiplash and a sense of slow lurching to nowhere - it's uncomfortable.
I waited for it to be over because I wasn't enjoying myself. And I think perhaps this is what Nolan intended. I don't think he wanted us to enjoy the film. I mean, think of the story. It's about the creation of the atomic bomb that has irrevocably spiraled mankind into a dark era where the threat of nuclear holocaust looms over us every second of the day. The entire purpose of this movie is to sink that in. I think Nolan intentionally built existential dread into a cinematic experience.
My only criticism was the treatment of Jean Tatlock. I completely get why she was included the way she was. The case against Oppenheimer hinged mainly on his deeply complicated and highly sexual relationship with Jean Tatlock. They both had an unhealthy hold on each other. But Jean was more than a torrid affair that shook Oppenheimer's life. She was also a brilliant mind who went to Stanford Medical School when few women studied that far. Oppenheimer was 32 and a professor at Berkley when he started his affair with Jean, a 22-year-old grad student at Berkley, albeit in a different department. She was clinically depressed and appeared to suffer from internalized homophobia, leading her to be sexually promiscuous with men to cure herself. Her peers and professors believed that she had a promising future if it wasn't cut short by her untimely suicide. I wish she had been fleshed out more. Right now, so many are reducing her to a gratuitous sex scene, which is unfair to the whole person she was.
Overall it's cool that Nolan made Oppenheimer. These are physicists like Sheldon and Leonard, and their hero Feynman has a small role.
----
Unauthorized sequel
The best thing Oppenheimer unintentionally created. All hail the King. The world belongs to the King.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOO8Um_jmLI
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.
comment:
p_commentcount