Oppenheimer review: Christopher Nolan delivers his masterpiece
Cillian Murphy is remarkable in this powerful, dazzling American tragedy that co-stars Robert Downey Jr., Emily Blunt, and Matt Damon
Film Reviews Christopher Nolan
It’s fitting that Christopher Nolan uses the opening minutes of Oppenheimer to evoke the myth of Prometheus, the legendary titan who stole fire from the Gods and gave it to humanity, only to suffer terrible consequences. Nolan’s film is, after all, adapted from Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin’s Pulitzer-winning biography American Prometheus. But there’s more to the allusion than a nod in the direction of the source material. For the filmmaker himself, the comparison to Prometheus is a warning of what we’re about to see, the announcement of a uniquely American tragedy that’s rooted in reality yet also mythic in scope and ambition. In other words, it’s Nolan calling his shot, swinging for the fences in ways that even he never has before. What follows is perhaps his most self-assured and passionate cinematic effort so far, a film so thunderous and heavy that it just might knock you through the back wall of the theater.
As he has so often throughout his career, Nolan takes a nonlinear approach to the story, here laying out the life and work of J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy), the soft-spoken, intensely brilliant father of the atomic bomb. The film bounces with precision and grace between crucial moments in Oppenheimer’s life, from the day he met his eventual wife Kitty (Emily Blunt) to his arrival at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton to, of course, the launch of the Manhattan Project that would give birth to the world’s first nuclear weapon. Along the way, we meet many figures that buoy and challenge him, from a young woman named Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh) to a Washington D.C. maneuverer named Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.), the latter hewing closer to Oppenheimer’s personal journey than perhaps even he realizes.
The purpose of all the weaving, between Oppenheimer’s student days and the security hearings that challenged his reputation in the 1950s, is not just to allow Nolan opportunities to play with certain symmetries in the physicist’s life, though he certainly makes time for those. Instead, there’s a kind of scientific detail to the way the film chooses to express these moments in a certain order, a sense that getting the combination right will incite a certain chain reaction in the audience. For Oppenheimer, who sees the makeup of the world in ways that no one else does, a chance encounter in the 1920s could change the world in the 1940s, then doom the same world in the 1960s. With that feeling ever-present in the beautifully rendered script—which features several key moments lifted almost verbatim from Bird and Sherwin’s book—all that time-hopping never feels like a gimmick.
But Nolan doesn’t hold this all together alone. He has plenty of help from a team of collaborators bringing their best, from the gorgeous cinematography of Hoyte van Hoytema—who captures everything from New Mexico snow to black-and-white Senate hearings with searing power—to the blistering, relentless score of Ludwig Göransson that makes you feel every beat. Then, of course, there’s the cast, led by a driven, vulnerable, remarkably controlled performance from Murphy in the title role. His Oppenheimer is a constantly simmering cauldron not just of brilliance, but of indecision coupled with the idea that for all the talk of his heroism and his genius, he might not actually be a good person. At one point, while musing about his place in the world, he mentions that brilliance allows him to “get away with” many of his own shortcomings. It’s one of the keys to unlocking the film, and Murphy keeps that tone humming throughout. Alongside him, Downey Jr. turns in some of his best work in years, Pugh and Blunt are wonderful presences, and Matt Damon turns in scene-stealing work as Manhattan Project military lead, General Leslie Groves.
If you’re going to see Oppenheimer, though, it’s not just because it’s a movie full of stars. Odds are you’re turning up at the theater to see how Christopher Nolan films one of the most famous explosions in the history of humankind, and there’s no doubt the director is very aware of the anticipation built around that moment in the film. Thanks to Göransson’s score and masterful editing by Jennifer Lame, the Trinity Test in the New Mexico desert arrives slowly, piece by piece, allowing the weight of the moment to settle over the actors and the audience like a shroud. Then, in an instant, it’s all ripped away in one of the most dazzling, sobering, instantly iconic sequences you’re likely to see at the movies this year.
J. Robert Oppenheimer was a mass of contradictions and complications. He was undeniably brilliant, yet he could be distant and selfish, often by his own admission. He was able to command a room of students or colleagues, yet crumble in the face of personal crises. He was, in the end, one of the 20th century’s most recognizable creators and one of its most recognizable destroyers. Nolan could have framed his film around any one of these contradictions and found something compelling and sustaining to carry the narrative for three hours. Instead, he approaches and addresses them all, giving us the good and the bad of Oppenheimer in such dynamic ways that you will root for the man in one scene, then wonder in the very next if you backed the wrong horse. It’s a remarkable exercise in narrative balance, and it’s made all the more impressive by the sheer mythic quality of the story of a man who took command of primal, incomprehensibly destructive forces, then spent the rest of his life collapsing under the weight of what he’d unleashed.
For all this and more, Oppenheimer deserves the title of masterpiece. It’s Christopher Nolan’s best film so far, a step up to a new level for one of our finest filmmakers, and a movie that burns itself into your brain.
Oppenheimer opens in theaters July 21
195 Comments
This is my opportunity to plug another very good cinematic representation of the life of Robert Oppenheimer: Oppenheimer starring Sam Waterston 1980.
Really curious to see how this compares with the subdued, thoughtful Sam Waterston “Oppenheimer” miniseries from the 1980s. As a big fan of that series (which I only finally saw a couple years ago), I’m willing to predict the approaches are very different.
I keep thinking of that very underrated AMC series Manhattan (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3231564/). It’s not centered around Oppenheimer. He’s actually a very minor character in it, but it’s a damn excellent show.
I wish someone would take another crack at the life of Richard Feynman.
I might see it out of morbid curiosity of the hilarity of Nolan trying to do a character study.
He really should come to you for advice on how to make films imo.
subdued, thoughtful Sam Waterston “Oppenheimer” miniseries from the 1980sA Jewish actor playing a famous Jewish character?Pull the other one.
