Oppenheimer Review: Christopher Nolan makes history, literally and figuratively, in movies

Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan, shows his intent from the opening scenes. This is the story of two stories at the same time, through different timelines that run in parallel. On the one hand, version Julius Robert Oppenheimer(Cillian Murphy) about the role he had to play at a critical moment. On the other hand, a total and to some extent violent historical event that forever changed the balance of power in the world and the way of understanding human destructiveness.

But the film is neither a biography nor, in fact, a historical drama. The plot moves between two genres and maintains a delicate balance based on two views of the truth. which led to Oppenheimer to concentrate all his determination on the creation of weapons, which, as he knew, would be an ominous turning point for that time? What made it necessary to build an atomic bomb at a time when the specter of war was more real and threatening than ever?

Christopher Nolan does not attempt to explore morality, much less address an ethical dilemma. He wants something a little more daring, and he achieves it with a dense and heartbreaking plot. Make it clear that both Oppenheimer like the United States, they did nothing but accept their inevitable fate. Go ahead against the clock and defeat the modern evil that was brewing in Europe under the shadow of the Nazis.

An event that changed the world forever

This may seem like an excuse for an arms race in the midst of World War II. But the story avoids falling into the Manichaean position and shows the two extremes of the events it tells. Oppenheimer he is a man convinced of the need for the atomic bomb. At best, it is a blind battle to prevent a relentless enemy from achieving a critical scientific triumph first.

Christopher Nolan takes the character out of his contradictions and humanizes him with an inner tension that darkens as the story progresses. Gradually, the titled scientist understands the multiple consequences of his decisions. The fact that it creates the possibility of a future that is inherently and inevitably catastrophic in scope.

But for the theoretical physicist there is no way out. At best, you know that the decision is for the lesser evil. The script, also written by the director, is skillful enough to explore the character’s darkness without judgment. From the very first appearance, Oppenheimer was a man striving for justice. In stopping the war, in making decisions that no one else could take.

Man in the midst of terrible decisions

The plot turns him into a ruthless figure at times, and at other times overwhelmed by the unexpected weight of a historical role he never asked for. Moreover, he knows how to understand, support or rise above the increasingly desperate efforts to fulfill his duty. Which one? Prevent the power weapon for the hecatomb from falling into the hands of the Nazis.

However, this obsession hides impudence, the need to improvise, to test long-thought-out theories. According to the scenario Oppenheimer he needs to find meaning in the intellectual effort that is combined with the inner feelings.

The film does not facilitate the perception of its protagonist and at times emphasizes his reckless qualities. But at the same time, the existential anguish from the realization that what he is doing will sooner or later push him to inevitable horror. Again and again history hints at how much the scientist realized that his work was only the beginning of a historical tragedy. Besides, he had little wiggle room to avoid it.

Oppenheimer, technical prodigy

The plot uses some subtle tricks to hide the two-part narrative. The smartest and most well-chosen black and white footage that reveals the reality behind life Oppenheimer. Little by little, the story comes to an end, showing the world that the scientist had to face. At the same time, rigid internal processes pushed him towards ever more obvious contradictions in his criteria. The montage puts both situations in parallel, although it is obvious that they occur before or after the central line of events.

But the director makes sure that the story and publication don’t give precise signals about when each event takes place. So the film seems to be in a subtle and timeless present, in which everything happens at the same time. The only visible sign of where history is headed is, of course, the explosion of the atomic bomb. A terrible and haunting moment, in all efforts, fears, hopes and ambitions, they turn into pure fire.

This is not a metaphor. Christopher Nolan puts all his efforts into hiding every detail that has shaped Manhattan Project and Trinity Test. This includes long debates about the ethics, danger, and greed of a time when the atomic risk was incomparable to that of an enemy with better weapons. The director and screenwriter is competent and formally sober, meticulously retelling the series of events, but not in a linear order. So the tape goes from Los Alamos to congressional hearings to various places where the world’s greatest minds have been recruited.

That’s when the feature film shows off its superb cast. Leslie Groves (Matt Damon), becomes the guiding thread of events and situations. Kitty Oppenheimer (Emily Blunt) has the necessary grit to question her husband, even though the script lacks some of the best debate between the two. Especially when they have to bear the brunt of a responsibility that puts them in front of a terrifying opportunity. To be the architects of the possible end of human history.

Successes and mistakes of great figures

After a couple Oppenheimer suggests that the scientist’s achievement was rather a combination of knowledge and talent. Which, at the same time, included a whole context that pushed him to immediate answers to the dilemma of the time. The script explores North America, which has become responsible for world peace. In addition, in the only country – and system – capable of fighting first the Nazis, and then the possibility of Soviet power.

Something similar happens with the rest of the characters. Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh) has a special voice of conscience for Oppenheimerthough the character – and the actress’s interpretation – seem underused. Edward Teller (Benny Safdie) asks the right and the wrong questions, even though most of them don’t have answers. On the other side, Ernest Lawrence (Josh Harnett) is the epitome of a country that wants to win. Who dreams of seeing a scientific triumph as a bargaining chip for global stability.

Even the approach to Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) is brilliant at understanding that political consequences replace morality. When Oppenheimer is finally credited with, and pointed to, the invention that brought death and victory, it is not done on the basis of an ethical judgment. At least Strauss isn’t. Christopher Nolan uses this figure to explore the US as an arena for frontal warfare against any opposition. The arrogance of military power has turned into fear and a hidden threat.

The Terrifying Beauty of the Atomic Hecatomb

The film holds up well between multiple settings, talk and data. But his great task, of course, is to show the atomic catastrophe in all its power, terrifying beauty and details. The much-touted explosion is a brilliant technical and visual achievement and, in fact, is what is likely to define the film in the future. This is the conclusion of both historical lines, and although it takes time, it confirms everything that has been said before.

Actually, Oppenheimer analyzes the purpose of horror from the utilitarian. The bomb explosion is described in detail and almost like horror movie codes. It is the fear of all the characters, of the whole nation, of the world of that time, created and maintained in an outburst that Christopher Nolan portrays as almost mythical. Tongues of fire that quell any debate and delve into the philosophical questions raised before. Death is inevitable for the world. A threat to balance. The most chilling message a film leaves behind.