Barbenheimer Part 2 (Oppenheimer) - Additional Thoughts from Vic

I agree with most of Walter’s review and will try not to repeat very much.

Let me say at the outset that despite the negative comments that follow, and the flaws that Walter identified, I consider Oppenheimer to be a four-star classic, probably the best film Christopher Nolan has made and destined to win a fair number of Academy Awards. It will surely be in my top ten list.

Given that Nolan is considered one of the finest directors of our time, it is high praise indeed to suggest that Oppenheimer may be his best film. However, this achievement must be tempered with the fact that, for me, Nolan’s filmmaking quirks have caused considerable difficulty in evaluating his previous films. Years ago, I devoted a long blog post to this. Walter mentioned the issue with sound, something that ruined any chance of me enjoying Nolans’s last film, Tenet. In the post I mentioned, I focus on the incredibly contrived nature of some of Nolan’s plots, a flaw that undermines some of his previous and best films, including The Dark Knight, Inception and Interstellar. One could argue that Oppenheimer also suffers from this flaw, but in a film based on actual events it didn’t bother me at all. On the contrary, the fact that Oppenheimer is meticulously structured from beginning to end is one of its highlights.

One of Nolan’s greatest flaws (IMO) is ironically highlighted by the Barbenheimer phenomenon, namely the role of women in his films. Women rarely play significant roles in Nolan films. When women do have a role, they almost always suffer from a lack of sufficient character development. Oppenheimer is an example of this. The roles of Kitty Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock (played wonderfully by Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh) are presented as key contributors to Robert Oppenheimer’s character development and to understanding who Oppenheimer is. But there is precious little character development when it comes to understanding who these women are. I am grateful that these two women figure as prominently as they do in a Nolan film - for me they are a highlight of the film - but it would have been a better film if we had gotten to know who Kitty and Jean were, not just how they impacted Oppenheimer’s life. 

Another feature of Nolan films that may be a specific problem for me alone is the difficulty I have emotionally connecting to the characters and to the films overall. Oppenheimer is another an example of this. I can sense that Nolan is trying hard to make that connection and the pieces seem to be there (we are often given a clear sense of what is going on in Oppenheimer’s tortured mind), but something is always missing for me (something that can be found in most of my favourite films of any given year).

Some critics have complained that while the events in Oppenheimer are accurately portrayed, Oppenheimer as a person is treated more sympathetically than he deserves (i.e. a number of his character flaws are minimized or omitted entirely). I don’t argue that it wouldn’t be nice to know everything about the man, but I certainly don’t expect it from a film like this. 

Another complaint I have read is the way Nolan avoided showing the Japanese victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When Nolan was asked about this, he seemed genuinely surprised, replying that he thought what he did instead (namely Oppenheimer’s graphic haunted visions) was more effective in conveying the horror Oppenheimer was experiencing as he faced the consequences of his successful work. I’m not saying I am entirely satisfied with how Nolan presented the moral questions and ethical dilemmas in the film, but I was watching for this and felt this was handled better than I might have expected. In no way (IMO) was Oppenheimer (the film) supporting the myth of redemptive violence. If anything, it presented a number of challenges to this myth, though, as Walter writes, the film doesn’t offer easy answers.

The plot structure, the writing, the cinematography, the music, the direction: all of these are close to flawless - a magnificent achievement overall. But the highlight for me was none of these; it was the acting (which Walter also highlighted). Oppenheimer has one of the best collections of flawless acting I have ever seen. Critics talk a lot about Robert Downey Jr.’s masterful performance as Strauss, and have already suggested he is a shoe-in for Best Supporting Actor. Downey Jr. is indeed amazing, and at this point in the year he would get my vote as well, but Oppenheimer would not be the masterpiece that it is without, first and foremost, the flawless performance of Cillian Murphy, who was forced to lose considerable weight to play this role. Time and again I would look into Murphy’s expressive face and read exactly what he was thinking. He also deserves an Oscar. 

But there are many other wonderful performances to highlight: I have already mentioned Blunt and Pugh. Matt Damon is terrific as the general who gets Oppenheimer involved. Jason Clarke is perfect as Roger Robb, as is Benny Safdie as Edward Teller and Alden Ehrenreich as Strauss’s aide. In smaller roles, Tom Conti is fun to watch as Albert Einstein, Rami Malek effective as David Hill, Kenneth Branagh an amusing Niels Bohr, and the always-amazing Gary Oldman is perfect as Harry Truman. I could go on - such a joy to watch so many actors contributing to Nolan’s masterpiece. Oppenheimer gets an easy ****.

And now a comment about the Barbenheimer phenomenon. I will just add to what Walter wrote by noting that Barbie and Oppenheimer continue to do insanely well at the box office weeks after their release, breaking all kinds of records. As someone who, despite being a cinephile, has grown cynical of Hollywood, I can only be thrilled by the Barbenheimer phenomenon, whatever the cause, because these two films are thoughtful, discussion-worthy films with virtually no action. This is definitely NOT typical of summer blockbusters and I can only hope that Hollywood writers and filmmakers are taking note of this.