Dam ok then
One of the greatest joys of the last few years of pop culture has been the end result of Nolan moving Oppenheimer to Universal out of spite for Warner brothers, and Warner brothers scheduling Barbie on the same day as Oppenheimer out of spite for Nolan, has resulted in TWO radically different, but exciting movies by brilliant filmmakers releasing the same day.
Let this be a lesson to us all. Spite is sometimes a great thing. Live every day with spite in our hearts, so that we can get more joyfully wonderful grade A movies releasing on the same day.
And this whole spite move just made a bunch of people really excited for the one of the weirdest double features ever. I’m not sure, but I actually think that the choice to schedule Barbie on the same day as Oppenheimer may actually help Oppenheimer because of how many people want to do the Barbenheimer thing. Those people otherwise may have dragged their feet on it. (Personally, if these didn’t come out together, I probably would have waited to see Oppenheimer at a Tuesday discount screening a week or two later, but now I’m seeing them both on Friday.)
I wish there were a way to actually see who does the Barbenheimer double feature. Because personally I feel like a lot of people talking about doing it are actually just gonna see one or the other and decide to watch the other when it hits streaming (or not at all). Cause at the end of the day, movie tickets are pricey and a double feature is basically a whole day event, which is a hard ask for some people.I mean I know there’s no way to get metrics on that but still…
Well, anecdotally, I can tell you two people definitely are. 😉
My plan is a road trip to see Oppenheimer in 70mm IMAX, which doesn’t leave that much time in the day to see Barbie. Admittedly, I’ve only seen Gerwig’s movies at home so I probably wouldn’t have seen it in a theater anyway. And since those rare premium screens for Oppenheimer are going to be sold out this weekend, that means the sacrificial opening of Cobweb has no competition!
i’ve got a 2pm oppenheimer and a 6:40 barbie on saturday.
I’ve already created a plan for Saturday. I’m a huge fan of Cillian Murphy and also of Greta Gerwig, and normally I might’ve spread the viewings out by a weekend or two, but Barbenheimer is such a fun concept that I can’t resist.
It’s a hipster fantasy treated as real by media hipsters
Imagine not being an A-Lister.
I don’t have an AMC theater in my town!
I suspect it helped too. 50m is the projected gross and for a 3 hour feel bad historical film about nuclear weapons in a time when Russia is yelling I’M A GONNA NUKE YA every couple month, that’s mighty impressive.
The question about what happens to 4,000 Russian nukes without a strongman like Putin keeping everyone in line through pure fear is a legitimate one. A relatively small mercenary army was able to make meaningful progress towards Moscow. What if Wagner decides to grab a few nukes instead? Over the last year we’ve seen what the Russian army is really made of. I think one getting loose is a bigger risk now than at the conclusion of the Cold War, when you still had the Red Army to secure the sites.
a strongman like Putin keeping everyone in lineApart from the bridges being bombed in Crimea. Or the border skirmishes in Belgorod. Or the drone attacks in Moscow.Or the “coup” by that mercenary army you mentioned, who were “kept in line” by being sent away from the meatgrinder in Ukraine and to their compatriots in Africa, where they can continue to commit war crimes unabated.
I should probably have thrown “historically” into that mix, since he’s been an iron fist guy for a long time but things are clearly unraveling for him. Not bemoaning that fact, the world will be a far better place when he’s gone. But who comes next in Russia is a major geopolitical concern given what we’ve seen about the ability of its army to do…well, anything much.
we’ve seen about the ability of its army to do…well, anything much.Anything apart from “taking Kyiv in three days”, of course.
That would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic – the frontline invaders had fucking dress uniforms in their packs, because Putin thought they’d be holding a victory parade in the Maidan on Day Five.
It’s a bit of cliche, but it’s true: “Russian history is basically summed up by ‘And then, things got worse…’”Possibly the best thing that can happen to it is that it gets balkanised, and I don’t say that with any relish, either, because that’s never pleasant. It’s practically that anyway – there are a lot of geographically distinct ethnic groups Russia has gleefully used and abused for centuries, including up to the present day – it’s where most of the cannon fodder for the invasion came from. Lord knows Putin wasn’t going to send the sons and daughters of the upper class henchgoons in Moscow and St. Petersburg into the grinder (those who aren’t currently waiting things out in their penthouse apartments in Milan and London, or on the beach in Thailand).I think in the West we saw both the 1917 revolution and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union as “hard reset” points, where the old order and ways of thinking were completely obliterated and rendered null and void – any old attitudes were discarded. Yet looking at it now, it’s hard not to think of it as just different phases of Russia’s centuries-long quest for empire, something it always envied of the Western European powers, and later the US. The entitlement it has to places like the Baltics and Ukraine are stellar examples – it simply sees them as natural extensions of Russia, owing Russia allegiance, if not being lost appendages to its lands that need reattaching. Putin firmly believes that Ukraine itself is a conspiracy theory. He told an EU bigwig a few years that “Ukraine was created by the CIA and the EEC” – the EU bigwig, who was previously involved with the EEC said “If it were created by the EEC, I’m sure I’d have heard about it”. (There’s a great doco called “Putin Vs The West” that’s worth tracking down.)It’s like America claiming Canada is some sort of artificial construct that was cooked up by France and the UK when America wasn’t looking. It’s not an uncommon sentiment: a lotta Russians simply see Crimea, if nothing else, as stolen land based on some sort of…childhood connection. There was a great interview by the ABC with Russian beachgoers in Crimea who said “Why shouldn’t I live here? I loved coming here as a kid.”
