I was really hyped up for Barbenheimer and watched both Barbie and Oppenheimer. Without a shadow of a doubt I can say Barbie was the better movie. By no means did I expect this outcome, but here we are… Let me elaborate why I found Oppenheimer surprisingly mediocre to the point that it bothers me.
It’s not (mainly) about the Manhattan project!
First of all, before anyone watches the movie one has to know that it is a movie about Oppenheimer and not solely about the Manhattan project or the people who were involved or affected by it. A friend of mine pointed that righteously out before we went to the theaters.
Anyhow, it raises the question: Of all the aspects of this highly complex part of history, why focus on this one person? And I do not say this only because I want to highlight the role of women or the suffering of Japanese, which was far greater than that of Oppie. I realize it’s a biograpical piece, but why focus on J. Robert Oppenheimer? As a movie-goer we see everything in a third person view of Oppenheimer. Is this really the best way to showcase the great issues of atomic bombs, which was followed by their invention? No and this is the part of history, which in my opinion we should highlight.
Did Nolan watch to much Marvel?
But even if you accept the fact that this movie is a biographical piece, it does something else that really bothers me: It glorifies J. Robert Oppenheimer. By this I do not mean the glorification of Oppie during that time itself, which was presented in the movie as well. I mean what what the movie thought to be important – the beef with Strauss. Who tf cares? It’s a beef between a smart guy, who did not realize he opened Pandora’s box and a politican – an asshole behind a desk.
The conflict itself is hardly relevant for us today, for our broader knowledge in the context of how to deal with atomic bombs. Instead Nolan shows us two people, who were tangentially part of a much greater part of history and elevates their importance to the same level. And by doing so glorifies Oppenheimer, which in my opinion is just distasteful. Another great example, which underlines my point is how the movie was marketed. Let’s have a look at the movie poster:
I think it’s fair to say that Oppie is presented here almost like he’s in a Marvel movie. If he’s the hero or villain is left to interpretation. When in fact he is neither – he is a side figure, maybe even a key figure in history. Though, who easily gets overshadowed by the whole conflict that followed. What made it even worse, was the flashy story-telling and lavish production of Nolan, which I in other movies really liked. Maybe the problem with the movie is also that a guy like Nolan produced it. A name, which is glorified in its own ways and drew a similar attention to the name J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Three parts
Let’s get more into the specifics of the movie. I’d divide the movie into three parts:
- The Rise of Oppenheimer
- The Manhattan Project
- Strauss vs Oppenheimer
The first part was okay-ish. Similar to Tenet it was at times weirdly paced, but in my opinion the abrupt, fast-paced story-telling did not have really a function. I found the portrayal of the physicist of that time somewhat questionable. However, I do not really have a clue if this is a fair critic. Maybe they were really as confident and articulated in this time. In my personal experience with today’s scientist, they have their quirks and often struggle to make their point. Of course not all of them, but a good part of them…
Certainly, I was fond of the way Nolan showed that for Oppenheimer taking over leadership of the Manhattan project felt like destiny and a call of duty. I really emphasized with Oppie in this regard. Sometimes it does seem as if life calls specifically you to action for one specific thing.
The second part was acutally my favorite part and the cinematics worked and suited well. At this point, I’d like to to mention that the acting was always(!) on point and by no means do I want deny the actors ability to act. Cilian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Robert Downey Jr. and everyone else involved were fantastic. It was the overall product that did not work for me.
The third part – well, I mentioned already a lot about it before. It was (imho) mainly unnecessary and drawn-out.
Finally…
I can say the movie was surprisingly mediocre because it did not work on multiple levels. The movie emphasizes the wrong aspects of that time period – the suffering of J. Robert Oppenheimer instead of the complexity of the problematic of atomic bombs. By doing so Nolan contributes to the glorification of Oppenheimer. The movie itself comes across as like action movie – in the way it was marketed and in the way it was produced. There were a lot of good even excellent parts in it: the acting, the cinematics etc. Nevertheless, all-in-all it felt like a puzzle wrongly pieced together.
