Oppenheimer

Nobody does spectacle quite like Christopher Nolan. After seeing “Oppenheimer”, based on the 2005 biography “American Prometheus” by Kai Bird and Martin J, Sherwin, I imagined what it would have been like in the hands of someone like James Cameron, or even Michael Bay (it was fun to picture a muscle clad, tattooed J. Robert Oppenheimer straddling a motorbike and the atomic bomb detonating to the tune of “Highway to the Dangerzone”). I realised that it’s not so much scale that Nolan does well, plenty of filmmakers can handle that. It’s more so that he portrays gravitas better than anybody in the business. He tackles themes of mind shattering, out of this world, eternal significance (and Batman) and everything that makes up his films are a reflection of that. The cinematography is epic, the scores are intrinsically haunting and gripping, but… the performances are serious, the scripts are humourless and occasionally his films will collapse from the sheer weight of their own profundity like a dying star (“Tenet”, “Dunkirk” and even “Interstellar” for me). Luckily, the development of the atomic bomb, the political climate of WWII and the Cold War and Oppenheimer’s role in 20th century history is of such collossal significance that it’s perfectly suited for Nolan’s style.

Nolan importantly has recognised that Oppenheimer (a gaunt and unblinking Cillian Murphy), much like many historical figures, was himself not a terribly exciting or even likeable man. And nor is nuclear physics something that lends itself well to a Hollywood blockbuster, because it’s… well… nuclear physics. What makes the film captivating (aside from the score and cinematography, which in true Nolan style are spectacular) is the political tension at the time and how Oppenheimer was targeted (not necessarily without reason) for his associations with Communism. I certainly wasn’t expecting a film about the development of the atomic bomb to be driven so heavily by all the hallmarks of a political thriller. And it certainly needed it. Had this been a straightforward biopic of Oppenheimer’s life and his scientific process then this would have been a total misfire and likely been forgotten by audiences by the time next year’s blockbusters were released. This is Nolan at his best, redeeming himself from the comparatively durgey and tepidly recieved “Dunkirk” and “Tenet” and reestablishing himself as one of Hollywood’s most exciting and unique creative forces.

Nolan flashes back and forward from 1926 (when Oppenheimer started at Cambridge) to 1954, where Oppenheimer is questioned during a security hearing to determine whether he should have his security clearance revoked. The security hearing is shot in grainy black and white like and old school film noir, while his earlier times at Cambridge are bathed in warmer tones (which could easily be interpreted as the comfort and excitement of an incredibly dangerous concept when it’s still safely within the confines of theory – Communism, nuclear fusion, that time I wanted to have a crack at turtle neck sweaters). The dichotomy between the sheer awesomeness of the bomb’s power and the horror of its reality is a theme which Nolan evokes throughout to great effect. Oppenheimer has visions of mesmerising chain-reaction explosions that resemble strings of firecrackers and sparks but also horrifying visions of people’s flesh melting off their bones. The moment in which Oppenheimer witnesses the bomb explode for the first time is one which stretches for what seems like an age, transcending time and space. In that moment there is nobody else in the universe, just Oppenheimer and his creation, a god torn between admiration and horror of what he has done. The score and cinematography in these moments are breathtaking, as I think we all suspected they would be.

I did think the film was a little unfair in portraying Oppenheimer as an innocent and blindsided little lamb who was unjustly targeted during his security hearings. There’s no doubt that AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss (an impressive Robert Downey Jn) was both politically and personally motivated in seeking to have Oppenheimer’s security status revoked. Although, in the midst of an Arms Race with the Soviets, surely it seems reasonable to be suspicious that the creator of the atomic bomb was himself an admitted Communist for much of his life, was intimately familiar with plenty of others sympathetic to the cause and was outrageously cavelier regarding the confidentiality of the Manhatten Project. Also, if the entire reason for Oppenheimer’s security clearance in the first place was for him to develop the bomb to end the war, and the war was over… what exactly did he still need to be privvy to state secrets for?

In saying that, the film certainly doesn’t idolise Oppenheimer, and likewise doesn’t shy away from the less admirable aspects of the man. I’m torn as to whether I enjoyed Murphy’s performance or not. There’s something about him that doesn’t strike me as a leading man, but it could be exactly this that makes Murphy perfect for the role. The idea that something as cataclysmic and apocalyptic as the atomic bomb could come from somebody so unimpressive in stature and presence has a nice sense of irony to it. Physically it’s impossible to deny Murphy’s commitment to the role; as Oppenheimer ages, you can see the weight of the bomb and it’s implications on mankind wearing away at him as he grows more emaciated and meeker in tone with every passing year. Performance wise, the film boasts a phenomonal supporting cast, including Matt Damon, Rami Malek, Florence Pugh but most impressively so in Robert Downey Jnr and Emily Blunt as Openheimer’s wife Kitty. Downey Jnr absolutely deserves an Oscar for his role, and I think he’s likely to get it. If Blunt is nominated, it will be for the scene in which she is interrogated in the security hearing, where she flips from an initially scared and quivering wreck to a beautifully snarky and articulate pillar of Bette Davis-esque confidence. As I referenced earlier, a little humour and some rounding out of the characters would have been welcome, but it’s again not something that Nolan is known for.

The film never showcases the horrific impacts of the bomb once dropped on Japan, which is a very deliberate and interesting creative choice. Would the story have benefited from demonstrating the devastating impact of Oppenheimer’s creation? Perhaps… but I don’t think that this is what the film is seeking to be. The fable of Prometheus, who stole fire from the Olympian gods and is condemned by being tied to a rock and for birds to peck out his liver for eternity, is referenced often in the film and is eerily analogous to Oppenheimer. This film isn’t so much about the atomic bomb and the end of WWII, or even whether the use of the bomb was justified to end the war. It is more so about a complicated, flawed and brilliant individual who was nonetheless still just a man, who harnessed more destructive power than had ever been conceived in history, and the moral struggle and torment that comes with such power.

By Jock Lehman