The Big Picture
- Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer loses focus on its many storylines, indicating that it could have been two movies with enough material for a captivating experience.
- The film fails to develop Oppenheimer's guilt and struggles to weave together the various aspects of his character, leaving some key moments unexplored.
- Oppenheimer 's inconsistent pacing hinders the gradual growth of the protagonist's guilt, making his moral crisis and character development unclear to some viewers. The ensemble cast feels underutilized.
Somewhere midway into Christopher Nolan's masterclass, the biopic on the life of the "father of the atomic bomb," Robert J. Oppenheimer, starts showing the fault lines of what is an otherwise captivating visual marvel. While quickly switching timelines and picking up speed as if the movie was rushing to reach its grand climax, Nolan's Oppenheimer starts losing focus on the many storylines it teases throughout the nearly three-hour-long journey. It becomes evident by the time the film reaches its halfway point that its scope, especially in the way conceived by Nolan, was way beyond what could be justifiably captured in one film, cementing the argument that Oppenheimer could easily have been two movies with enough material to provide a captivating movie-going experience.
Upon a revisit, once the lure of the larger-than-life visuals conjured by Christopher Nolan fades, it becomes evident that Oppenheimer, in its current form, while majestic, still feels like two different movies at different points through its intimidating run time of three hours. Initially, much like a biopic, the film picks up pieces of the life of the man of the moment. On a blank canvas, the film paints an enticing picture of its protagonist who is equally intriguing yet familiar. After all, it's not the first time a guilt-ridden protagonist has graced the screens in theatres. However, very early in the film, it's proved that behind the genius of a physicist who's on the lookout for great scientific achievement lies a man with questionable morals.
Oppenheimer's Guilt Needed More Time To Develop
In one of the most controversial scenes of the film, Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) makes an attempt at killing his professor but changes his mind a day later. Without holding back, the film establishes the dwindling moral disposition of its protagonist who’s both revered and questioned within the length of the same film. But in trying to achieve and portray both extremities of the character's mental makeup, the film forgets to create a bridge between the two. Possibly one of the greatest flaws of the film becomes the film's inability to weave together the various aspects that contribute to Oppenheimer's breakdown, which culminates in the scene when Oppenheimer gives a speech in front of a jubilant audience celebrating the success of the Trinity Test. From the beginning, Oppenheimer is seen to be a troubled man, although the reasons for his troubles feel scattered, eventually making the film a pursuit to find meaning behind the physicist's tribulations, which are partially of his own making.
As Oppenheimer juggles various defining moments of its protagonist's life to put forth a holistic macro view, various open threads are left untied by the end, at least in a satisfactory manner. As a result of the cramming of too much material in one film, some of the key moments of the story fail to deliver the intended impact. For instance, Oppenheimer's tumultuous relationship with Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh) deserved more attention for its impact to be justified and understood. As the film couldn't afford to deviate much from the life of Robert, thanks to the many important events that the film had to cover within the limited run time, Jean's death and the conditions which led to it are left largely unexplored although the indelible impact of hers, along with others who surround the titular character, is made obvious at multiple junctures.
What's Wrong With 'Oppenheimer's Pacing?
Due to its inconsistent pace, the film significantly loses the battle in showing the gradual growth of its protagonist's guilt. For nearly 2/3rds of the film, Oppenheimer does not seem to reflect a strong stance on the moral consequences of his actions. Only near the time when he witnesses the power of the bomb firsthand, he starts questioning the possibility. Even then, his stance remains a neutral one. Being part of the room in which the location of the bombings was decided, Oppenheimer chose to provide "arguments" for both sides rather than making a choice or taking a stance.
As reiterated multiple times throughout the film, the physicist personified the greatest intellectual voice of his time yet his voice was diluted by a virtue of his choices. From here, his change in stance when he started believing that he unleashed a chain reaction onto the world, a concern voiced by him in the last scene of the film, does not seem as obvious or apparent. For some, it may only seem a confusing character development.
For a film that heavily rides on the guilt of its protagonist who possibly lay the blueprint of the biggest threat known to humanity, Oppenheimer's run time doesn't provide enough opportunity to explore this gradual awakening of a moral crisis despite the psychological breakdown being one of the film's primary points of convergence. Had the film chosen to go that way, it would have lost out on many crucial aspects of the protagonist's life. Clearly, a choice was made at the expense of another. To conduct a much deeper philosophical investigation than the one portrayed by Oppenheimer while maintaining a greater focus on documenting the events of the physicist's life in detail, Nolan would have required a sequel for his modern magnum opus.
Another key aspect of the film that directly affects Oppenheimer's fate is his stance on communism – which is focused upon greatly only to the extent that it helps justify the arguments made by the prosecutor Roger Robb (Jason Clarke) and assists in furthering the narrative that the United States of America's atomic policy wouldn't be safe in the hand of the man who engineered the greatest progress that country had achieved in the field until then. In all the talk that surrounds Oppenheimer's keen interest in communism, the film doesn't provide the opportunity for the audience to understand where he actually lay on the spectrum. During the proceedings in the end, his interest in Communism is stated to be derived from his intellectual interest in the subject and not political. However, there is not enough evidence, in the film, to deliver a conclusive judgment in favor of either side. Nolan leaves the question open for the audience to explore once they are left craving to know more.
'Oppenheimer's Ensemble Cast Feels Like a Wasted Opportunity
Lastly, one film doesn't provide a fair opportunity to all the talented actors who make an appearance in the film. From Gary Oldman's Harry S. Truman to Jack Quaid's Richard Feynman, the film introduces many characters in passing, providing an opportunity for them to evoke interest but robbing them of the chance to flourish. To the effect that most supporting actors feel like they are making an extended cameo, Oppenheimer feels like a wasted opportunity in a film during the zenith of scientific exploration. A two-part movie would have been the perfect opportunity for the film to also explore the talent that it attracted on an unprecedented scale. Kenneth Branagh, Matthias Schweighöfer, Rami Malek, Casey Affleck, Emma Dumont, Sadie Stratton, and Dylan Arnold, among others - all make an appearance with interesting characters that back the narrative catapulted by the central characters played by Murphy, Blunt, Matt Damon, and Robert Downey Jr. Unfortunately, none stay long enough to develop on their own.
Frankly, Oppenheimer's life was rather too eventful for Nolan to explore anybody else's life within the scope of a single film, even if it meant three hours of a thrilling theatrical experience (or no pee breaks). But despite the prospect of a two-part biopic being wishful thinking, if anything could have made it possible by blending critical acclaim with commercial success, it would have been Nolan and his brand of filmmaking. Rightfully so, Oppenheimer had all the potential to become a worthy pursuit in that direction.
ncG1vNJzZmibn6G5qrDEq2Wcp51kvLG8xKefnqGdmr9uwNaoZKanpp6ytHs%3D