Oppenheimer Review: Build, then Rage Against the (Nuclear War) Machine

Even without the IMAX experience, Oppenheimer engages all the senses to deliver an engrossing plot, brilliant writing, and moving performances about an extremely timely topic: the nuclear arms race. Despite some shortcomings that are endemic to Hollywood, Oppenheimer sucks you in and spits you out with a transformed perception of reality. As the movie concluded, I sat still for a minute recalibrating to the real world, which is generally apathetic when it comes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The last minute of the movie provides not only a chilling resolution of an earlier cliff hanger, but perfectly summarizes the deeply disturbing consequences of the development of the atomic bomb.

Follow us on Facebook and Instagram @SpotLifeASIA.

Oppenheimer wastes no time, opening with not one, but many bangs and visual motifs metastasizing in sync with the score. These visuals are intermittently replaced by a horrified expression of J. Robert Oppemheimer, played by Cillian Murphy. Just as your ears are adjusting to the explosions and haunting score, we are abruptly transported to a dry Congressional hearing. As the film goes on, the score is superimposed on more and more dialogue, which could have been even more piercing with some much-needed silence. 

The confirmation hearing is for Admiral Lewis Strauss, the head of the US Atomic Energy Commission, who is played by Robert Downey Jr. He is concerned that questions will arise surrounding his relation to Oppenheimer, who is undergoing a closed hearing regarding the revocation of his security clearance. As Strauss is coached on how to answer, we learn about how the two met and are formally introduced to Oppenheimer. 

I was impressed by the quality of the writing, characterized by humor that bites and captures the tortured and arrogant genius that was Oppenheimer. Still, some moments seemed out of sorts. Nolan sought to incorporate important aspects of Oppenheimer’s persona, such as the fact that he read and often cited the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu scripture. In a nauseating Hollywood fashion, this is for some reason brought to light during a passionless, intimate scene between Tatlock and Oppenheimer. Tatlock happens to randomly select a line from the scripture and asks Oppenheimer to read aloud: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” While the words carry an important weight, it left me wishing the writers had chosen not to remind me that this was indeed a dramatization of Oppenheimer’s life.  

A serial womanizer, Oppenheimer develops several relationships and affairs throughout the film. Although the film is three hours long, these relationships happened so fast and superficially that I lacked the time to become intimately invested in their evolution. Pugh’s character is the overwhelming star of the film’s intimate scenes and as such, she spends much of her time on screen naked. Emily Blunt plays Oppenheimer’s wife, Katherine or “Kitty”, and gives a tremendous performance of a conflicted, yet loyal, wife who understood Oppenheimer better than he understood himself. Blunt is a persuasive and fierce fighter who consistently reprimands Oppenheimer for cowing to the system which disposes of him after he speaks out against the spiraling nuclear arms race. 

Despite the typical Hollywood-esque elements, Oppenheimer exquisitely demonstrates the attitude of the US government during this time. In trying to convince hesitant scientists to join the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer emphasizes the disastrous consequences of Nazi Germany developing the atomic bomb first. He passionately claims that the government “needs them,” to which a skeptic replies “until they don’t.” Even during the Second World War when the US was fighting fascism (which it just barely defeated in the country’s own attempted fascist coup d’etat backed by Dupont and JP Morgan), it maintained an antagonistic stance towards the Soviet Union. Oppenheimer is appropriately dumbfounded when US government elites identify not Berlin or Munich, but Moscow and Leningrad as bombing targets.

This is one of many exposures of the US government’s modus operandi that transforms Oppenheimer’s stance towards the bomb. Murphy’s performance is powerful because we watch him slowly see the writing on the wall as opposed to having a sudden epiphany. He is particularly influenced by colleagues who begin to question using the bomb at all given Germany’s capitulation and Japan’s imminent surrender. The latter is an often-omitted fact from the American educational system, which portrays the use of the atomic bomb as an unavoidable and necessary evil. 

Whether it’s a necessary or lesser evil, the US government consistently depicts political decisions as one of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” In this way, the film shows how the government convinces the public of disastrous political decisions. For example, US government officials in Oppenheimer (and in our current society) promote the satirical absurdity that nuclear weapons save lives and bring peace.

The genius of both Nolan and Murphy collide in a moving scene after Hiroshima and Nagasaki are bombed. The divided nature of Oppenheimer emerges in a victory speech interspersed with hallucinations of the cheering audience experiencing the effects of his creation. The cadence of this scene decisively cuts against the otherwise fast pace of the film and is evocative for both Oppenheimer and the audience.  

Ultimately, the US government wasn’t enough of a villain to Nolan. I was disappointed by the film’s ultimate focus on petty personal issues between characters. While egoism is certainly present in Washington, to reduce Oppenheimer’s battle against the war machine to one of a trivial personal vendetta is irresponsible. Oppenheimer’s crusade against the beast he helped birth is one that tackles the broader economic and military interests of the US government as a whole, not against any one particular individual.

Likewise, while the film mentions the horrifying effects of the nuclear bomb on the Japanese people, it astonishingly fails to mention that between 1946 and 1958, the US conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands. In doing so, the US displaced thousands of inhabitants and contaminated the soil, among other consequences. That is, when it stopped short of incinerating islands in their entirety. 

As a biopic, Oppenheimer tells the story of a fascinating and complicated man who can be viewed as a hero or villain depending on who you ask and what part of his character you examine. As a work of art, Oppenheimer provides a much-needed reminder of what is at stake when we fail to speak out against the insidious actions of a government uninterested in the fate of humanity. Hollywood has a mind of its own, but I still strongly recommend that anyone interested in using theirs go watch this masterpiece.