Three years after “Tenet”, Christopher Nolan is once again devoting himself to the complex topic of time. His biopic OPPENHEIMER , about the eponymous inventor of the atomic bomb, largely eschews spectacle and delves deeply into world history – and how that very period changes the view of history and those who wrote it.
OT: Oppenheimer (USA 2023)
That’s what it’s about
In the early 1940s, aspiring scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) is appointed head of the Manhattan Project. Under the supervision of the military and the US government, he and a team of leading physicists are supposed to be the first to build and test an atomic bomb. While at the same time he becomes the target of communist persecution and, years after the first nuclear test, has to face a backroom trial that will decide his future and his influence, he is gradually maltreated by pangs of conscience that take over his mind even more than they do first pictures from Nagasaki and Hiroshima reach. Only over time will it become clear whether history will remember Oppenheimer as a hero, anti-hero or something else entirely.
criticism
Director and screenwriter Christopher Nolan is not only one of the most influential filmmakers of the past 30 years. He is also a “man of the times”. An admittedly very vague statement, but one that immediately gains more weight when you look at how many levels it applies. On the one hand, there is the way in which the possibilities of modern cinema are always adapted to the current zeitgeist. Nolan’s films are considered the ultimate in technical finesse; At the same time, only a few modern directors reflect so strongly on the roots of filmmaking. For example, Nolan rigorously rejects the “streaming model” and sees the cinema as the only adequate venue for the exploitation of his works. In addition, Nolan still shoots analogue and in the case of his latest film “Oppenheimer” he even goes so far as to say that he completely foregoes digital trick effects. At the same time, his film can hardly be seen anywhere in the form he prefers. Namely in IMAX and 70mm. Due to the heaviness of the film rolls, only very few cinemas in the world can handle this – in the truest sense of the word. The visual impact of the supposedly old-fashioned analogue cinema inevitably comes up against the limits of modern methods of exploitation.
Politician Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) meets J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy).
Back to time. Not only in creating and filming, Christopher Nolan takes advantage of various aspects of how filmmaking has changed over time. He has always been fascinated by time itself, the different levels of experience it creates and its influence on the perception of space. “Memento”: Two storylines, one chronological, the other backwards, move towards each other and, piece by piece, reveal the complete truth about the protagonist. “Insomnia – Sleepless”: For an investigator suffering from insomnia, the sense of day and night becomes completely blurred because the midnight sun ensures that it is daylight around the clock. “Inception”: Within various, Through nested dream levels, the characters’ sense of time and space behaves completely differently until the legendary spinning top of the final image reveals that it is much less important which reality we are in and much more important to be at peace with ourselves. “Interstellar”: Time passes at different speeds on different planets, which primarily has an emotional impact on the characters. “Dunkirk”: The opulently furnished drama shows the experiences of three different men on the war front in Dunkirk, almost completely avoiding identifying figures. He follows the events on land for a whole week, those at sea for a day, while Tom Hardy, as an airline pilot, “only” lives through a single hour. And last but not least “Tenet”:backwards through time.
“Not only in creating and directing, Christopher Nolan takes advantage of various aspects of how filmmaking has changed over time. He has always been fascinated by time itself, the different levels of experience it creates and its influence on the perception of space.”
That “Oppenheimer”, a biopic based on a biography by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin about the “father of the atomic bomb” Robert Oppenheimer, would hardly be one of those numerous film portraits that dramaturgically feels like a filmed Wikipedia entry already clear from the first moving images. These revealed that there would be (at least) two narrative and thus time levels: one in black and white, one in color. In “Oppenheimer,” however, Nolan’s fascination with what can be done with time goes one step further. Here, the different time levels ensure that the perception of a personality is subject to fundamental fluctuations over time and over the years. The lush three hours of film reconstruct man-made history, which for around two thirds of the film once again seems to have been written by the victors. In the finale, the subtly scattered barbs of this perspective become more concentrated and not only attack the audience’s senses in an audio-visual way. In “Oppenheimer,” Christopher Nolan specifically asks the question of howcan be timeless heroes and what the (pop) cultural engagement with them can contribute to the answer to this. Incidentally, a film about the creator of the atomic bomb, who is being dismantled by the US authorities because, among other things, he wants to set up a union, celebrated its London premiere at exactly the moment that the US actors’ union was joining in with what had already begun weeks earlier The fact that the screenwriters went on strike and thus paralyzed the dream factory was the cherry on the timing cake, but it was hardly intentional.
