Oppenheimer is a historical and biographical drama which premiered in 2023.
The topic is the life and work of the famous American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer who is known as “the father of the atomic bomb.”
Here is some basic information about this drama:
** Writer and director: Christopher Nolan
** Based on the book American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (2005)
** Language: English
** Run time: 180 minutes
The cast includes the following:
** Cillian Murphy as J. Robert (“Oppie”) Oppenheimer (1904-1967) – a theoretical physicist - director of the facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico (a part of the Manhattan Project)
** Emily Blunt as Katherine ‘Kitty” Oppenheimer (1910-1972) – she is the wife of Robert – they are married 1940-1967
** Matt Damon as Lt. General Leslie Groves (1896-1970) – a military officer - director of the Manhattan Project
** Robert Downey, Jr. as Lewis Strauss (1896-1974) – a businessman who served two terms on the US Atomic Energy Commission, the second term as its chairman
** Florence Pugh as Jean Tatlock (1914-1944) – a psychiatrist and a physician – a member of the Communist Party – she is Robert Oppenheimer’s girlfriend
** Bennie Safdie as Edward Teller (1908-2003) – a theoretical physicist – he is known as “the father of the hydrogen bomb”
** Tom Conti as Albert Einstein (1879-1955) – a theoretical physicist
Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. This is why I feel free to mention some of them here.
While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of historical events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here. But the basic story is true.
This drama, which covers the life and work of Robert Oppenheimer in great detail, is divided into three main chapters:
The first chapter = the time before World War II – this chapter focuses on his life in the 1920s and the 1930s – but his childhood is not covered here
The second chapter = the time during World War II – this chapter covers less than ten years – the focus is on the Manhattan Project (1942-1945)
The third chapter = the time after World War II – this chapter focuses on the second half of the 1940s and the 1950s – but his final years are not covered here
While the layout is chronological, the director does not follow a straight chronological line. This is probably because this approach might be boring in the long run. The story flips back and forth between different locations and different moments in time.
In 1945, Robert Oppenheimer was the most famous scientist in the United States. In 1954, only nine years later, his loyalty towards his country was questioned and his security clearance was revoked.
Within a few years, he went from hero to zero.
From patriot to pariah.
This drama wants to explain how and why this happened. This drama covers his triumph as well as the tragedy which followed.
What do reviewers say about it?
Here are some results
87 percent = IMDb
88 percent = Meta
92 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)
94 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)
If you visit IMDb, you will see that there are more than 1,900 user reviews on this website. You will also see that the website has a list of more than 200 reviews written by critics.
The number of reviews posted and listed on the website is unusually high. This is obviously an unusual product.
When you look at Rotten Tomatoes, you can see that the critics and the audience offer almost the same rating. It is unusual that the professional critics and the general audience offer almost the same rating.
In many cases, there is a gap between the two groups. But in this case, they tend to agree with each other.
As you can see, the ratings are very good. I understand why. This is a good movie. But I cannot go all the way to the top, because there are some flaws.
What is wrong?
The main flaw is the fact that the director assumes the viewer is familiar with the life and the work of Robert Oppenheimer – before the drama begins.
He assumes the viewer knows the identity of every person who Oppenheimer met during his professional and private life – before the drama begins.
Both assumptions are false.
Few viewers know every detail of Oppenheimer’s life. Most viewers are general persons who have a general interest in the history of the US and the history of World War II. They wish to learn more about these topics.
But the director does not help the viewer understand what is going on in the drama. The problem is evident throughout the drama and on several levels:
# 1. The drama has a large number of characters. Who are they? What are they doing? What is their significance in this story?
It is difficult to find out who is who. Some characters are introduced with a name, but many characters are not introduced at all.
They simply appear and when they do the viewer must try to figure out who they are and what their role is here.
There is an easy solution to this problem: an on-screen message can tell us the name of a person the first time he or she appears on the screen.
Sadly, this solution was not used here.
