Scarlett Worthington’s review published on Letterboxd:
“I am become the destroyer of worlds”
It was said to be Christopher Nolan’s Magnum Opus as well as one half of one of the greatest release days in cinema history. These are big shoes to fill that come with mighty expectations, and I must say I do believe they were met.
Right from the beginning of Oppenheimer with Cillian Murphy’s strong array of mundane expressions along with sequences of moving matter, chemical reactions and colourful quantum physics videography we are entering the mind of a genius: the mind of a dangerous genius. We are thrown into the action with all we need to know: we are about to embark on the tale of a great but troubled individual. We may not understand the unbearably complex thing that is quantum physics but we understand that this man does, maybe too much.
A film of this stature, and length, benefitted from launching its viewers straight into the action. Since the hype around this film was so large and the fact that its subject matter is of fairly common knowledge, there is no need for lengthy introductions. We catch on to the interchange between black and white and colour scenes quite quickly. Although we aren’t entirely sure of the exact meaning, it does not distract. It is clear now that the black and white scenes represent a more objective view of things, with these scenes predominantly being the court scenes, while the colour offers up a more subjective perspective one that is focussed on Oppenheimer’s experience. The switches were seamless and very effective.
Oppenheimer takes on more of a biopic structure as a pose to a historical retelling, we truly experience this tragic event from Oppenheimer’s perspective. I came out thinking more about the individual that the invention. Whether this is morally correct is up for debate but that is what makes the film so interesting. Learning more about this infamous figure naturally led me to empathise with Oppenheimer which simultaneously felt wrong.
Oppenheimer is psychological warfare that transfers its conflict onto its viewers. Oppenheimer tackles with themes of hope, determination and personal strife but when you attach these themes with that of the most dangerous weapon ever made, that feels wrong. But is it wrong? It is neither right nor wrong, Oppenheimer presents itself as something much more complicated, just like its character in focus. When you notice that all insights into domestic life are underscored by a baby crying, it is obvious that this man led a life far from normal. With his work and character constantly in question, everyone seemed to be at war with Oppenheimer. That in itself makes a strong political comment as well as anti-war one.
Now that I’ve mentioned the anti-war query I will pose if this film truly is anti-war. Directly I would say no but in its subtext I think definitely. I believe Nolan struck an effective balance in never glorifying war or Oppenheimer himself but also offering a counter-perspective. Oppenheimer is not specifically anti-war but it possesses a hopelessness. There is a profound sense of hopelessness both with the the world, the human race and what humans have been forced to do to survive. It is a very nihilistic view one that Nolan does not shy away from.
Oppenheimer is a film that is ever-moving, one that maintains tension through an ever-present score that you sometimes don’t even notice but are sometimes completely overwhelmed by. Oppenheimer subtly invades your senses in its varied use of sound and visuals. You are left constantly engaged and then occasionally awe-stricken by the ambitiously sublime visuals and effective use of sound or sometimes no sound. What comes to mind was the moment we were all waiting for, the moment that we were all expecting to to cover our ears but instead we were met with silence. Silence, in this moment? The silence was perhaps more of a shock than the sound would have been. It led me to think, to look closely at every visual detail, at very colour, every spark, every connection, at every little piece of darkness in between the reaction. It was beautiful but why was I finding a dangerous weapon beautiful? What comment does this make? A positive one, that you can find beauty in everything? Or a more existential one, that terrible things can take on misconceiving forms? Or was it a tribute to Oppenheimer’s brilliance? It is ambiguous but it is without a doubt an unbelievable piece of film-making.
I would say that Oppenheimer feels like two movies. Let us call them “The Creation of The Destroyer of Worlds” and “The [communist?] Destroyer of Worlds” we have a detailed biopic that lays focus on this creation and all the people involved with it as well as insight into relationships, and then we have this very All The President’s Men out of the court-room drama that puts more focus on his character and the terrible world that can not decide whether to accept him or not. I think both of these films were intertwined in a way that made them feel cohesive and justified a film of this gigantic length. Part of me wonders if on a second viewing I will hone this point further or instead feel it is in fact a hindrance.
I have rambled on about the brilliance of this movie and all the existential things it has made me think about, so why is it only four and half stars? You can probably guess it is of course those female characters. Well written female characters is a known weakness for Nolan and while I thought this film may be the exception, it is not. The female characters involved are quite pivotal to the plot and I truly believe we could have gained something more if they were written better, so that is why I deducted half a star. Sadly they were either one-note or over sexualised which stuck out in all the wrong ways. I can praise the acting because of course Florence Pugh and Emily Blunt can make magic out nothing, which makes it an even bigger shame that they were done kind of dirty.
In terms of the rest of the performances it was a knockout all round. Despite Cillian Murphy shining so brightly in this lead role and despite the film revolving around him, Oppenheimer acts as a powerful ensemble movie. It is great actor after great actor, even if the role is small the performances are big which takes an already great film to the next level. I’m sure it will happen but it will be difficult for a cast of this calibre to be boasted again.
So conclusively, Oppenheimer is a cinematic feat filled with spectacle and existentialism equally that strikes its viewers hard with ambitious film-making and hard-hitting questions. It is undoubtedly impressive and undeniably brilliant. The only question left to ask is the atomic bomb the best or worst invention in history? I’m still not sure I don’t think I ever will be.
