The film ‘Oppenheimer’ is on everyone’s lips these days. It has grossed almost a billion dollars worldwide and, with production budget at only a tenth of this figure, it is now the second highest-grossing R-rated movie of all time after ‘Joker’. There is every likelihood it can seize the No. 1 spot from our favourite maniacal fiend in the coming months, judging from its current trajectory. Oppenheimer is just the bomb at the moment! (Pardon the cringe-worthy puns.) So I believe a review of this blockbuster is in order.
As the winner of seven BAFTA awards including the top honours for best movie, best director, and best actor, the movie is poised to sweep the Oscars next month. It went away with five Golden Globes back in January, flagging off this year’s award season. Since then, it has been gaining momentum.
This is perhaps not surprising when you know who’s at the director’s helm: Christopher Nolan– of Shutter Island, Inception, Dunkirk and The Dark Knight fame. Also, when you throw in a mouth-watering cast of A-list actors, you are guaranteed a darn good movie with exceptional acting and dialogue. You are further assured of something special here when you recall that movies by this British-American moviemaker are seldom, if ever, mind fodder. Nolan’s approach to movies is typically cerebral and artistically unconventional in style and expression. While Tarantino’s approach can be consciously outré in its unconventionality, the difference in Nolan’s style lies in a rather complex weave of storytelling that demands your rapt attention from start to finish. Nolan tasks one’s intellect and rarely patronizes his viewers by explaining the obvious. Sometimes he is accused of trying too hard to the point of convolution, but his fans would passionately disagree.
So when you add a complex Nolan to a complex tale about a socially awkward genius called J. Robert Oppenheimer, played by versatile actor Cillian Murphy (Peaky Blinders), the atomic race, quantum physics and its renowned scientists, the Manhattan Project, a WWII backdrop, the US tracking of fellow travellers and Communist sympathizers, you are bound to arrive at a deep, brilliant movie and…yes, well… a film not for everybody. You’re either into that sort of thing or you’re not. A lot of it would be lost to many a viewer as it involves a peculiar 1940s zeitgeist and intricate happenings in US history in relation to a certain scientist’s ordeal.
Don’t get me wrong, Oppenheimer is a great movie. However, having some basic knowledge of the eponymous character, the history of the A-bomb, and perhaps some elementary idea of quantum physics and its proponents like Niels Bohr and Heisenberg would help better appreciate the story and its complex setting. Alternatively, reading the book American Prometheus, on which the movie was based, could also give you a broader perspective on the movie. In summary, foreknowledge goes a long way in appreciating this movie- that is my solemn advice.
This is because Oppenheimer starts at a point many would largely consider the denouement of the main character’s story arc (at the Security Board Investigations) and then brings us up to speed, through a series of cutbacks and flashbacks, to events that led to that point; revealing colourful characters en route who help bring the story slowly together so we can make sense of it all.
Nolan’s movies are never straightforward. You are best advised to familiarize yourself with the content before drinking the product or you might find yourself rather befuddled by the time you get to the bottom of the bottle. Nolan makes a few assumptions about his audience- and he does so unapologetically. He expects us to know what we are getting into because he hits the ground running. Well, that’s if you’re not just there to watch Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh.
Perhaps it might have been easier if the story had started from the very beginning. About a weird, lean, socially naïve, clumsy, Sanskrit-speaking, horse-riding, rich kid who had few friends and loved collecting mineral rocks. About his opulent parents and their deferring his admission to Harvard so he could recuperate from illness in a remote place called Los Alamos. About how he met an equally troubled lady- Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh)- whom he fell in love with, and his later affairs with his future wife- a hot-headed Kathy (Emily Blunt) who was married at the time and with whom he had a tumultuous relationship. About his outlandish and devious antics and about the War, the discovery of nuclear fission and its explosive potential. About the establishment of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos and the nervous race to create the first-ever atomic bomb before the Nazis did. The bomb supposedly to end all wars. About Hiroshima and Nagasaki. About his Communist inclinations and suspicion by the US government of being a spy. Perhaps it would have been much easier to follow that way. But no, not for Nolan. That’s far too conventional. Nothing clever or original about doing the expected, is there?
Besides, Oppenheimer’s running theme was on happenings afterward: his investigation and interrogation as a Communist sympathizer; his issue with his erstwhile employer/later sworn enemy- Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr)- who too was being questioned for a position in Pres. Eisenhower’s cabinet. That’s where the movie starts- at the tail-end of the tale- then rolls back to the events that led to it. Interestingly, the use of black-and-white, particularly in most scenes involving Strauss, adds an extra level of intrigue to this movie. This is symbolically deployed to represent Strauss’ perspective of events or objective scenes.
While we watch Oppenheimer’s perspective play out nonchronologically before us in colour (subjective scenes), we can’t help but admire how Nolan can make a movie on quantum physics and ‘weird scientists’ feel like a movie on drugs, sex and rock-n-roll. Amazing. Perhaps, the occasional fast-paced violin music in the background adds to the adrenaline rush we feel. Symbolic imagery and sound is utilized efficiently, leaving the audience to interpret it as they deem fit.
Robert Downey Jr. gives us a stellar performance as Strauss and makes us realize how much we had missed him since his Tony Stark days. His sessions with the Senate were quite engaging as he tried to bring Oppenheimer down as a Commie spy and get his security clearance revoked. It was personal for him as he never forgave Oppenheimer for humiliating him publicly and not supporting the production of the H-bomb. His obsession with this task was quite disturbing to watch. No less so for his aide, played remarkably by Alden Ehrenreich. We watch Strauss metamorphose from Oppenheimer’s friend and employer at the Institute for Advance Studies, Princeton, to a sworn foe in just a few scenes.
The casting was also spot-on. Matt Damon played Colonel Leslie Groves who invited Oppenheimer to handle the Manhattan Project (a secret government project to build the first atomic bomb before the physicist Heisenberg and the Nazis did). Groves was considered “the biggest son of a b***” ever but admittedly got things done. Damon embodied this role perfectly. He was a likeable, loathsome character. If ever an oxymoron made sense, he was it.
So where do we start with the actors? Do we start with David Hill (Rami Malek of Bohemian Rhapsody fame)? Josh Hartnett (Lucky Number Slevin) as the brilliant American nuclear physicist Ernest Lawrence? The dark outsider among outsiders Edward Teller (a.k.a. Dr. Strangelove a.k.a Father of the ‘Super’/H-bomb) played convincingly by Bennie Safdie? Jason Clarke as Roger Robb? Kenneth Branagh as Niels Bohr? The exceptionally talented Gustaf ‘Floki’ Skarsgard as Hans Bether? Emily Blunt as Kathy Oppenheimer- his devoted yet tempestuous wife? Chris Denham as Klaus Fuchs- the British scientist/Soviet spy? Or do we talk about Tom Conti who did quite well as the larger-than-life personality, Albert Einstein? The movie had over thirty excellent actors and actresses all crammed into a three-hour movie with some having only a few scenes to make their mark and boy, did they make it! This requires a deliberate director to achieve. These actors humanized names many of us had only read in textbooks and, up till now, had only viewed two-dimensionally. Well, not anymore.
The problem all started from a careless conversation between Oppenheimer and a certain Chevalier (Jefferson Hall) which was never reported and later came to haunt the main character as Strauss and the FBI came knocking. This conversation set off a series of chain reactions (pardon the pun) and became pivotal to the movie’s central plot. Curiously though, the scene is rather understated in typical Nolan fashion until it begins to bear meaning during the Security Board interrogations.
One scene that was certainly not understated in the movie was the Twilight Testing. The nerve-racking build-up to this test of the atomic bomb (Twilight) was specially laid-out to have the audience palpitating even though we all knew the outcome. This was done subtly. Then Nolan finally captures the epoch-making event perfectly with pure silence and the sound of a soft beating heart in blinding light. A silence that reverberates so loudly that it never leaves you throughout the movie. You are not left with any doubts about the gravitas of the moment. The thunderous applause by fellow scientists afterwards is a bonus.
In this movie, Nolan takes us on a subtle journey of sudden turns and bends with an unpredictable destination even though this was technically a biopic. It’s not just a movie about a bomb, or nerdy science or politics or an awkward romance or ‘the destroyer of worlds’. Oppenheimer cannot be boxed into any particular subject matter because it seems to tick all boxes…even nudity- which might have been somewhat gratuitous to the story. He uses some of these elements as artistic expressions for otherwise prosaic scenes, turning them around with sound, light and drama into magical moments.
A peculiar thing one notices about the characters in this movie is, save for Einstein, who is adorable, and perhaps Lawrence, they all are dislikeable, broken or flawed individuals in one way or the other- starting from Oppenheimer himself. Even President Truman (played by Gary Oldman) is far from an amiable fellow. This seems to reflect the dislikeable nature of their project and at a time when congeniality and altruism was a luxury seldom afforded in the peak of war. Yet, Nolan adapts American Prometheus exceptionally well, having time to focus on the scientists’ quandary over the ‘ethical use’ of the A-bomb on human populations and Oppenheimer’s discomfort over Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Thankfully and tastefully, Nolan spares us any visuals of these nuclear explosions and moves straight on to the events following. It might also have been traumatic viewing in certain important markets like Japan whose release date comes much later and are central to the story..
I started this review by saying Oppenheimer is not everyone’s cup of tea. That is without a doubt. But one cannot deny its status as genius movie-making. Nolan practically plays with all our senses sucking many into relatively unfamiliar territory for three hours and enjoying it. For this alone, it is deserving of all the accolades it gets. Nolan didn’t just make a biopic or historical movie here. He pushes the envelope like Orson Welles and Scorsese did to create art from it. It is a movie you might have to watch a second time to fully appreciate its innuendoes and richness and, like his contemporary M. Night Shyamalan, Nolan does like his little revelations at the end of his movies. This one is no different as you will eventually see.
So do we recommend Oppenheimer? Yes. Most definitely. That is if it is your sort of thing.
