Friday, July 28, 2023

Tonight's Movie: Oppenheimer (2023)

Along with BARBIE (2023), last week's other big movie release was the biopic OPPENHEIMER (2023).

Tonight I enoyed seeing the three-hour Christopher Nolan epic on a giant 2D IMAX screen with excellent sound.

I liked OPPENHEIMER quite a bit more than the same director's DUNKIRK (2017), the only other Nolan film I've seen, and found it an interesting evening at the movies.

That said, the film has been overpraised and overhyped by Nolan fans who have touted it as a masterwork; it's simply a solid and absorbing -- yet flawed -- biography which I found worth seeing.

Nolan directed and wrote OPPENHEIMER, with his screenplay based on a book by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. It's the story of the scientist who played a key role in developing the atomic bomb during World War II. Though the movie is told in non-linear fashion, it's otherwise a fairly standard biography.

The extensive Los Alamos scenes, of course, focus on the development of the atomic bomb under the leadership of J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) and Major Leslie Groves (Matt Damon). 

The Los Alamos sequences contrast with Washington scenes set years later which focus on issues regarding the renewal of Oppenheimer's security clearance and later still, the Senate confirmation hearings of Lewis Strauss (an almost unrecognizable Robert Downey Jr.), who held a long-simmering grudge against Oppenheimer.

The confirmation hearing scenes are filmed in black and white, an artistic choice which also helps to differentiate the time periods. Despite the many jumps back and forth in time I found the story engrossing and easy to follow.

There is much to praise about this well-made film but it also has some significant flaws, chiefly related to Nolan's self-indulgent filmmaking.

The first issue is the fact that this movie is three hours long. It does a fairly good job maintaining viewer interest, but the "Trinity test" of the bomb at Los Alamos provides a "false ending" after which the movie shifts to Washington and goes on interminably.

It's especially important to note that for a movie which runs three solid hours, there is exceptionally little insight provided into its lead characters. The fact that it holds the attention despite this is a tribute to Nolan's overall talent, though not used here to its full ability, and an excellent cast who do all they can with the material provided.

The Washington scenes, though they feel tacked on to a too-long movie, are boosted by the outstanding performance of Downey Jr. (IRON MAN), who seems likely to be Oscar nominated. The very gradual reveal of his full character, or lack thereof, is extremely well written and acted.

Unfortunately, though, the Washington scenes also become repetitive. The viewer can take only so many scenes of Oppenheimer staring into space or musing on Whether Building the Bomb Was the Right Thing to Do before it gets old. (A line or two explaining how many American -- and other -- lives were saved when we were able to cancel the invasion of Japan would have been helpful as part of the film's portrayal of the issue.) It also doesn't help that Jason Clarke plays attorney Roger Robb as cartoonishly evil.

Another piece of self-indulgent filmmaking is the portrayal of Oppenheimer's affair with Jean Tatock (Florence Pugh, LITTLE WOMEN). These scenes are largely told with Pugh naked but offer little insight into the characters and their relationship. They are troubled, especially her, and they have sex, but what does it tell us about Oppenheimer? Not much.  Unfortunately the film wastes Pugh's considerable talents.

As we walked to the car after the movie I was musing aloud that if the filmmakers wanted to demonstrate Oppenheimer was a ladies' man they could have done it without nudity, and another couple overheard me and chimed in "We agree!"

Oppenheimer also has a challenging relationship with his wife Kitty (Emily Blunt, THE YOUNG VICTORIA), an alcoholic who is an indifferent-to-poor parent. (At one point Oppenheimer must deliver their baby to friends to care for it, as Kitty can't, and clearly he is too busy.) Oppenheimer and the steely-yet-wounded Kitty remain married, but while Oppenheimer at one point says they've walked through fire together, we're left to ask "Why?"

Murphy and Blunt are charismatic performers, but there is no depth to the portrayal of their marriage, including what attracted them and what has kept them together. Oppenheimer comments that a marriage can be a mystery to those on the outside, but I think viewers are meant to come away with greater understanding. It's a bit ironic that the movie is so well played that the viewer doesn't realize just how little was learned till it's over.

As the movie ended it really struck me that I knew little more about the great scientist than I had when the film begins. What makes him tick? Who knows?

One of the film's strong points is its cast. Along with Downey Jr., Damon gives one of the film's highlight performances, following in the footsteps of Brian Donlevy, who played Maj. Groves in MGM's THE BEGINNING OR THE END (1946) shortly after the war ended. His sparring with Oppenheimer is nicely done and his "can do" military man gives the film needed bursts of energy playing opposite the dour Murphy.

The movie is packed with familiar faces, including a brief appearance by Kenneth Branagh as a scientist. Gary Oldman, who played Churchill in DARKEST HOUR (2017), has a single scene as an impatient Harry S. Truman.

Other faces in the cast include James D'Arcy (AGENT CARTER), Jack Quaid (son of Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan), Tony Goldwyn, Casey Affleck, Tom Conti, Alden Ehrenreich, and Josh Hartnett, to name a few.

The movie was filmed by Hoyte Van Hoytema. The score was by Ludwig Goransson.

Parental Advisory: This film is rated R and fully deserves it due to the previously referenced nude scenes. It's a shame they weren't cut out, which would have dropped the film to PG-13 and made it more accessible to younger viewers.

In the end, OPPENHEIMER is imperfect yet interesting. I'm glad I saw it and feel it's worthwhile, with the noted reservations.

7 Comments:

Blogger Lynn Rutledge said...

Yes, it's a shame the nude scenes weren't cut out. It's also a shame they were filmed in the first place.

12:53 PM  
Blogger Laura said...

It's kind of odd to me in the "Me Too" era when we're supposed to be all about respecting women, actresses still agree to film scenes where they are naked for an audience's entertainment.

I know there are those who will find me censorious and/or a prude and/or not respecting "art," but I feel this issue is about respecting women, respecting the audience, and an actress's self-respect as well.

Best wishes,
Laura

12:58 PM  
Anonymous chris evans said...

Thanks for the excellent review. I look forward to seeing it. I suppose it wants to be a modern 'Patton' or 'Lawrence of Arabia'. I like Nolan's films though he can be divisive. This is one of the best reviews I have read.

6:19 PM  
Blogger Laura said...

Thank you for the kind words, Chris, I appreciate it! I'd love to know your thoughts when you see it, and welcome other readers to share their takes.

Best wishes,
Laura

9:13 AM  
Anonymous chris evans said...

Maybe someday somewhere somebody would do a big biopic on one of my favorite flawed American man the great writer William Faulkner it could have everything Hollywood, the books, ladies, and as usual tortured genius. He actually met Oppenheimer once at a party. It did not go well.

1:01 PM  
Anonymous Chris Evans said...

I will be sure to post my thoughts when I see it. You might also be interested in some other tellings of the story 'Oppenheimer' from the '80s a miniseries with Sam Waterston and 'Fat Man and Little Boy' from 1989 with Paul Newman, John Cusack, and Laura Dern among others.

1:13 PM  
Blogger Tom said...

Hi! I wish I read your review before going to see the movie; I found it way too long and felt the 1989 movie Fat Man and Little Boy told the same story in a better way.

4:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older