‘Oppenheimer’: An ambitious – and epic – cautionary tale

|
Melinda Sue Gordon/Universal Pictures
“Oppenheimer” cast members (left to right) Cillian Murphy, Olli Haaskivi, Matt Damon, and Dane DeHaan help tell the story of the physicist known as “the father of the atomic bomb.”

“Oppenheimer,” the new Christopher Nolan movie starring Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer, “the father of the atomic bomb,” does not present itself as a simple biopic. Instead, it’s scaled to be the biopic of all biopics. It also functions as a kind of explosive device all on its own, igniting questions and controversies about the morality of warfare, the bloody crossroads between science and politics, the limits of power, and much else in the deepthink realm. Nolan is perhaps best known for the “Dark Knight” movies, but forget Batman. For Nolan, Oppenheimer is the ultimate hero martyr.

This is a lot of baggage for any movie to carry, especially a big Hollywood movie shot in IMAX and aimed at a popular audience. Perhaps inevitably, it falls short of its ambitions. But it’s bracing to see a studio movie these days, particularly one with such huge scope, that at least attempts to serve up more than recycled goods.

Its time frame, as is often the case in Nolan’s films, is nonlinear, shuttling mostly between Oppenheimer’s life as a physicist heading up the top-secret Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, New Mexico, and his eventual downfall more than a decade later in the red-baiting McCarthy era. The switching back and forth is unwieldy, and there is yet a third major postwar section involving Oppenheimer’s chief nemesis, former Atomic Energy Commission Chair Lewis Strauss (a great Robert Downey Jr., in the film’s best performance). And yet, to some extent, the unwieldiness contributes to the film’s overall sense of almost apocalyptic doominess. Past, present, and future events bleed into each other, offering no escape routes.

Why We Wrote This

What can a film about the origins of the atomic bomb and its “father” bring to modern discussions about nuclear warfare?

A mass of contradictions, Oppenheimer is not your typical movie hero, or even antihero. Intellectually prodigious from an early age, he was also unapologetically arrogant, a womanizer, fatally naive about the ways of the world, and, with his signature pork pie hat, also something of a dandy. He was also a Communist sympathizer in his early years, although, unlike his brother (Dylan Arnold) and a handful of friends, or his troubled lover and his wife, he was never a party member. As Jean Tatlock, the doctor with whom Oppenheimer was having an affair, Florence Pugh brings her trademark intensity, while Emily Blunt is too little used as Kitty Oppenheimer. Her husband’s political sympathies would normally have been enough to disqualify him to head the team that eventually created the atomic bombs that fell on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 100,000 people. But the project’s director, Gen. Leslie Groves (a strong Matt Damon), decided otherwise – even though it had been reported to him that Oppenheimer “couldn’t run a hamburger stand.”

Melinda Sue Gordon/Universal Pictures
“Oppenheimer” features actors (front row, left to right) Christopher Denham, Devon Bostick, Emily Blunt, Gustaf Skarsgård, and Josh Peck.

Nolan sees Oppenheimer as both a man of flesh and blood, and a holy martyr. There aren’t many emotional levels to Murphy’s performance – the real Oppenheimer was notoriously charming – but Murphy has the requisite saintly, slightly famished look that Nolan no doubt sought. (It’s the same look as the photo that graces the cover of the 2005 Oppenheimer biography “American Prometheus,” the movie’s primary source, by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin.) The great physicist saved the world only to usher in a more dangerous world of deadlier hydrogen bombs. His opposition to those bombs led to charges of disloyalty and capped his downfall.

As a visual artist, Nolan can be compelling and immersive, as in the Los Alamos scenes, or overwrought, as in a few fantastical sequences that resemble jumbo planetarium light shows. The thunderous score by Ludwig Göransson, which tends to drown out the actors, is in the movie to make doubly sure we are impressed with the momentousness of the material. Nolan needn’t have worried. Oppenheimer’s moral crises are intensely personal but on such a monumental scale that they take on the dimensions of myth. They justify the bigness of this three-hour movie. Famously quoting from the Bhagavad-Gita, a Hindu scripture, in the aftermath of the successful atomic bomb test, Oppenheimer softly mutters to himself, “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” Awestruck and aghast, there is not a trace of self-importance to his words.

That A-bomb test sequence is the film’s great centerpiece. The infernal fire seems to reach infinity. What isn’t widely known is that the Los Alamos scientists were not entirely sure the explosion would not destroy the planet. What connects this movie to our present day is the realization that this nuclear horror could still happen. “Oppenheimer” is more than an epic biopic. It’s an epic cautionary tale.

Peter Rainer is the Monitor’s film critic. “Oppenheimer” is rated R for some sexuality, nudity, and language.  

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to ‘Oppenheimer’: An ambitious – and epic – cautionary tale
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2023/0721/Oppenheimer-An-ambitious-and-epic-cautionary-tale
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe