With “Oppenheimer” director Christopher Nolan dedicates himself to the “impossible and paradoxical ethical dilemma” of J. Robert Oppenheimer.
On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb used in a war on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. On August 9, the second followed over Nagasaki and less than a week later the invention of the “father of the atomic bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967), officially put an end to the Second World War. But at what price? With the biopic “Oppenheimer”, which will be released in cinemas on July 20, director Christopher Nolan (52) has erected a cinematic monument to a formative figure in human history. One that seems as paradoxical as the person it is dedicated to.
From genius to “destroyer of worlds” – that’s what it’s all about
The end justifies the means, they say. The longer the theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy, 47) works as director of the top-secret Manhattan Project during World War II, the more vehemently he learns to contradict this idiom. Under no circumstances should the Nazis be the first to succeed in developing an operational nuclear weapon, everyone agrees. But wouldn’t an atomic bomb created on US soil inevitably lead to the end of the world?
Oppenheimer, or How I Learned to Hate the Bomb
“Now I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Oppenheimer said this world-famous sentence in an interview in 1965, 20 years after the airdrops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This thought crossed his mind right after the first successful atomic bomb test had succeeded in nowhere in New Mexico and indirectly sealed the fate of countless people: A short time later his invention wiped out the lives of over 200,000 people, mostly civilians.
In the run-up to the film, Nolan described his protagonist’s situation as an “impossible and paradoxical ethical dilemma”. There is one of the most groundbreaking scientific achievements of mankind on the one hand, and the potential for endless destruction on the other. no wonder that Nolan also attested: “I think that of all the characters I’ve dealt with, Oppenheimer is by far the most ambiguous and paradoxical. Which, considering that I’ve done three ‘Batman’ films, says a lot.”
Said dilemma also includes the question: Can one celebrate a scientific milestone without feeling responsible for its consequences? “Oppenheimer” is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. The mythological figure Prometheus once stole fire from the gods, brought it to the people and was punished with eternal torment. Oppenheimer, on the other hand, as the book and film show, castigated himself for his work throughout his life.
Too long and yet far too short
Why “Oppenheimer” itself seems paradoxical: With a running time of three hours, it demands a lot of stamina and seems lengthy, especially at the beginning and towards the end. At the same time, the numerous important people, who are sometimes only presented for a few seconds, create a rushed feeling. Again and again you get the impression as a viewer that it is taken for granted to know who you are dealing with – with people like Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr that may also be true. However, after going to the cinema, other names may increasingly appear in popular Google searches.
As a feature film, “Oppenheimer” is therefore too long. Far too short for all the things that Nolan wants to depict and explain with it. In the case of a similar topic – the Chernobyl accident – in 2019 the format of the miniseries was chosen. “Chernobyl” was dedicated to the nuclear power plant disaster of 1986 over five episodes of around one hour each and used every single oppressive minute masterfully. Perhaps Oppenheimer’s bomb should have been countered in series at least in this regard.
Nolan is Nolan – for better or for worse
Instead, Nolan chose a narrative form that can be divided into three acts: Oppenheimer’s career, his work on the Manhattan Project, and the subsequent witch hunt during the anti-Communist McCarthy era. However, the fact that the atomic bomb is dropped towards the middle of the film makes the third act, which deals with Oppenheimer’s downfall, appear anticlimactic. It only helps to a limited extent that Nolan once again diligently jumps through time (as happened in “Prestige”) in order to tell Oppenheimer’s story achronologically.
His use of scenes in color, sometimes in black and white, is more effective. He already used this stylistic device in his work “Memento”, but in it to mark different levels of time. In “Oppenheimer” meanwhile, it changes the perspective on what has been experienced: scenes in color revolve around Oppenheimer as the central character and how he perceives what is happening. Black-and-white shots, on the other hand, take an external look at the “father of the atomic bomb” and his work, creating an authentic documentary flair. A sophisticated staging trick by the filmmaker to also visually present Oppenheimer’s wealth of contrasts.
Torment and cunning incarnate
Despite the star ensemble, Cillian Murphy carries most of the film on his shoulders alone. Again and again, Nolan grabs the lead actor’s face in close-up on screen, capturing the pain of the entire world in his steel-blue eyes. The greatest moment in terms of acting: when Oppenheimer has to celebrate the victory over Japan in front of a cheering crowd, but he only sees the suffering in front of his eyes. The star has worked with Nolan on numerous occasions. But never better.
In addition to Murphy, Robert Downey Jr. (58) deserves a special mention. As Lewis Strauss, an influential politician and leading member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, the Marvel star is allowed to present his sly side. It is also good to see Josh Hartnett (44) again in a larger role on the screen. Meanwhile, Oscar winners Gary Oldman (65) and Rami Malek (42) make extremely short but memorable appearances. Oldman plays the then President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972) and is allowed to draw a cynical conclusion: because nobody in Japan gives a damn who built the bomb, he assures the restless Oppenheimer. Very well, however, who had them thrown off.
Conclusion:
The spark in “Oppenheimer” ignites late, but powerfully. Despite various stylistic gimmicks, it has become a stringent film, so no comparison to Nolan’s recently exuberant “Tenet”. However, the biography turns out to be much more documentary than many moviegoers might expect. Maybe this time Nolan should have experimented with the format himself and made a miniseries out of “Oppenheimer”. But the passionate filmmaker cannot turn his back on his beloved screen. Who can blame him?