It doesn’t help that the Russian people haven’t lived under a structure that celebrates humanity and hope…well, maybe ever. Russians hated the Soviet structure, but at least it provided that – structure. The chaos after 1991 left many nostalgic for the predictability of Soviet life. Then the attempts to transition to a more market economy ended up with all of the country’s assets sold off to the politically connected with no real benefit to the population. There’s a great Institutional Investor article from years ago called How Harvard Lost Russia that is about the most frustrating thing you’ll read (hint – turns out even Nice People economists sent to advise on how to allocate massive national assets can turn out to be corrupt and greedy). Basically the Russian people have been screwed over by every government they’ve had for at least a few hundred years. Tsarist hedonism, Soviet brutality and paranoia, oligarch corruption…that’s pretty much what they’ve known. No Russian has an elderly relative who can talk about the golden age, and provide some roadmap for how things could be improved.
There are real questions about how many of those 4000 are still operational. It cost a huge amount to keep them working. At this point Russian has a smaller GDP than Italy and the full impact of the sanctions haven’t even gone through their economy yet. I’ve heard estimates that less than 10% are operational at this point.
For sure, and I’m hoping you’re right. Probably the funniest post-Cold War fact was discovering that many of the nuclear silos and other military installations were just props for western satellite photography.
Potemkin silos! There’s a great channel by Paper Skies, who gives some great insight into the Russian mindset and military/aviation matters – he’s Ukrainian, and his dad was a Soviet fighter pilot (who participated in Russia’s Top Gun):In this video, it’s a funny account of toilet-seeking missiles, but also expands on how this happened, a Russian concept called smekalka – basically, it’s hard to translate it’s kinda like “Don’t teach them the knowledge and skills that they can apply to pass the test; just teach the test.”Or, as Paper says: “frikkin’ dumb”.
The T-14 Armata is a great example of their capability.Russia ordered 2000+ of them in 2015, to be delivered by 2019. In 2020 – you know, a year after the original order completion date – they “revised” that order down to 100 – less than five percent of their original order, because of course they can’t actually make them.There’s the “Made In Russia” tractors he had for a big photo op – except the “Russian” tractors were just CKD kits of Czech (or might’ve been Polish) tractors that the factory had ordered painted in the factory’s colour scheme and logos.
I will caution that its not as easy as you think to just take a nuke in Russia. None of the warheads are housed in the same area as the missiles and ensembling is rather complex. It was worrying that Wagner took over a city that had a base with nuclear arms, but it wasn’t like Progozen was fully armed and ready to level Moscow that day. Also, and full permission to call me out on this if I’m wrong and nuclear weapons start flying, but such weapons are not going to actually be used in the conflict. They have threatened escalation about 30 times by now before just moving the line. Used to be if tanks get sent we nuke, didn’t happen.
I’m more concerned about the seeming lack of unified command and control at this point. Odd to say about an army I love watching Ukraine beating up on, I know, but this is what makes Russia such a unique case. Until a year ago the world seemed to think the one institution in Russia still to be reckoned with was the miliary. But at this point the country’s essentially bankrupt and getting worse, there’s been major turnover of senior military leadership (including generals disappearing for stretches of time), troop morale is around zero, yet there are nukes spread all across the country. That kind of disarray invites trouble.
Yeah as a military structure its a mess. Normal military branches but also you got the Chechens that do as they please, Wagner and other mercenary groups, and a massive portion of the army is now drafted men up to 50 from minorities Russia doesn’t care for.
To be clear, Wagner couldn’t have “grabbed a few nukes.” Nuclear warheads, and their delivery systems, are extraordinarily complex tech. Even if someone grabbed a nuclear warhead, there’s nothing they could really do with it. There’s no way to properly start the reaction. The most that could done is make a low scale dirty bomb. You could blow up a warhead with an explosive and the only thing that would happen is spreading some of it’s radioactive components around a small area. It won’t actually detonate. The idea of a nuke “getting loose” only exists in movies. Every nuke today uses some version of the Teller-Ulam multi-stage design and they take a lot of maintenance. The thing about any radioactive material is that it decays over time. Tritium, in particular, loses its ability to get a neutron density capable of sustaining fusion after about 15 years, so the secondary fusion material needs to be replaced on a 10 year cycle at the least. Otherwise the nuke is a dud. This is extremely expensive and technical. This isn’t even taking into consideration the massive amount of money involved to maintain launch vehicles and strategic command centers. On a secondary note, one of the things that the Ukraine war is showing is how corrupt and shoddy the Russian military complex is. Russia was assumed to have about 1,600 “ready to go” silos. It’s very doubtful that even half of those are ready to go and their stockpile is much less.
And spite turns out to be a major driving factor of many of they key actions in the film.
It’s certainly marketing gold.
lot of people hate on puma, but it’s the only shoe company built entirely on brotherly spite and i think that’s beautiful.
Lamborghini, though they weren’t brothers.And the Ford GT40. They actually underplayed that for the movie.
I think you just predicted Nolan’s next historical film.
The story of how Horst Dassler managed to effectively melt the Puma shoes destined for athletes at the Melbourne Olympic, is a classic of the genre.
Is Greta Gerwig a brilliant filmmaker? She’s made 3 movies, one of them a remake and another one is a toy movie (albeit I’m sure with heavier themes but It’s still a PG-13 toy movie though). Let’s cool it with the “brilliant” though, its not close to being earned yet. She’s talented for sure, but she’s no where near in the same class as Nolan. Fact, don’t debate it because you’re wrong.
“Little Women” isn’t a remake, it’s an adaptation of a book that’s been adapted before. And her version is an assured, unique retelling of the story that stands up to, or bests, the previous adaptations.
Your comment is like saying Villeneuve’s Dune is a remake of Lynch’s Dune.
3 comic book movies > 1 toy movie, got it.Little Women is an adaptation, not a remake. Christopher Nolan adapted The Prestige.You’ll have to let us know how many more films Gerwig needs before she meets your bar for brilliance.
Well she’s not making brilliant films by accident, so yes she’s a brilliant filmmaker.Why do women have to jump through so many more hoops before we’re allowed to say they’re good at their jobs?
