Barbenheimer - Part 2 (Oppenheimer)

 So, first of all, let me just comment on the weirdness of the whole “Barbenheimer” concept. What a fascinating study of what catches people’s interest. And probably some intuitive marketing brilliance by someone.

Because the movies are, of course, poles apart. I suppose one key element in common is that they are both far more creative film-making than the sad tiredness of ever more superhero movies or other franchises.

But let’s get to Oppenheimer. This movie is serious and intense and cerebral (and long!); it’s so hard to understand how it became so popular.

Don’t get me wrong; it is excellent. The acting, by a large cast, is amazing. It doesn’t offer easy answers – or even particularly clear questions. Is the moral question about making/dropping a bomb? Or about the scientist's responsibility for technology? Or about sharing scientific knowledge internationally – even with enemies? Are we trying to think about the conflicted psychology of Oppenheimer or of a nation at war (WW II or the Cold War) with mind-numbing new Promethean powers? I did not know that three hours of this kind of film would attract such a large audience!

But for those interested in the complexities, it holds your interest and makes you think. 

 I need also to make a comment on the fascinating, yet small, role of Einstein in this film. I am curious whether it worked for everyone, but, at least on first watching, it really worked for me. It strikes me that there’s a bit of Gandalf in it or something – a wise and sad figure on the edge of the story.

I ask myself whether I would have liked it more or less if there were a clearer sense of what it was about. Or whether I would have preferred less focus on Oppenheimer’s nemesis in the latter parts of the film. Not sure. I think I will need to watch it again to have a better idea of those questions.

But when I see it again, I’ll watch it with subtitles because: Christopher Nolan. What the heck, Nolan?! Why can’t you learn how to manage sound in your films. Tenet was virtually useless because the sound editing was so bad, and so much dialogue was lost. And many of his films (Interstellar, Dunkirk are other examples) have way too much overwhelming sound, including this one. My vow at present is never to see another Nolan film in the theatre but to wait until it streams so that I can turn the volume down and put the subtitles on. I may forget.

That rant aside, the film is still not perfect, but I think I’d give it **** (but still only recommending it to those who would like a serious, intense, cerebral three-hour film).