Emily Blunt plays Kitty Oppenheimer, the scientist’s wife.
Even the title of the film “Oppenheimer” can be understood to some extent as misleading. Cillian Murphy (“Free Fire”) as a physicist and head of the Manhattan Project seems to be the narrative pivot. After all, the film is based on a biography about himPersonality. But at least as much influence on what we see about him in the film is subject to the subjective perception of a completely different person: the American politician and US Navy officer Lewis Strauss. The timeline, presented in color, addresses the immediate before, during and after of the Manhattan Project from the early 1940s to the late 1950s, in which J. Robert Oppenheimer is threatened with the withdrawal of his security contract and thus the loss of his influence. Nolan doesn’t even stay strictly chronological here. Instead, his color photographs consist in equal parts of the cinematic present (the trial itself) and numerous flashbacks, from which Oppenheimer’s professional work gradually unfolds before the investigators in harmony with his private life. Everything here is subject to Oppenheimer’s subjective descriptions. The action presented in black and white, on the other hand, is based on the perception of Lewis Strauss, who is questioned before the US Senate about his personal and professional relationship with Oppenheimer – and sometimes has a slightly different view of things.
“At least as much influence on what we see about him in the film is subject to the subjective perception of a completely different person: the American politician and US Navy officer Lewis Strauss.”
The fact that the starting point for both storylines is a questioning reveals the focus of the film: the tension, intensity and sometimes even emotionality (to this day a weak point in Nolan’s work) arise primarily from the dialogues. The backroom proceedings during the persecution of communists push Oppenheimer to his physical and emotional limits as a sometimes more, sometimes less reliable narrator. Meanwhile, the noose around the neck of then-politician Lewis Strauss was tightening more and more during his public hearing before the US Senate. While he primarily wanted to support a promising scientist before and during the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer’s perception (and thus also his perspective on Strauss) changed after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Because Oppenheimer always rejected another arms race, i.e. the development of a hydrogen bomb, which made the physicist look like the opener of Pandora’s box, who never got it closed again, but also did not actively contribute to ensuring that his box remains the most powerful in the world . The Senate hearing repeatedly confronts Strauss with his (from today’s perspective) missteps in dealing with Robert Oppenheimer and his science funding. And so Strauss’ view of things is at least as relevant in the course of the story as that of Oppenheimer himself. Christopher Nolan even stages some moments several times, but due to individual shifts in nuance, these can have very different input on the situation. which made the physicist look like the opener of Pandora’s box, who never got it closed again, but also did not actively contribute to ensuring that his box remains the most powerful in the world. The Senate hearing repeatedly confronts Strauss with his (from today’s perspective) missteps in dealing with Robert Oppenheimer and his science funding. And so Strauss’ view of things is at least as relevant in the course of the story as that of Oppenheimer himself. Christopher Nolan even stages some moments several times, which, however, can have very different input on the situation due to individual shifts in nuance. which made the physicist look like the opener of Pandora’s box, who never got it closed again, but also did not actively contribute to ensuring that his box remains the most powerful in the world. The Senate hearing repeatedly confronts Strauss with his (from today’s perspective) missteps in dealing with Robert Oppenheimer and his science funding. And so Strauss’ view of things is at least as relevant in the course of the story as that of Oppenheimer himself. Christopher Nolan even stages some moments several times, which, however, can have very different input on the situation due to individual shifts in nuance. The Senate hearing repeatedly confronts Strauss with his (from today’s perspective) missteps in dealing with Robert Oppenheimer and his science funding. And so Strauss’ view of things is at least as relevant in the course of the story as that of Oppenheimer himself. Christopher Nolan even stages some moments several times, but due to individual shifts in nuance, these can have very different input on the situation. The Senate hearing repeatedly confronts Strauss with his (from today’s perspective) missteps in dealing with Robert Oppenheimer and his science funding. And so Strauss’ view of things is at least as relevant in the course of the story as that of Oppenheimer himself. Christopher Nolan even stages some moments several times, which, however, can have very different input on the situation due to individual shifts in nuance.