Normally I wouldn’t reply, but this comment Is so stupid I feel like I should. Where did I say she wasn’t good at her job? There Is a stark difference between being good at something and being “brilliant” at something. My point was that she’s only made 3 films. Lumping her In with Nolan, who has a much more robust film career, Is a little bit presumptive. So un-knot your panties, I wasn’t saying she wasn’t good at her job. She’s great at her job, I just wouldn’t classify her as a brilliant filmmaker.
Lady Bird RT 99Little Women RT 95Barbie trending RT 90+She’s making brilliant films. How many does she have to make to be a “brilliant filmmaker”?What’s the cut off that qualifies her as a good film maker instead of just “well, we’ll have to wait and see…”?
Sounds like the cut off is how many Y chromosomes you have.How long was it until Nolan was considered brilliant? I remember a lot of buzz when Memento came out, and then the Dark Knight was when the normies caught up. So that’s 1 if you were paying attention, and 5 if you weren’t (not counting Following, because that’s a glorified student film). Scorsese made a bunch of docs, but Mean Streets was his 3rd narrartive feature, and Taxi driver his 5th. Tarantino was being called brilliant on film 2. Paul Thomas Anderson was hailed as a genius by film 2. Jordan Peele made one movie and moved into auteur territory. Robert Eggers made The VVitch and was instantly embraced. Do I need to mention Orson Welles?
Those first two are way overrated, in my opinion.
Well fortunately her success is based on a larger consensus, and not your personal opinion.
She’s good but her little woman is overrated. It’s not bad but I do think the way Laurie is done in the film is too modern. That and Bale’s Laurie was the perfect way to do the character. Overall her little woman was good but I think the 90’s version was better because Laurie in the 90’s just felt like a stronger character and he’s pretty important in the film.
I haven’t seen Oppenheimer yet, so maybe it’s the outlier in Nolan’s films, but I think Ladybird alone is better than anything Nolan’s ever done. So there’s that. I find Nolan to be oppressively clinical in his style and lacking any realistic human emotion in his characters.
yeah Nolan is good for popcorn, like Aronofsky, and also for overbearing men on the internet trying to dictate reality lol
I’d star this comment but, well,you know what you did.
Always lift spiteful!
Raw emotion can often lead to great art. It doesn’t have to be a typically positive emotion.
Oppenheimer is one of the greatest spectacles mankind has ever seen on the BIG Screen!
Barbie is exciting?
Spite films? Larry David would approve.
I love the spite store so much.
It should be noted, spite also made music better, (one upsmanship in particular) and we are seeing how blah the industry is without it.
Fuck, I didn’t think I could be more hyped for this movie.
Good to hear Oppie isn’t shown to be a great guy. Having read American Prometheus, he really comes off as insufferable at times. He didn’t regret making the bomb he just felt it should have been used once and never built again. Which is terribly naïve and of course didn’t happen. He also kept going on about blood on his hands in front of people like Truman who basically called him a whiny bitch. Yes because the great victim of the Atomic Bomb is J Robert Oppenheimer. Can’t wait to see it!
STEMlord is socially, politically naive? Nooooo…
Most incredibly brilliant people are stand-offish
Something that I hope the film captures is that Oppenheimer was very much not a great guy and not nearly as naïve as he, or some biographers, portrayed him to be. Both in his personal and professional life there was no particularly strong moral compass. He really just tried to grab every opportunity presented to him.
Apparently the movie depicts Oppenheimer as remorseful and uneasy about the use of the bomb in Japan, and Nolan has justified not showing the bombings and the impact by claiming that Oppenheimer wasn’t really involved in the bombings. That is all factually incorrect and overlooks some difficult truths about Oppenheimer. He helped select the bombing locations and agreed that there shouldn’t be a demonstration bombing out at sea nor should the Japanese be warned with leaflets. As American Prometheus detailed, Oppenheimer and the other scientists never hesitated about dropping the bomb over populated cities because they were so eager to see what the destruction would look like, and that after the war, Oppenheimer believed that fission weapons had a place in the battlefield because they could be used tactically (or so he claimed), while he was against fusion weapons because they could only be used for large scale destruction. It also sounds like the movie leans heavy into the fear that the trinity test might incinerate the atmosphere, but Oppenheimer and team never believed that. It was an issue that was raised and then they re-crunched the numbers.
Their biggest fear was that the bomb would be a dud. Not because they feared failure, but because it would mean they had to go back to the test site and try to troubleshoot a (potentially) live bomb.
… to the point where they built (but in the end chose not to use) a massive steel container to catch the output of an inadequately fissile fizzle.https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/jumbo/
Im hearing mixed statements on the Oppie feels bad part. As you said he didn’t feel bad about making or dropping it, its proliferation he was sorrowful about and later developments like the H bomb. Also lets be a little fair, detonating it over the sea or dropping leaflets wouldn’t have done much to move the needle for Japan. Whether the bomb ended the war or not is a supremely complex issue of debate but just saying hey this could be you wouldn’t have changed the minds of Japanese officials.
It is just blatantly untrue that the bomb was needed to stop the war, and another piece of propaganda used to justify what was more about scaring the Soviets for the incoming post WWII world than stopping Japan. Not even the officials in charge viewed it as needed to stop the war.
He was critical of bombing Nagasaki, feeling that it was more than was unnecessary.
I don’t know that there is much to debate about its role in ending the war. There were plenty of other circumstances, such as the U.S. gradually positioning itself for an invasion of Japan, but after losing two cities over the course of three days with the threat of more to come, there was no scenario that supported pressing on.Plus if nothing else, it has served as a cautionary tale to the world about what using one of these weapons actually means. The aftermath is well-documented and can be argued to be even more horrific than the initial destruction. We’ve had 80 years of various global conflicts since then, with nuclear weapons going unused.