# 2. As stated above, the story flips back and forth between different locations and different moments in time. But the director does not tell us the time and the place.
There is an easy solution to this problem:
An on-screen message can tell us where we are: the location and the year.
Sadly, this solution was not used here.
# 3. Most of drama is shot in colour, but some scenes are shot in black-and-white.
Why?
What does this mean?
According to the traditional system used in many movies, scenes shot in colour mark the present time, while scenes shot in black-and-white mark a flashback to the past.
But the traditional system not not used here. Some scenes appear more than once. The first time in colour; the second time in black-and-white.
Why?
What does this mean?
Here is the answer: scenes shot in colour are seen from the perspective of Robert Oppenheimer, while scenes shot in black-and-white are seen from the perspective of Lewis Strauss, who was the nemesis of Oppenheimer.
A new system. Never seen before. Never used before. Is this new system explained to the viewer while the viewer is watching the drama?
No, it is not. How do I know the answer? I only know, because I read about it somewhere.
I understand why the director wanted to do this. He wanted to show the same scene from two different perspectives. This is fine. I have no objection to this.
But I object to the way in which this is done. If you want to do something like this, you must explain what you are doing. You must give the viewer a chance to understand the new system.
It is not fair to use a new system without telling the viewer about it. The purpose is to show the same scene from two different positions, but the purpose is not achieved, because it is not explained to the viewer.
Christopher Nolan is known as a clever director. Perhaps he is too clever for his own good? He does not help the viewer understand his product:
** There are no on-screen messages to tell us who is who. Even though the number of characters in this drama is high. The viewer is supposed to know the identity of every person who Oppenheimer meets.
** There are no on-screen messages to tell us where we are in time and place. Even though the story flips back and forth between different locations and different moments in time. The viewer is supposed to know when we are in the US, in the UK or in Germany. The viewer is supposed to know if a particular scene is set before the war, during the war, or after the war.
** There is a hearing in a small room. There is
a hearing in a large room. When were they held? Where were they held? What were the topics? What were the results?
The hearing in the small room was held by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1954. The topic was the security clearance of Robert Oppenheimer. As a result of this hearing, his security clearance was revoked.
The hearing in the large room was held by the Senate in 1959. President Eisenhower had nominated Lewis Strauss to be the Secretary of Commerce. As a result of this hearing, the nomination was denied.
But no information is offered. The viewer is supposed to
know all the basic facts about these hearings.
Is this fair? In my opinion, the answer is no. This is not fair. Is this the mark of a great movie? No. It is not.
A great director will do everything in his or her power to help the viewer understand the product. Nolan does not do this. He lets the viewer down.
According to many critics and viewers, this drama deserves a rating which is close to five stars (100 percent).
I cannot agree with them. I cannot follow the general trend. This drama is good, but not great. As you can see, there are some flaws which cannot be ignored. I have to remove one star because of these flaws.
In my opinion, this product deserves a rating of four stars (80 percent).
REFERENCES
# 1. Film and video
The Atomic Café
1982
Fat Man and Little Boy
1989
Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie
1995
The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer
2009
To End All War:
Oppenheimer and the Atomic Bomb
2023
# 2. Books
The Making of the Atomic Bomb
By Richard Rhodes
1986
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
By Gar Alperovitz
1995
American Prometheus:
The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer
By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin
2005
Oppenheimer:
Portrait of an Enigma
By Jeremy Bernstein
2005
Robert Oppenheimer:
A Life Inside the Center
by Ray Monk
2012
Hiroshima & Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath
By Paul Ham
2014
The Manhattan Project: The Birth of the Atomic Bomb in the Words of its Creators, Eyewitnesses, and Historians
Edited by Cynthia C. Kelly
With an introduction by Richard Rhodes
2020
*****
The famous American scientist
J. Robert Oppenheimer
(1904-1967)
Director of the facility at
Los Alamos, New Mexico
1942-1945
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment