Florence Pugh, left, as Jean Tatlock and Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer in “Oppenheimer.” (Universal Pictures/TNS)
Christopher Nolan is a legendary director, with his filmography — including renowned movies such as “Inception,” “The Dark Knight” and “Interstellar” — having gained distinction because of his passion for developing visually and auditorily stunning films. The consequence of his painstaking commitment to his style is a lack of substance at times — a heavy criticism of “Tenet,” Nolan’s most recently released film prior to “Oppenheimer.”
While “Oppenheimer” fits right in with his best work at times, it occasionally falls into the exact same pitfalls that hold his other movies back from being full-on masterpieces.
“Oppenheimer,” starring Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer, details the life of the “father of the atomic bomb” as he races to assemble a team of scientists and develop the infamous weapon before rival scientists in enemy countries. Amid this already monumental challenge, he struggles with accusations of being a communist ally and an increasingly complicated personal life.
The story can’t reasonably be criticized, as it is a cinematic retelling of Oppenheimer’s real life, but the way Nolan chooses to tell the story is somewhat questionable.
Nolan is known for directing blockbusters like superhero movies, and “Oppenheimer” can sometimes feel like a superhero origin story rather than a true biopic. Cameos and name drops of famous scientists are shot like easter eggs viewers might expect to see in a Marvel film; moreover, the dialogue features quips and one-liners that seem thoroughly out of place.
“Oppenheimer” is at its best when it focuses on Murphy’s brilliant performance and the deep dive into Oppenheimer’s psychology, more akin to the individualistic character study expected of a biopic.
An issue Nolan runs into even in his most successful movies is the repeated use of female characters’ suffering to bring emotional depth to his main characters — a martyrized manic pixie dream girl of sorts.
“Oppenheimer” is based on a true story, so Nolan didn’t write these characters from scratch, but he did purposefully select what parts of their real-life story to show. While Oppenheimer’s wife Kitty (Emily Blunt) is developed well, the treatment of Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh), his first love and on-and-off-again relationship, is shockingly disappointing for someone so important to Oppenheimer’s story.
She has very limited scenes — a shame in and of itself because of Pugh’s stage presence — and when she does appear, she acts more as a hardship for Oppenheimer to overcome rather than her own distinct person. Nolan neglects not only to pay much attention to Tatlock’s own accomplishments as a brilliant scientist but also her struggles with her sexuality, a defining characteristic of her own life as well as of her relationship with Oppenheimer.
In doing so, he takes a complex real-world person and makes her one-dimensional. In fact, it’s almost implied Tatlock’s struggles with mental health weren’t due to the pressure of being a non-heteronormative person in the 1940s, but rather because of her failing relationship with Oppenheimer.
While the movie is ultimately an Oppenheimer biopic and not a Jean Tatlock biopic, you’d think that a person arguably more consequential to Oppenheimer’s life than his own wife would be treated with the care she deserves, especially when failing to do so sacrifices historical accuracy.
Another common struggle of Nolan’s that is seen again in “Oppenheimer” is his approach to pacing. The movie actually moves through Oppenheimer’s life fairly quickly; however, Nolan chooses to show so much of the story that the plot still seems slow at times, especially due to the immense number of time jumps back and forth through Oppenheimer’s career.
For instance, if the ignition of the Trinity test — the first atomic bomb ever dropped and the culmination of Oppenheimer’s life’s work — was the peak of action and build-up in the movie, “Oppenheimer” might have one of the longest third acts in all of cinema.
The second half of the movie deals with a series of trials faced by Oppenheimer and adjacent scientists, soldiers and politicians. While it is extremely tense and enjoyable in a manner reminiscent of political dramas, what audiences came to see had already exploded by then, and the film’s remainder may drag for those less interested in the politics of it all.
Nolan urged the film community to see “Oppenheimer” in specific formats leading up to its release, saying that IMAX 70mm is the way he intended it to be seen. However, only 19 theaters with the capacity to show IMAX 70mm exist in the entire United States, so the option to see it as Nolan intended isn’t viable for most people.
While Nolan and other experts said audiences would still enjoy it in other theaters, a question must be asked when the needle is pushed from a movie being an engaging narrative to a sensory spectacle. The best movies should be able to be enjoyed anywhere, simply accentuated by the magic of a theater.
While “Oppenheimer” is without a doubt entertaining, it does feel as though the correlation between the size of the screen it is viewed on and the overall audience experience is far too intertwined.
“Oppenheimer” is simultaneously emblematic of Nolan’s greatest strengths and weaknesses, but it can never be faulted for a lack of spectacle. It should be criticized out of respect for its ambition; great works of art intrinsically invite criticism due to the boundaries they have to push. “Oppenheimer” grips the audience with its unique blend of psychological despair and American patriotism, and despite its faults, is still a spectacle worth seeing on the big screen.
Rating: 3.5/5