The debate is over if the Soviets declaring war or the bomb ended the war. Both happened at about the same time. The Emperor says it was the bomb, the army tends to say it was Moscow. I fall on the side of it was the bomb but its just one of those historical debates that’ll never truly cease.
My take has always been that even if they somehow decided to live with additional nuclear strikes (a huge “if,” obviously), the U.S. and Russian forces were inevitably going to invade Japan. So why keep watching your cities vaporized with little real hope of victory? I’ll maintain that the main precipitating event was the nukes. Being Japanese they may have otherwise elected to defend the homeland until the end.
There wasn’t much left to drop nuclear strikes on at that point. US firebombing had already killed far more people than an either atomic bomb. There really weren’t any cities left. The deciding event for Japan wasn’t the bombs, it was when Stalin went from a mediator to declaring war on Japan on August 8th. At that point any prospects of a conditional Japanese surrender were gone.
Nobody at the time thought that the bomb was the only way to end the war, nor that dropping one at sea as a warning wouldn’t force the hand of the Japanese. Several facts:1. In 1945, the U.S. had air superiority over Japan and the ability to flatten entire cities with conventional bombs. On a single night in March 1945, 16 square miles of Tokyo was destroyed killing 100,000 civilian. The bombing of Hiroshima destroyed 5 square miles and between 70,000 and 140,000 people. So as specular as the atomic bombs were, then didn’t add more bombing capacity to the US arsenal. 2. The argument against dropping a warning bomb at sea was that the US would look weak if they then could only drop one bomb over land. The idea that multiple bombings over land were required to pressure the Japanese to surrender doesn’t hold water because the bombs were not more destructive than conventional bombs (and firebombing entire cities was pretty horrific.) Japan knew whether it was convention bombs or atomic bombs, that the US had the ability to destroy a city in less than a day’s time. 3. Japan was very much ready to surrender by the summer. The hold up was that they wanted assurances from the allies that the Emperor would not be harmed and the position not eliminated. So it’s not like Japan was ready to fight to the bitter end on August 6, 1945 but then changed their mind after the bomb was dropped. (To justify the use of the bomb, some in the army said that the Japanese would fight to the last man which would ultimately require the US to launch a massive ground invasion that would result in the death of 300k service men — nobody really thought it was going to come to a ground invasion.)As American Prometheus makes clear, there was an overwhelming morbid curiosity to see what would happen when an atomic bomb was dropped over a city — the military rational took second place to it. And just about all of the scientists including Oppenheimer were as eager as the military to see the results.
He actually did advise the military on things like what altitude to detonate from for maximum effect (read: destruction). He supported the decision to drop it once it was made, although I believe it was briefly considered whether they could detonate it over Tokyo Bay as a warning. To be fair, there were very few people in this country who cared anymore to make ethical considerations in 1945.
I think it’s less a lack of ethics, but more an acknowledgment that ethics are not set in stone. It’s easy to look back from our relatively peaceful time and decry the actions taken to end WW2, but we haven’t seen our entire countries razed or buried 400,000 sons/husbands/fathers. In that context, perhaps a quick, if brutal, end to the war is far easier to view as the ethical choice. It absolutely prevented further loss of American life, and I think a large majority of people with a pulse on Japan near the end of WW2 would agree that it saved many Japanese lives as well. I believe it was in the mid to late 1950s when the pilot for the Enola Gay and one of the Japanese pilots from the attack on Pearly Harbor were brought together for some sort of publicity thing. The Japanese pilot was clear and effusive that the bombs prevented far greater loss of life and he understood why the US did what it did and they were right to do it.
Oppenheimer wasn’t against the dropping of the bomb, and he actually covered up the effects of radiation in order to justify the use of nukes. But he was against the dropping of a second bomb because he thought it was pointless.He was also a non-party politically-aligned communist (as was his colleague Albert Einstein) who named names and destroyed a lot of careers and people kind of forget that because it also ended his own political access in the proess.
So you haven’t seen the movie? I haven’t either, so I wouldn’t presuppose what it shows/says. In the same interview, that I’m presuming you’re taking about Nolan’s choices, said from it also discusses Oppenheimer’s willingness to bomb heavily populated areas if necessary. Since the movie includes Leslie Groves, who was lead on bomb selection site, I expect this comes up. I have no idea where you get the notion that the, immediately dismissed, “atmospheric incineration” fear plays a signifcant role in the film.
And that’s the problem with movies like this. Rev-writing history. People will walk away thinking they’ve got a history lesson.
They actually talk about this a great deal . It’s one of (if not the) main theme of the movie, that he was so heavily involved in all those choices yet also so torn by what those choices meant to the world .
There was one sequence in the film that brilliantly showed the paradox of Oppenheimer’s relief and dread at the Japanese death toll.
I haven’t seen one mention of Japan in trailers and interviews. Is it safe to say that the movie at least touches on the massive and terrible human cost that followed all the events you discussed from the film?
Not really. This film is meant to be seen squarely from his perspective, before the internet and before the news/photos of the real toll had been accounted for. You are in the psyche of a singular character, not really zoomed out. We all know what happened, the point of the movie isn’t to go over it per se.
I am thinking this is only going to cover the creation and detonation of the first bomb. Likely the climax being the recreation of the Trinity test. I absolutely want to see this, because growing up seeing Fat Man and Little Boy always had me fascinated by this kind of thing, but also I want to see how he pulled off the Trinity test, practically since it seems to almost duplicate the Tumbler-Snapper footage from back in the 50’s
But will it show the contributions of german scientists and german uranium from U234 surrendered on 14 May 1945? The only way the fuzes for the plutonium bomb were perfected was the work of Heinz Schlicke with infrared fuses.