J. Robert Oppenheimer personally helps with the setup for the first nuclear test in history.
“Oppenheimer” establishes the perspectives of both main characters in the first few minutes . The emotional center, however, is Robert Oppenheimer’s life. The first hour paints him as a kind of genius who desperately wants to leave something behind for the world. After studying at Harvard University, Oppenheimer made various breakthroughs in the field of quantum mechanics, and later quantum physics, which helped him become head of the Manhattan Project in the early 1940s. But instead of a clichéd, solitary and whimsical nerd-The film approaches its character more like a chess player to depict existence – something the Oppenheimer persona as a whole was not suitable for anyway. Little by little, the physicist brings the required figures onto the playing field called the “Manhattan Project”. First, he obtains the professional input of countless, influential personalities in the natural sciences and thus turns “Oppenheimer” into a showcase of Hollywood stars, one after the other of whom is allowed to slip into the role of a Nobel Prize winner; ; Matthias Schweighöfer (“Army of the Dead”) is Werner Heisenberg, Kenneth Branagh (“Murder on the Orient Express”) is Niels Bohr, Tom Conti (“Paddington 2”) is Albert Einstein, Josh Hartnett (“Operation Fortune”)is Ernest Lawrence.
Afterwards, the plot thickens more and more; both temporally and geographically. From now on we will spend most of our time within the four walls of various laboratories and lecture halls. The Manhattan Project team is getting bigger and bigger. The dynamics within it become more tense day by day. The time pressure, the government and military’s increasingly strict view of the project’s progress and the first, quiet pangs of conscience that slowly begin to creep over Robert Oppenheimer turn the second hour of “Oppenheimer” into a bubbling cauldron. And although we actually know about the outcome of the first atomic bomb test, the consistent work towards detonating the bomb in the desert of Alarmogordo, New Mexico, acts as a catalyst that further heats up the atmosphere,
“Instead of portraying a clichéd, solitary and whimsical nerd existence – which the Oppenheimer persona as a whole was not suitable for anyway – the film approaches his character more like a chess player.”
Of course, the first nuclear test doesn’t just work as the (provisional) climax of the film because of its – in the truest sense of the word – bang effect. Christopher Nolan’s announcement that “Oppenheimer” would be completely free of CGI effects prompted him to point out in an interview shortly before the film’s release that, of course, he did not detonate a real atom bomb for his film. Albeit the combination of individual camera components on the computer or something as banal as the use of slow motionOf course, somehow falling into the category of “computer effects”, the knowledge of Nolan’s lack of trick technology as we understand it today has an additional, suspense-increasing effect: How will the people responsible for the special effects have recreated the atomic bomb explosion instead? With what force, volume and brightness will the fire from the mushroom cloud reach the audience? Or would Nolan probably even allow himself a joke and simply not show this important moment at all, just as he later completely foregoes any concrete images of destruction from Nagasaki and Hiroshima? That the one by Ludwig Göransson (“Black Panther – Wakanda Forever”)Composed, otherwise omnipresent orchestral score falls silent during the explosion, most likely to undermine the expectations of this scene. Without any musical manipulation, the audience witnesses the destructive power of a nuclear explosion. Only a few seconds later does the corresponding explosion sound; After all, the scientists were around seven kilometers away from the bomb when it was detonated and light is faster than sound…
Matt Damon aka Leslie Groves, the military’s chief overseer of the Manhattan Project.
