Oppenheimer: An important historical piece, but...

I was keen to see Oppenheimer because of my special interest in the Second World War and my general interest in the biographies of figures who have played a major role in global social, cultural and political history.

Oppenheimer | Released in Australia July 2023 | Viewed August 2023 | Directed by Christopher Nolan | Main cast: Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Robert Downey Jnr, Matt Damon, and Florence Pugh

The film focusses on the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the leader of the Manhattan Project that produced the atom bombs that were dropped over Japan in May 1945, effectively ending the war. In many ways, the film is more about the rise and fall of Oppenheimer than the atomic bomb project, using the events of the McCarthy Era anti-communism campaigns as a jumping off point. These campaigns saw Oppenheimer stripped of his security clearance in 1954.

The film certainly left an impression on me although I struggled to give it a rating. I wanted to love it as its topic is such an important piece of history. There is no doubt that the film is beautifully made, visually stunning, and a clever piece of cinema from a technical standpoint. There are so many powerhouse performances, most notably Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jnr, Florence Pugh, and Emily Blunt.

There was much to learn about such a momentous period of world history and of Oppenheimer's early years, his political stance, and his personal relationships. That said, the film relies on a certain level of understanding of events to fully appreciate the story. The filmic technique that Nolan employs of cutting back and forth between time periods makes for a fractured narrative rather than a cohesive, chronological story. This technique reduces the film's ability to tell a powerful story. I like intelligent, thoughtful films, but I don't believe this is achieved by failing to flesh out the story or using flashy filmic devices that detract from understanding the film's messages. Working hard to keep up in a 3-hour film is not a great movie experience!

Richard Brody's review for The New Yorker, one I read after writing mine, mirrors my feelings about the film. I, too, was also hoping for a deeper exploration of the moral dilemma Oppenheimer faces after the bombs are dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is the most interesting part of the Oppenheimer story, I think, but it is very undercooked in Nolan's film. It feels like the film has gone for something visually stunning at the expense of Oppenheimer's moral reckoning, particularly after he realises that scientific work on the atom bomb would continue after the war.

I completely understand the dilemma in making a film about Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project. There are so many facets to the story, from the scientific work undertaken to create the bomb, to Oppenheimer himself and other key figures in the project, to the effect the project had on the people of Los Alamos, and the catastrophic loss of life in Japan in 1945. All that said, the film tries to do too much and in doing so, creates something visually stunning that lacks soul. It's hard to imagine that a 3-hour film could be left wanting. It just did that for me in terms of Oppenheimer's brilliant but flawed character and the moral quandary his success on the project created.

At times, too, the sound was too much for my wonky hearing and I had trouble understanding some of the dialogue. Subtitles would have been awesome 😉.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