[NoHo Arts District, CA] – This month’s Mike Peros movie and TV reviews is all about Oppenheimer.
When I first heard about Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, starring Gillian Murphy as the brilliant but troubled physicist instrumental in the development of the atomic bomb, I thought, hasn’t this been done already, and will it bring in audiences? (I was first reminded of the disappointing reception accorded Fat Man and Little Boy, starring Paul Newman, with Dwight Schultz as Dr. Robert Oppenheimer.) Luckily for me (and moviegoers everywhere), I hadn’t reckoned on writer/director Christopher Nolan’s considerable skills as a writer and director. Working from the biography American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin, Nolan has fashioned an epic that works on many levels, from the historical to the emotional and intensely personal. He has crafted a film that draws you into the achievements and inner torments of a contradictory and controversial figure, a film that is complex, harrowing and richly rewarding.
Without going into great details about the plot (though some plot points will be included–hopefully with no real spoilers), I’d like to just sum up why you should see Oppenheimer. First of all, the scope, the visual and visceral impact of the film demands to be appreciated on the large screen–it need not be 70mm, 35mm will do. I’ve seen the film once and I’m thinking of returning to catch the things I may have missed. Second, the structure of the film is flawless. The film travels along two intricately connected plotlines: one is the 1954 hearing into Oppenheimer’s hearing on whether or not to revoke his security clearance–partly because of his questionable Communist connections, partly because of his increasing outspokenness against nuclear power, and partly because…I’ll stop there.The other is the later Senate confirmation hearing of Atomic Energy Commission member Lewis Strauss (a superb Robert Downey), filmed in black and white and in which events portrayed on both occasionally overlap. This narrative structure works beautifully as events/discussions in both sections are either portrayed, partly delineated or alluded to, often with satisfactory payoffs later in the narrative, the most satisfying of which involves a purported discussion between Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein (Tom Conti).
In terms of its depiction of the science (and the scientists), Oppenheimer manages to be both extremely intelligent about the science, as well as fairly accessible to the lay observer–whom I suspect to be anyone not involved in nuclear physics. There are several scenes in scientists such as Edward Lawrence (a fine Josh Hartnett), Oppenheimer and Edward Teller (known as the “father of the hydrogen bomb” and well-played by Benny Safdie) discuss the theoretical physics, but the important points are conveyed in such a way that viewers might need to strain a little, but they won’t feel left out (or pandered to). What’s more compelling though is the intensive exploration of the human cost in such endeavors: how scientists will sometimes try to absolve themselves of responsibility by assigning blame to those in power who would have the final decision. Oppenheimer was in charge of “the Manhattan Project” but he is shown as having conflicting thoughts about the ultimate use of such a weapon–and his own responsibility in the outcome. (This is brilliantly conveyed through some powerful imagery and montages–did I mention seeing this on a big screen?) Other scientists in his employ share the same misgivings–particularly after Germany, the original target, surrenders. There are others though, who view Oppenheimer as a nuisance and potential threat: these range from fellow scientists to military men and finally, to some ambitious politicians. Oppenheimer portrays all this with both complexity and clarity–and the points the film makes, regarding conscience, consequences, and the abuse of power, resonate even more so today.
Finally (well not exactly, but in the sense that this is all for now), the performances are impeccable. Many of the actors do some of their finest work here; yes, in many ways, the “all-star cast” component is reminiscent of 1970s disaster films. (Isn’t that Kenneth Branagh as Niels Bohr, wait is that Florence Pugh as Oppenheimer’s very Communist, and ultimately discarded mistress Jean Tatlock?). But here, the recognizable casting works in the film’s favor, as each actor brings his/her considerable powers to make a distinct impression, in service to the film’s themes. Emily Blunt is superb as Oppenheimer’s wife, vulnerable but with some untapped reserves of strength; Matt Damon is terrific as General Groves, adroitly blending exasperation and compassion; Robert Downey Jr. gives one of his finest performances (I’m still fond of Chaplin), one in which hs carefully cultivated persona is used to extremely good effect. Gillian Murphy is consistently impressive as the conflicted Oppenheimer, flawlessly playing his arrogance, his ambition, his reserve, his occasional naivete, and finally a man nearing the end of his tether, both personally and professionally. I would be surprised, at this relatively late date (and given the state of the world at the moment), if Oppenheimer didn’t bring him home Best Picture, as well as several other awards. See it when you can.