Take a look at the history of the world: Western society has a perennial fixation on particular people. Yes, there are people who emerge in prominent spheres of influence, but the vast majority simply do not operate in a solitary capacity. Hitler was not the only one running the Nazis. Several others made it through the war unscratched, and some enjoyed cushy roles working for the US government, such as Werner Von Braun. The command of the army is vested in a general. The title of US President does not exhaust the US government. He was appointed to guide the development of the atomic bomb and the work at the Los Alamos facility, but it is inaccurate to say that the amassing and the use of atomic bombs is his sole endurance. That doesn’t absolve him of the blame either.
The motion picture portrays the life of Physicist Robert Oppenheimer’s biography which is titled, “American Prometheus,” and showcases him during his years of being a doctoral student, Oppenheimer’s work at Los Alamos during the Cold War to help develop the atomic bomb, and the atomic energy bureaucrat Lewi Strauss. The audience is shifted through the timeline of Robert’s life allowing them to grasp a thematic understanding of his life’s key events including the end of his career. The conversation Oppenheim had with Albert Einstein is utilized towards the end of the movie to help provide the audience with dark context. The film is intertwined in the dark and shows the troubling consequences of nuclear conflict that our world has already faced.
I’ve witnessed dissatisfaction with this movie for not being true to the history. This is a puzzling set of complaints since they appear to suggest that those voicing them assume that motion pictures inspired by the people of history are actually accurate in their representation. No motion picture is exactly true to the life of the person it features. Neither, I would say, Oppenheimer is a hagiographic biography of its subject. Watch a documentary or seek a book if you want further truths.
All narrative cinema is more about its maker than about an episode in history. If I was to base it on true facts Gangs of New York is about Scorsese and how he related to the city instead of history, although it does feature True events. Easterners, especially Americans, have the issue that propaganda is everywhere, and it is seemingly factual. This is what happens when society presents media illiteracy as a normal thing. Where Trump metaphorically shares breakfast with a real Hannibal Lecter and believes so. Or someone thinks the details about Barbie’s creator in that film was anything but corporates bullshit.
By the end of this association, I somehow felt that Oppenheimer isn’t someone I would look up to. The film does point out his failure to speak up against the weaponization of Atomic energy as being “ too little, too late. This even sees a lot of the characters, some of whom argue that if he feels so strongly about this, why did he not do something more constructive to address the situation? I knew that I would not get something deep since it is a Hollywood movie, but I was shocked in which direction it has its ends in. Anyone walking out of this thinking that Oppenheimer was some form of a hero really should do themselves a favor and improve their literacy. Oppenheimer was a human being at the end and human being can also be part affected meaning they can also conform to the society that they live in. There’s a fact and unless you’re full of integrity and strength then yes, we do this every single day of our lives.
I found myself somewhat perplexed when it came to the subplot between Jean and Tatlock. While I grappled with the internal logic of the narrative and how it coalesced, it is unfortunately baffling why shining tattoo was awarded to Florence Pugh since the role is rather inconsequential if not irrelevant. It seemed like there wasn’t much of the text available for her to use to her advantage and with Pugh being a household name now, for the most part, it was off-putting. Jean tat lock can easily be portrayed by an aspiring actress and there were so many compelling reasons for it. It’s a minor character role, which is perfect to help a fresh talent pull off a career start. However, having said that, this is Hollywood, so such a person will not fit into the mold of an “A-list” ensemble.
The first half of the picture tends to be its most unpolished. Such a disorganized plot. Definitely, the dialogues were the worst. The characters in the film are artistically conveying too much information about themselves and their relations. Although Nolan is an excellent film-maker, as far creating engagement between the audience and characters is concerned, he surely has not succeeded at that in my view. That entire sequence in interstellar where people start crying never came across as genuine to me, I believe Nolan was too full of himself during that film. Not saying he is with this one either, but while the second half does appear to be set for dramatic moments of the narrative, it appears to break from the incessant overstuffing with exposition.
