As I was new to the historical figures in Oppenheimer, I felt the most immersed in the past when the characters started talking about Japan. Especially having watched this in Hong Kong, I started thinking about our complex relationship with the island country.

Its imperial conquests, both before and during WWII, are still remembered by our elders. My grandmother for example, had her family torn apart during the war, separating her from her parents and siblings. She was only three. The Japanese conquests also robbed her of her education, and with my grandmother being such an intelligent, resourceful woman, I often wonder how her life would have turned out in different times. I'm sure this kind of family history is not uncommon throughout the Asia-Pacific. So while the pro-bombing, anti-Japanese fervour at Los Alamos was meant to show hubris and cruelty, I couldn't help but remember the relieved recollection of Japan's surrender. With my family history in mind, I was unsettled and conflicted.

Some moments later, we see Oppenheimer at a meeting deciding on the Japanese cities to bomb.
Kyoto was spared due to its cultural importance and personal significance (someone had spent his honeymoon there). The audience erupted into laughter, as it was relatable - Japan is our most beloved holiday destination, and we would have probably spared Kyoto for the same reasons. In a matter of a few generations, under a span of a century, how did our relationship with Japan change so much? How is so much of the past still lingering around? What of the apologies from Japan we never officially received? Am I dismissing the suffering of my family by enjoying sushi and sightseeing?

Nolan does not burden the film with a be-all, end-all way to reflect on history, much to the dismay of some people on Twitter. Whether there is one or not is not important. But rather, Nolan addresses the horror that lies at the heart of Oppenheimer's discovery (and in Cillian Murphy's madman gaze).

It's time to talk about the colour scheme, along with some important plot details. 
Colour is Oppenheimer's perspective, while black and white represents Lewis Strauss’ version of events. We know Oppenheimer to be incredibly complex from his personal life and the mark he left on history. Whereas in contrast, Lewis Strauss seems to be more flat. To those without prior knowledge of Oppenheimer's trials, Strauss goes from being a helper and supporter of Oppenheimer to his biggest saboteur. His character is very much black-and-white, echoing the colour scheme assigned to his scenes. But that doesn't mean the real Lewis Strauss is so easily characterised. He is just the antagonist in this instance, in relation to Oppenheimer and within this segment of history. By showing Strauss in black and white, he is reduced to an unwanted side effect of Oppenheimer's actions. But at the very end, when we see him in colour, we are reminded that he is someone with complexities and agency too, capable of making choices that ripple out to social benefit or harm. 

We have no way of assessing the total final benefit or harm an action holds. History is insufficient for looking at what we've done, what our actions will continue to do. If time is a river, with the past upstream and the future downstream, Nolan doesn't simply take us upstream to the 40s and 50s; he dunks us into the entire river. If it wasn't already a name of a song, I would have said that he makes us aware of the river flowing in us. He makes us aware of the temporality flowing through our veins,  and that every instance is linked to a moment in the past and future. Oppenheimer is far beyond an origin story of a dangerous weapon. Because the real horror is not in the existence of the weapon, but in its inevitability. In watching rn film, we realise that in the sea of causes and effects, the past and future are equally inescapable. All of us have may blood on our hands. 

P.S. this is the second time RDJ has starred in a film that features a profound moment where a mass destructive force pretty much looks us in the eye and says I am inevitable.