Who knows, but maybe, I mean at this point Project Paperclip is pretty widely known by most people even in name only. Frankly we wouldn’t have had the bomb, or the rockets we do without those German scientists. And yes I know Project Paperclip didn’t cover what you are talking about. But those lesser known, maybe even unsavory aspects are ore likely to be brought up these days considering we are about 80 years removed from that time.
The latest Indy movie brings it up by having the villain basically be a fictionalized version of Werner von Braun.
I don’t think any official documentation actually acknowledges the use of Schlicke’s infrared fuses in either of the two drops. It’s broadly reported they used a combination of a clock timer fuse, barometric pressure fuse, and radar fuse in those drops.
What are you talking about? Schlicke had no involvement in anything regarding atomic bombs.
That detonation actually akes place in the first half of the movie! So much happens after that . It’s great !
Interesting, honestly that is the part I most want to see. And I REALLY want a BTS of how he filmed it practically.
from a review on rogerebert.com: “There’s also a strain of pitch-black humor, in a Stanley Kubrick mode, as when top government officials meet to go over a list of possible Japanese cities to bomb, and the man reading the list says that he just made an executive decision to delete Kyoto from it because he and his wife honeymooned there.”
American lives were saved as a result of the bombings. Japan attacked first and refused to surrender. You mess with the bull you get the horns.
Including the life of my maternal grandfather, who was slated to be in the first wave to invade the mainland.
My inlaws, as residents of Osaka in 1945 owe their survival past age 10 to the war ending September of that year. (See Grave of the Fireflies for how that played out and then realize it was understated)
My grandfather was stationed in the Philippines, some army unit. He probably would have been thrown into the home island invasion if the war hasn’t ended.
Japanese lives were spared too. The firebombing and blockade were likely to kill several million more civilians through famine, firebombing and invasion had the war extended past September 1945,
Might broaden your understanding a bit:
Seen it. It doesn’t take a week to surrender.
If that’s all you gathered from it, then I’m sorry i wasted my time even copypasting.
“japanese *would* have surrendered.” Okay, those are all nice hypotheticals… but they didn’t.
I think you’re missing lots of the deeper discussion in that video. Even just the last little bit drawing distinction between the Empire of Japan and the people living on this cities is pretty poignant. It’s ok to acknowledge that what happened was a tragedy. I myself do, even though I agree that the bombs saved millions of lives and that they were fundamentally a necessary evil as Japan was not in any way moving towards surrender prior to Nagasaki. (The US had a view inside the inner workings of the Japanese cabinet thanks to having broken their code late in the war, and the military, which had ultimate veto power over any surrender, showed zero move toward surrendering up until the second bomb was dropped, including in response to the Soviets entering the war.)
>I think you’re missing lots of the deeper discussion in that video. I think I understand the nuances more than you do.
Nah, you don’t. I mean, your stance is patently devoid of any nuance. It’s the simplistic black and white, yes or no type stance you’d see out of a young child. Jingoism at its finest.
If you actually watched and understood the movie you’d know that one can paradoxically both support and not support the dropping of the bombs, which is how Oppenheimer felt. That being said, I don’t need to prove to you I have sympathy for the Japanese civilians that died as a result of the bombings. I maintain the bombings were 100% justified, and they saved both Japanese and American lives in the long run. The Japanese could have surrendered after the first bombing but they didn’t. They didn’t have to start the war, but they did. Deal with it.
“you’d know that one can paradoxically both support and not support the dropping of the bombs”Lol, you idiot, this is literally the point I’ve been making. My first comment to you was literally that the bombings were a tragedy but also necessary. In the meantime, you’ve expressed literally zero regard for civilians in any of your comments prior to now and instead stuck with bullshit like the frankly laughable “You mess with the bull you get the horns”. Good lord, man, learn how to read.
I know you are but what am I?
the japanese were insane, it was a suicide cult practically, no way they wopuldve surrendered.
American propaganda is scary and effective.“Suicide cult” my god.
its not propaganda. You think we made up the rape of nanking? kamakaze bombers? its a fucking fact. They were fucking animals.
“They were animals”Whatever your school told you to make sure you not only agreed with the bombings, but so you’re all proud and happy they happened.The irony of Americans calling them a patriotic cult.
wouldnt say i was happy about it, but im not crying about it either.
That’s fair. Honestly if I was American, I don’t know how I’d cope day to day if I didn’t divorce myself completely from empathy.Guess that’s how you guys got where you are though, right? Haha bang bang kids screams.
Many civilian men, women, and children committed suicide by various means when the Allies took the islands they were living on during the island hopping campaign. They did this because they were directed by their god-emperor (as he was told to do by the military) that even they could not surrender to the enemy.
The military, y’know… the guys who would pump kamikaze pilots full of amphetamines to ensure they would complete their missions, was significantly more gung-ho.Yeah, death cult fits.
Man what the fuck
Yes what the fuck indeed. They bit off more than they could chew, wouldn’t you say?
GRoss.
Pearl Harbor was gross. The bombs were justifiable.
Hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha fuck you
You can feel anyway you feel but it won’t change the fact that both bombs were justified. Deal with it.
Hirohito was told to surrender and step down. He refused. He knew what was coming. He sacrificed people of two cities due to his ego. What the Japanese military had done to the Chinese, and to Allied troops was horrendous. Try to follow this ill advised logic: We place an embargo on oil being sold to Japan, to get them out of Indochina, and Hirohito attacks us. Doesn’t come to the bargaining table. Doesn’t pull out of Indochina. Kills thousand of US military and destroys our Navy. And we’re supposed to feel bad about dropping a bomb on Japan when he refuses to surrender?
The movie touches on it about as much as Japan admits the massive and terrible human cost of their imperial colonization.
From what I’ve read in other reviews, the bombings of Japan aren’t depicted onscreen but are shown to haunt Oppenheimer in the latter part of the film.
I’ve read elsewhere that there’s a scene where Americans are cheering about the bombing of Japan, and I guess Oppenheimer is supposed to be serious & concerned or something.