It is one of the few moments in “Oppenheimer” in which Christopher Nolan clearly separates the acoustic level of perception from the optical one. Until then (and afterwards), Ludwig Göransson’s music acts as an important emotion amplifier that is omnipresent in the event, for example by imitating the sound of a Geiger counter. Especially in those scenes that deal with Oppenheimer’s personality and his fight against demons, this ensures that Oppenheimer’s inner conflict is felt all the more urgently. But Nolan’s handling of the score sometimes causes signs of fatigue, even leading to the very pragmatic problem that some dialogues are lost behind the virtuoso orchestral sounds. The soundtrack of “Oppenheimer” may be powerful and engaging, At the same time, Nolan crosses the line into “too much” more than once, until sometimes nothing concrete can be deciphered under the mass of music, dialogue and effect sound tracks. On the other hand, this also increases the intoxication that “Oppenheimer” can be viewed and perceived as – and it pushes the importance of the factual exchange for the perception of events into the background. The scientists’ dialogues are full of technical gibberish. But whether you understand them, literally or factually, or not, doesn’t matter for the further course of the story. Without a doctorate in physics, many of the explanations are likely to go over the heads of the audience without the significance of them immediately being understood. Where in other Nolan films there is always one until sometimes nothing concrete can be deciphered under the mass of music, dialogue and effect soundtrack. On the other hand, this also increases the intoxication that “Oppenheimer” can be viewed and perceived as – and it pushes the importance of the factual exchange for the perception of events into the background. The scientists’ dialogues are full of technical gibberish. But whether you understand them, literally or factually, or not, doesn’t matter for the further course of the story. Without a doctorate in physics, many of the explanations are likely to go over the heads of the audience without the significance of them immediately being understood. Where in other Nolan films there is always one until sometimes nothing concrete can be deciphered under the mass of music, dialogue and effect soundtrack. On the other hand, this also increases the intoxication that “Oppenheimer” can be viewed and perceived as – and it pushes the importance of the factual exchange for the perception of events into the background. The scientists’ dialogues are full of technical gibberish. But whether you understand them, literally or factually, or not, doesn’t matter for the further course of the story. Without a doctorate in physics, many of the explanations are likely to go over the heads of the audience without the significance of them immediately being understood. Where in other Nolan films there is always one Dialogue and effect soundtrack sometimes no longer allow anything concrete to be deciphered. On the other hand, this also increases the intoxication that “Oppenheimer” can be viewed and perceived as – and it pushes the importance of the factual exchange for the perception of events into the background. The scientists’ dialogues are full of technical gibberish. But whether you understand them, literally or factually, or not, doesn’t matter for the further course of the story. Without a doctorate in physics, many of the explanations are likely to go over the heads of the audience without the significance of them immediately being understood. Where in other Nolan films there is always one Dialogue and effect soundtrack sometimes no longer allow anything concrete to be deciphered. On the other hand, this also increases the intoxication that “Oppenheimer” can be viewed and perceived as – and it pushes the importance of the factual exchange for the perception of events into the background. The scientists’ dialogues are full of technical gibberish. But whether you understand them, literally or factually, or not, doesn’t matter for the further course of the story anyway. Without a doctorate in physics, many of the explanations are likely to go over the heads of the audience without the significance of them immediately being understood. Where in other Nolan films there is always one can be viewed and perceived as the “Oppenheimer” – and the importance of the factual exchange for the perception of events takes a back seat. The scientists’ dialogues are full of technical gibberish. But whether you understand them, literally or factually, or not, doesn’t matter for the further course of the story anyway. Without a doctorate in physics, many of the explanations are likely to go over the heads of the audience without the significance of them immediately being understood. Where in other Nolan films there is always one can be viewed and perceived as the “Oppenheimer” – and the importance of the factual exchange for the perception of events takes a back seat. The scientists’ dialogues are full of technical gibberish. But whether you understand them, literally or factually, or not, doesn’t matter for the further course of the story anyway. Without a doctorate in physics, many of the explanations are likely to go over the heads of the audience without the significance of them immediately being understood. Where in other Nolan films there is always one Whether literal or factual, understood or not, it doesn’t matter for the further course of the story anyway. Without a doctorate in physics, many of the explanations are likely to go over the heads of the audience without the significance of them immediately being understood. Where in other Nolan films there is always one Whether literal or factual, understood or not, it doesn’t matter for the further course of the story anyway. Without a doctorate in physics, many of the explanations are likely to go over the heads of the audience without the significance of them immediately being understood. Where in other Nolan films there is always oneWhile the director had to jump into this (supposed) gap in understanding, the director lets the emotion-driven interaction speak for itself. How important something is is simply conveyed by the actors and not by the dialogue itself.
Jason Clarke, as Roger Robb, takes the lead in Oppenheimer’s hearing.
For this to work the way Christopher Nolan intended, it needs a capable cast. Like probably only Wes Anderson or Adam McKay can do, “Oppenheimer” is a veritable star cast, in which even small supporting roles are filled with top Hollywood stars. This has the advantage that the importance of the characters to the plot is clear from the casting alone. If a Rami Malek (“Bohemian Rhapsody”) , a Casey Affleck (“Manchester by the Sea”) or Dane DeHaan (“A Cure for Wellness”)– even if only in the background – you automatically know that what they said and did will still be relevant. This immediately dispels the impression that Nolan only inflated his ensemble with stars so that the distributor could print as many names as possible on the poster for advertising purposes. Only five made it anyway: In addition to Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr. (“Avengers: Endgame”) , Emily Blunt (“A Quiet Place”) , Matt Damon (“Interstellar”) and Florence Pugh (“Midsommar”) are emblazoned in bold letters above the image of the titular main character. And this selection doesn’t just make sense because of the screen time of the individual actors.
