I think I will be in the minority here when I say, I think Christopher Nolan missed the mark with this film. Let's first talk about what worked: "Oppenheimer" is no doubt a treat for the ears and eyes. I watched it in IMAX 70mm, the crispness of detail in the 70mm film stock was superb, and the 5.1 DTS-HD master audio surround sound was impactful, sometimes even shaking the seats. The acting was outstanding and there are some really memorable moments and tense scenes between actors. I also don't think I need to say anything further about Nolan as a filmmaker; he's like Martin Scorsese in the way you know exactly what you're going to get from a Nolan film, in terms of style and tone.
Now onto the problems: Nolan's films tend to be very dialogue-heavy, and this film was no different. Having not done any earlier research on Oppenheimer's life purposefully, so I can go into the film with a blank slate and let Nolan do the work for me, I felt disappointed that I had to look up people's names and backstories during the movie. Nolan throws you right into the plot without a whole lot of exposition or background of each real historical figure portrayed. Normally I don't like a lot of exposition, but for a 3-hour long film, it would be great if we could fill in the blanks for some of the real-life figures' motivations and aspirations, to get a better feel on why they either supported or denied helping Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project.
My other major gripe was the absence of any real emotional arch. The film is somewhat of a straightforward retelling of events, no better than watching a three-hour documentary about Oppenheimer's work on the Manhattan Project, but without extensive exposition as mentioned earlier. Yes, it's edited in a non-linear fashion, but if one were to re-edit the film chronologically, you'd get a straightforward and somewhat dry narrative. One of the goals of a filmmaker is to help you empathize with the characters, especially the protagonist. Although Nolan perhaps wanted us to feel ambivalent about Oppenheimer's ambiguous morality, it still would have been nice to get a little bit of a better perspective as to why Oppenheimer decided to move forward with the Manhattan Project beyond the obvious reason of wanting recognition as a premiere theoretical physicist.
This is also true for moments in the film that I wish were included that would have left more of a lasting impact on the audience if added in. The actual dropping of both bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not included, merely mentioned over a radio broadcast. So in my opinion the emotional weight of the dropping of those two bombs, and witnessing the sheer horror of their impact is totally lost on the audience beyond Oppenheimer's waking nightmares that he has throughout the film. For films of this stature, sometimes I imagine scenic moments in my head before watching the film, which can taint the experience if you have these types of high expectations for potentially emotionally impactful scenes. I tried not to let it dampen my experience, but once I realized these moments were not included in the film, I felt that there was much more left to the imagination.
Lastly, the sound design was much better than "Interstellar" or Nolan's previous films where the score overpowers the dialogue. I could hear the dialogue in "Oppenheimer" for most of the film, but there were still a handful of times when I couldn't hear people speaking over the orchestral score. That's not to say it holds the film back in any substantive way, I just wanted to mention it still seems to be a minor issue in Nolan's filmography.
This film will no doubt be regarded as a classic, and in the Nolan pantheon, it will most likely rank amongst "The Prestige", "The Dark Knight", "Inception" and "Interstellar", as some of Nolan's greatest works. But I can't help but feel like Nolan is also a bit on autopilot, in terms of his filmmaker prowess. Much like P. T. Anderson with "Licorice Pizza", and Wes Anderson for "Astroid City", these powerful filmmakers have found their sweet spot and are sticking to it. Nolan I feel is leaning into his strengths as well with "Oppenheimer", but in my opinion, is no longer challenging himself as a filmmaker. This is not necessarily a bad thing; he is one of our best living directors. But as a fan of Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, and Ridley Scott who are versatile directors that can tackle different genres and tones, I feel Nolan will stick to his guns (and, well, explosions), and keep giving us intelligent character studies, that unfortunately occasionally lack in catharsis or heightened emotional depth.
Now onto the problems: Nolan's films tend to be very dialogue-heavy, and this film was no different. Having not done any earlier research on Oppenheimer's life purposefully, so I can go into the film with a blank slate and let Nolan do the work for me, I felt disappointed that I had to look up people's names and backstories during the movie. Nolan throws you right into the plot without a whole lot of exposition or background of each real historical figure portrayed. Normally I don't like a lot of exposition, but for a 3-hour long film, it would be great if we could fill in the blanks for some of the real-life figures' motivations and aspirations, to get a better feel on why they either supported or denied helping Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project.
My other major gripe was the absence of any real emotional arch. The film is somewhat of a straightforward retelling of events, no better than watching a three-hour documentary about Oppenheimer's work on the Manhattan Project, but without extensive exposition as mentioned earlier. Yes, it's edited in a non-linear fashion, but if one were to re-edit the film chronologically, you'd get a straightforward and somewhat dry narrative. One of the goals of a filmmaker is to help you empathize with the characters, especially the protagonist. Although Nolan perhaps wanted us to feel ambivalent about Oppenheimer's ambiguous morality, it still would have been nice to get a little bit of a better perspective as to why Oppenheimer decided to move forward with the Manhattan Project beyond the obvious reason of wanting recognition as a premiere theoretical physicist.
This is also true for moments in the film that I wish were included that would have left more of a lasting impact on the audience if added in. The actual dropping of both bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not included, merely mentioned over a radio broadcast. So in my opinion the emotional weight of the dropping of those two bombs, and witnessing the sheer horror of their impact is totally lost on the audience beyond Oppenheimer's waking nightmares that he has throughout the film. For films of this stature, sometimes I imagine scenic moments in my head before watching the film, which can taint the experience if you have these types of high expectations for potentially emotionally impactful scenes. I tried not to let it dampen my experience, but once I realized these moments were not included in the film, I felt that there was much more left to the imagination.
Lastly, the sound design was much better than "Interstellar" or Nolan's previous films where the score overpowers the dialogue. I could hear the dialogue in "Oppenheimer" for most of the film, but there were still a handful of times when I couldn't hear people speaking over the orchestral score. That's not to say it holds the film back in any substantive way, I just wanted to mention it still seems to be a minor issue in Nolan's filmography.
This film will no doubt be regarded as a classic, and in the Nolan pantheon, it will most likely rank amongst "The Prestige", "The Dark Knight", "Inception" and "Interstellar", as some of Nolan's greatest works. But I can't help but feel like Nolan is also a bit on autopilot, in terms of his filmmaker prowess. Much like P. T. Anderson with "Licorice Pizza", and Wes Anderson for "Astroid City", these powerful filmmakers have found their sweet spot and are sticking to it. Nolan I feel is leaning into his strengths as well with "Oppenheimer", but in my opinion, is no longer challenging himself as a filmmaker. This is not necessarily a bad thing; he is one of our best living directors. But as a fan of Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, and Ridley Scott who are versatile directors that can tackle different genres and tones, I feel Nolan will stick to his guns (and, well, explosions), and keep giving us intelligent character studies, that unfortunately occasionally lack in catharsis or heightened emotional depth.
Tell Your Friends