If you know anything about Oppenheimer, it seems very likely that it will. He and most of the project staff at the time were extremely critical of the decision to bomb Nagasaki.
Oppenheimer was staunchly and explicitly not regretful of his work, to the very end of his life. His regrets centered around the failure of the US to prevent an arms race, something many of the top scientists, himself included, hoped to avert by bombing a city to demonstrate the full destructive power of the bomb. He was, in fact, a proponent of bombing a city.Here are his words from a letter, months before his death, commenting in a play in which he was shown as regretful.“What I have never done is to express regret for doing what I did and could at Los Alamos; in fact, under quite dramatic circumstances [edited to read: “on varied and recurrent occasions”]), I have reaffirmed by sense that, with all the black and white, that was something I did not regret. My principle remaining disgust with Kipphardt’s text is the long and totally improvised final speech I am supposed to have made, which indeed affirms such regret. My own feelings of responsibility and guilt have always had to do with the present, and so far in this life that has been more than enough to occupy me. “Edit: I wasn’t really responding to the bit about Nagasaki specifically. That decision ended up being driven by low-level operational requirements and the weather. The people responsible for making it (not even Truman knew the timing) were treating it like just another bomb instead of a political weapon that should be timed for maximum effect. Tokyo had barely confirmed the use of the bomb on Hiroshima when the second dropped. Lots of people were annoyed at the timing because it was strategically unsound and not well thought out.
I mean that’s all great and I’m not disagreeing with it. That’s why I explicitly said he was critical of the bombing of Nagasaki – the part you ignored til your edit. While he did not regret his work in general, he was critical of the bombing of two cities instead of one. He was critical of the arms race that followed. He was critical of interest in the H-Bomb as well.I don’t see where I commented in the slightest that he regretted working at Los Alamos or the creation of the atomic bomb in general.My point was that given the source material, given the actual details of Oppenheimer’s life, it seems unlikely that his (and other members of his team) reaction to the bombing of Nagasaki won’t be included.
The bombings won’t be shown, apparently; Nolan is keeping the film tight to its subject’s POV (obviously, Oppenheimer did not see the bombings). However, its impact is said to be addressed. Also, I think it’s smart on a sheer level of respect. It’s one thing to marvel at special effects illustrating the power of this destructive tech but it’s another to engage in high-quality destruction porn by skillfully recreating the bombings in Japan. If that makes sense…
Probably not because it’s not sexy.
ConcernedTime2020!
TBF Japan comes up in the “Opening Look” preview. Looks like it’s going to be a topic of some discussion at least.
Yes.
Thank you for this! To call it an American tragedy is… really something, given the extraordinarily tragic outcome for masses of Japanese civilians. When will US culture stop using “American” as a synonym for “important”?
the film never really leaves oppenheimer’s circle of associates. it deals with the consequences of japan through the psychological consequences on oppenheimer.
Its absolutely discussed and it’s what haunts Oppenheimer for years.
Might be weird but I’m curious as to how this film portrays his brother, Frank. He’s the guy who pioneered the concept of a hands-on science museum that got me (and plenty of others) interested in science.
You guessed it..,Frank Oppenheimer?
For that one, you have become Mirth, the collector of stars.
Frankenheimer was the doctor, not the monster.
Please Heimer, Don’t Hurt ‘Em
Or so the Germans would have us believe.
I wouldn’t say they focused on his brother in that way at all. It was more about how his brother was a ‘red’ and was something of a liability for him. As a matter of fact, his brother’s science background was barely mentioned and I wondered exactly what he contributed with Robert finally brought him on board the project.
I would have thought the creation of the atomic bomb was a global tragedy.
Probably because you weren’t one of the people who would have had to go get slaughtered in Japan if they hadn’t done it 🙂
Okay but like how big is Oppe’s junk?
So it’s better than Tenet, is what you’re saying.
Hey, I’m just glad that Nolan cast Jewish actors to play the parts of Oppenheimer and Einstein.
I know you’re joking, but…Are there people who would actually be upset by actors portraying characters they didn’t share a religion with? I really don’t know what we’re supposed to be offended by anymore.
Why?
Nice review.Hmmm…Oppenheimer…Barbie Oppenheimer…Barbie
Some of the most colossal events in history vs. a doll (and I assume her car and house).What will modern America choose?*sigh*
Listening to my 18-yr old daughter chat with her friends, I’d say Oppenheimer. At least with the younger set. My zoomer kids never even mentioned Barbie growing up, that was more of a Gen-X / Boomer thing. If it does well, it’s probably because it’s more of a good summer movie with popular stars than its tie-in with the toy.
Anecdotally, the Barbie movie seems to be popular among millennials. And yeah, it’s the fact that it’s a comedy and the pedigree of the cast and director (plus the surreal, colorful aesthetic) that are the draws for me, despite having no nostalgia for the toys. It’s also intriguing because it sounds like a silly idea but has drawn top talent and gotten good reviews. I want to see how they pull it off!
Oppenheimer merchandise is way better than Barbie.
Am I a communist for looking forward to seeing both?I haven’t read Prometheus yet, but I’d highly recommend “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes. The line from the Bhagavad Gita came later, but the book says the moment after the test shot was detonated Robert turned to his brother Frank and said “It worked.”
People can see both, actually. I checked, it’s legal.Barbie will do bigger numbers because of kids, I imagine. So when you’re staring out a window whispering “sheeple” just keep that at the back of your mind.
So apparently my comment above has generated some odd replies:Yes – you can see both, it is legal, glad you checkedNo – I don’t think seeing both movies would make you a communistSorry – didn’t mean to hurt your feelingsSheesh.
Yes, you did: you made an arch, judgmental comment about filmgoing Americans that suggested that people who see “Barbie” aren’t as intelligent as people who see the other film. And now you’re peeved because someone called you out.