Oppenheimer is not dissimilar to Oppenheimer as is Killers Kiss to David Fincher’s self-analysis of what it was to be a director. Nolan has, without a doubt, been preoccupied by the relationship within an actor and a system in which they have to work and most notably devotes a sect of his life exploring. To put it mildly, he’s the one who’s recently been somewhat of a catalyst for the superhero/IP-blighted world we live in. The Dark Knight memorably gives us the cellphone moment where surveillance on its citizens becomes legitimate in the name of the protection of the establishment. In the following movie The Dark Knight Rises we have a character selflessly sacrificing himself for the cause, for all practical purposes pulverising themselves.
There’s one idea we have to come to terms with: personalities like Robert Oppenheimer will forever remain a mystery to us. We can only hope to read or watch them, or anything about them, in their lifetime. Nolan is able to communicate this idea quite effectively by director Bennett Miller’s intricate visual sequences which are supposed to represent our protagonist’s fixation on the molecular character of being.
Oppenheimer is the quintessential twenty first century film that reaches for the stars and is built to perfection. There is abundance of novel concepts that were involved in the filming of the movie, which ensures that the film could not have been created in any other time. The way Nolan merges images and edits them through themes is striking. Ludwig Göransson’s score is breathtakingly good as well. It appealed to me on an emotional level which ensured that the runtime of the movie wasn’t exceptionally long. I can see the critique that the movie serves as a three hour long trailer however I think that they are mistaken as to why it doesn’t feel long. While there are many compelling characters in the cast, Robert Downey Jr. outshines them all. He is the most out of all the cast members, and I always imagined him in movies even if he wasn’t the one acting.
The movement was by far my most loved movie out of them all, the structure of the movie more closely resembled a framework. It could be used across many domains outside of films that are non historical and the outcome would still be astounding. The elements of time and perspective have always been Dole’s favorite which is obvious through his other films such as The Prestige and Tenet. It was rather skillfully done on his part, I understand that there are people who don’t like it but to me it was a delight to watch a story unfold.
I am curious how a different director would handle the framework to create a different result.
That being said, it is a series of a bombing of Japan with an atomic bomb which means the series theme needs to be tied in. I do not think that Oppenheimer was ever absolved in the movie. Just like most American movies that revolve around A-Bombs. At that instant, we are told about the context that is wrapped about Oppenheimer trying to address all that staff located at Los Alamos regarding detonating the bomb. This, to Nolan, seems from the perspective of the scientists as a hyperventilate episode of the war but I feel it is an understatement when one would consider the implications of watching a bomb being exploded would have been. But, considering that the movie is named Oppenheimer, I do understand the reasoning of trying not to pan away from him. If you get irritated during that sequence, it would be safe to say that is of desire.
I think the my definition of science being’s edge is a tool of imperialism is the flaw that the movie brings up but doesn’t dig deeper too. The atomic bomb wasn’t the first this happened. Racial science has been quite the barbarous one, it have been in the eyes of its spawn’s Paternalistic justifications as an ideal to enslaving our kind into. It is Dirks explanation for the bombing of Japan. Many people get comfortable with the bombing of Japan. Psychologically, they have reasoned their white superiority so that the deaths of people in Japan, which is located across the globe and which they have no image of, is to them like a storybook fantasy that is far removed from reality.
I think the film’s final line was definitely able to portray one of the key messages of the picture we have the capability to create a technology but you wouldn’t necessarily be a good idea to do so for you could be morally or intellectually unevolved to control it. For a Hollywood film, however, it was more critical than I thought, expecting it to try to make Oppenheimer a kind of heroic figure. He is not. That final line guarantees that.
The fall of this world did not start with the release of the atomic bombs, but it was much earlier when man created reasoning as to not view one another as human. When worlds are seen on both sides then it is impossible to go to war.
For more movies like Oppenheimer (2023) visit solarmovie.