“Nolan’s handling of the score sometimes causes signs of fatigue, even leading to the very pragmatic problem that some dialogues are lost behind the virtuoso orchestral sounds.”
These five actors also represent the emotional facets of the film. Objective and self-sacrificing, rational and passionate, optimistic and pessimistic, analytical and emotionally driven. Each and every one of them moves out of the background of perception into focus at least once in the course of the plot, then has to step back again and is treated to at least one outstanding individual scene until the end. Above all, Emily Blunt as wife Kitty Oppenheimer towers over the events in the final third with a spectacular monologue that gives her character more depth than Nolan was able to give his female characters in all of his previous works. In addition, Florence Pugh’s character in the Oppenheimer affair, Jean Tatlock, deserves even more substance than the script gives her. Meanwhile, Matt Damon, as the military supervisor of the Manhattan Project, helps “Oppenheimer” to achieve subtle humor and acts most of all as an identification figure for the audience, who sometimes disbelieves, sometimes fascinates the events, but never observes them with the same technical depth as the scientists are able to. Robert Downey Jr. is already at the top of the Oscar favorites for 2024 with his expressive facial expressions on his furrowed face in a Jeremy Irons memory look and finds his dramatic precision in minimal movements. In the midst of his numerous colleagues: Cillian Murphy, whose euphoria is just as infectious as his worries and fears, whose view of the world is at the same time completely different to that of those around him (and us) and yet remains humanly approachable.(“Nope”) , which is as absorbed in the wide panoramas as in the narrowness of the space, precisely captures his ideas and visions, from physical miniatures to natural forces that transcend reason. They shape his Robert Oppenheimer into an unwieldy, contradictory and always fascinating figure.
Christopher Nolan staged part of the plot of “Oppenheimer” in black and white.
The fact that all of these (acting) strengths reach their climax primarily in the third hour is the final and at the same time biggest exclamation mark that Christopher Nolan puts behind his idea of a biopic that does justice to Oppenheimer’s persona. While the first two thirds function like a classic American up-and-comer story with the first successful nuclear test in history, accompanied by cheers, as a happy ending, he subsequently negotiates the consequences of the event – and here again leaves the decades-long changes in the view of Oppenheimer speak for yourself. When you learn in hindsight that he only received his security clearance again post-mortem, you can understand how time can change history, even many years after its current impact. “Oppenheimer” is perhaps Christopher Nolan’s most complex, but above all his most diverse, examination of the theme of time. This time he doesn’t need a big spectacle. The film’s power comes from the interaction of its many facets. Maybe you have to watch “Oppenheimer” several times, concentrate on one of these facets each time you watch it, and only then will the big picture reveal itself to you. Maybe it will stay hidden forever. But this is what Christopher Nolan remains most true to himself with, of all things, what at first glance seems to be the most atypical film. The film’s power comes from the interaction of its many facets. Maybe you have to watch “Oppenheimer” several times, concentrate on one of these facets each time you watch it, and only then will the big picture reveal itself to you. Maybe it will stay hidden forever. But this is what Christopher Nolan remains most true to himself with, of all things, what at first glance seems to be the most atypical film. The film’s power comes from the interaction of its many facets. Maybe you have to watch “Oppenheimer” several times, concentrate on one of these facets each time you watch it, and only then will the big picture reveal itself to you. Maybe it will stay hidden forever. But this is what Christopher Nolan remains most true to himself with, of all things, what at first glance seems to be the most atypical film.
Conclusion: “Oppenheimer” is a complex treatise of the time. A study about the perception of world history as well as the concept of heroes and a show by big Hollywood stars. A lot of things just rush over you the first time. The acoustics hit you here and there with their force and penetrance. But in the end you at least come to the conclusion that a biopic about the inventor of the atomic bomb could hardly do better justice to the controversial character and his even more controversial invention.
“Oppenheimer” can be seen in United Kingdom cinemas from July 20, 2023 – also in IMAX and as a 70mm version.