Wow. OK. Again, didn’t mean to really offend anyone. And the Barbie movie seems like it’s pretty good. I hope moviegoing Americans can forgive my dumb comment. I know it’s really hard to overlook something so egregious but please try. Try, try, try. Maybe it’s time to say goodbye to the AV ClubBTW- I’m not really peeved but to be trolled over this is a bit ridiculous.
Get over yourself. Lots of people looking forward to both.
Interesting that this review is wall-to-wall positive yet can’t get an A+. I imagine there’s just a bit too much Nolan-snark and BWAMM witticisms at the AV Club for them to fully embrace how good the movie is.
This movie exists for no reason. If you are person who would be interested in a movie about the Manhattan Project, you already know the story of it. If you are interested in exciting action films, a sad real story about scientists inventing a terrible bomb and then exploding it is also not for you. Who wants this crap?
If you are person who would be interested in a movie about the Manhattan Project, you already know the story of it.Which certainly explains why Titanic was a massive flop.
Me. I loved it. By your standards, no movies need to exist.
People with taste in movies?
I literally loled. Yes, this is really on the level of other tasteful biopics like A Beautiful Mind.
Now, now. It wasn’t that bad.
Oppenheimer is one of the greatest spectacles mankind has ever seen on the BIG Screen!
I”m cautious about dramas like this – based on the life or based on the book. Like The Imitation Game and the Theory of Everything, a famous person’s life is condensed and currated into super dramatic sequences that create distortions. Historical acurracy is often sacrificed, real time is banaished (and real time is seldom dramatic) and lives become legends and then mythmaking ensues. Viewers go away thinking they’ve had a history lesson when what they’ve really had is a delicious spectacle approved by the best marketers.
I will say that unlike those movies, the storytelling in this is really the feature. Nolan makes some narrative and filmmaking choices that I don’t even have the vocabulary to discuss, but they take what we might call a fairly standard biopic structure today and makes it feel different and fresh.
Thank you, HeathMaiden. I’ll probably watch it because I appreciate Nolan’s artistry. I don’t suppose you’ve read the book the movie is based on? I haven’t, but it won a Pulitzer prize and it’s said to be good. American Prometheus is a brilliant title.
This movie is almost comical in its biographical pacing. Oppenheimer will walk out of one room with some kind of big historical event occurring into another with a character shoving a newspaper in his face about another big historical event occurring. The whole movie is like that, like squishing down all the significant moments in a persons life into like… 9 days. It’s the one knock I have against the movie. It’s just not aware of itself in that regard.
they shouldve used this song in the credits:
I saw this last night and every scene was so over dramatic. And then after ever piece of over dramatic dialog was delivered massive string instruments would start blaring. And it went on for three hours. Meh. It was a good movie. The cast is stacked. I won’t be watching it again anytime soon.
This kept the audience engaged. I saw it last night, and the three hours felt like 90 minutes. The pace was steady but not exhausting.
Got back from see this a few hours ago and wow, what a movie. Best film I’ve seen all year.
https://filmoos.com/hugh-jackman-was-once-embarrassed-to-kiss-jennifer-garner-in-a-relationship-i-dont-think-ive-been-more-embarrassed-in-my-life
Oh shit, Boimler is in this!
Saw it and although I don’t agree with the A it was good. I wish there was more about the colleagues, actually who Fermi and the others were. For example I thought Benny Safdie was fabulous but not sure there was quite enough there to get him a nomination (he also provides the majority of the humor in the film)…the problem was that I just didn’t care about Downey’s character very much and didn’t understand why this or that scene in the future was or wasn’t in black and white…and there must have been more to Strauss, who was Jewish high up during a very antisemitic time (pres of Emanu-el for ten years which is a huge deal) and shopping one of the other highest up Jewish scientists in the world…I actually think nearly every scene with Downey should have been cut and they should have spent more time with the other scientists instead…it certainly broke out of the first person screenplay we heard about to have this chamber drama for 30 minutes of the run time.
Regarding the use of black and white, Nolan uses colour to present events from Oppenheimer’s experience and black and white to portray Strauss’ point of view.
Wow. I did not get that at all. Maybe I’m just dense. I thought he was just trying to indicate points in time, which I found to be not especially effective. The reality seems wholly unnecessary, as their different POVs were never really in doubt.
I was actually slightly mistaken, the black and white scenes are apparently ‘objective’ and the colour sections are ‘subjective’ rather than explicitly from either Oppenheimer or Strauss’ respective POVs.
Hmmm interesting. But if most of the B&W stuff is Strauss that means his part is pretty much the only objective part? And the bulk of the movie is subjective? I don’t really get why Nolan would do that. Maybe I’ll have to watch it again once it comes out on streaming. Thanks for the reply!
That was my biggest criticism as well. The stuff with Downey didn’t need to be in the movie, like, at all. They could’ve done some much more with Oppenheimer’s life after the bomb if they’d dropped Downey.
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned this, but this movie owes a LOT to Amadeus. Strauss is Salieri, and Oppenheimer is Mozart, the genius who does not realize or care when he gives great offense to people.You have to give the wardrobe and hair/makeup people a lot of credit. There were a lot of recognizable name actors in the film, and the only ones I recognized before seeing the credits were Florence Pugh, Kenneth Branagh, and Matt Damon. I don’t know if I would have picked up on Matt Damon if I didn’t know going in that he was playing Leslie Groves, and I didn’t know going in who Leslie Groves was from prior reading over the last 40 years about the Manhattan Project and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Boo. I felt Oppenheimer was directionless, emotionless, and a poorly structured mess. It was about as emotionally engaging as a quantum physics audiobook at 3x speed while the Benny Hill theme plays to a revolving door of characters in congressional hearings. Characters (especially the women) sketched like stick figures. Nolan (and this AV Club critic): you lost me for good.