It’s only the middle of summer and we are almost half a year before the Academy nominations, but I think we already have one of the serious contenders for collecting many of the 2024 awards in Christopher Nolan‘s ‘Oppenheimer‘. It’s the kind of movies adored by American audiences and critics alike, the story of a great American adventure and the biography of a personality who made history. The biographical docu-drama brings to the screen the life story of the scientist who led the Manhattan Project and raises questions relevant then and relevant today about the responsibilities of scientists and the risks of research and technological achievements put at the service of militaries and governments. The cast features an impressive gallery of Hollywood stars, and the special effects sprinkled throughout the film give it an extra dimension of appeal (and a Nolan touch). There are also plenty of political drama aspects, but ultimately the main qualities of this film, the ones that will remain after the initial excitement wears off, are related to the extremely truthful and well-documented portraits of the personalities who contributed to the success of the Manhattan Project.
The story in ‘Oppenheimer‘ is structured in three temporal planes that unfold in parallel with dizzying speed. The biographical plot begins in the 1920s, Oppenheimer’s years of study in Europe, and ends in the months after the end of World War II and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The staged 1954 investigation into a secret committee aimed at denying the scientist, who had become uncomfortable by his pacifist political views, an extension of security clearance to allow him access to and collaboration with US nuclear programs constitutes the second level. Finally, the 1958 public hearings for the Senate confirmation of the politician Lewis Strauss – initially a supporter, later a personal enemy of Oppenheimer and the main person responsible for his downfall – represent the third plan. The second and third levels provide the flashbacks that recreate the first. Throughout the development of the biography are interspersed short and spectacular images that visually project Oppenheimer’s thoughts: the mysteries related to the structure of the universe on a sub-atomic scale and on a cosmic scale in the first part of the film and the nightmares of destruction during the dawn of the atomic age. The result is a three-hour film in which the sequences often follow one another with the rapidity of video editing, while in other cases, long, documentary-like scenes record the endless debates in secret or public commissions. Color and black and white alternate to give the feeling of authenticity. ‘Oppenheimer‘ seems like an encyclopedia of editing styles, but all adapted to the purpose. Spectacular, even impressive at times, but not easy to watch.
Do we understand Robert Oppenheimer, those around him and the era they lived in better after watching this film? Probably yes, in some ways, but not completely though. The book that inspired the film, ‘American Prometheus’, one of the many biographies and science books written about the scientist, has over 700 pages. Some aspects of the scientist’s enrollment in the program, personal life and collaboration with his contemporaries are well rendered, others are treated superficially or completely ignored, such as those related to Oppenheimer’s Jewish identity or his decisions to abandon fundamental scientific research in favor of the managerial practicalities of the military program (for this reason Oppenheimer never received a Nobel Prize). Cillian Murphy got into the character’s mind and soul perfectly. The gallery of actors around him played their roles with precision: Robert Downey Jr. in the complex role of Lewis Strauss; Matt Damon as an excellent General Groves, Oppenheimer’s military partner; Benny Safdie – very accurate and expressive as Edward Teller, Oppenheimer’s rival (except for the biographical detail that Teller limped because of an accident in his youth, a detail omitted in the film); Gary Oldman with one single but memorable scene as President Harry Truman. The scenes that take place at Los Alamos during the work on the project and especially in the days and hours leading up to the first atomic explosion are formidable. The dilemmas of Oppenheimer and of his colleagues regarding nuclear weapons and the race between superpowers that has led to the balance of nuclear terror and the possibility of the destruction of all life on the planet are well brought to the screen. My feeling was that some of the aspects of American domestic politics are presented in too much detail and get lost, especially given the length and pace of the narrative. I have read some reviews where it is mentioned that details missed initially can be noticed or understood better on a second viewing. That would be true with many movies, but most moviegoers can’t afford or don’t want to watch a three-hour movie twice (or more!) times. I think that in this case two hours more filtered to the essentials would have been a more suitable format. ‘Oppenheimer‘ is a remarkable film in many ways, but in this case I don’t believe that size added quality or depth.