This weekend, my wife and I watched Christopher Nolan’s latest movie, Oppenheimer. It tells the story of the “Father of the Atom Bomb,” J. Robert Oppenheimer.
*No major spoilers to follow!
The Good
The sequence of events is disjointed to great effect. For most of the movie, we cut between Oppenheimer’s life during the Second World War, a hearing set up to revoke his security clearance, and a cabinet appointee’s hearing. I may be going easy on this movie, if only because Tenet made about as much sense to me as rocket science. But Oppenheimer had me hooked the whole way through. For a movie about science far beyond this viewer’s ken: well done!
Like most of Nolan’s movies, Oppenheimer is long, but I did not mind the length one bit. The movie presents a few interesting themes that it sustains. One I will mention is the relationship of theory and practice. At the start of his academic career, Oppenheimer is concerned with theoretical physics: not experimentation. As he takes on his project at Los Alamos, Oppenheimer oversees one of the highest-stakes science experiments of all time. By the movie’s end, he moves beyond the laboratory of Los Alamos into the world of politics, advocating for policy positions with respect to nuclear warfare. Oppenheimer’s movement from studying theory to lab work to political action provides an interesting look at the relationship of theoretical and practical knowledge.
The movie’s ending is good too. However, I am not quite convinced that the world changes as much as Oppenheimer says it does. War, pillars of fire, and human depravity are as old as sand. Nothing about human nature changes as a result of the atom bomb’s existence.
I would watch this movie again.
The Bad
Modern movies have a Materialist bias. Insofar as the scientist pursues science, he is pure of heart. In a culture that equates science with truth, love of science is love of the truth. Loyalty to scientific inquiry becomes the height of virtue. An authentic scientist is the closest thing to a saint.
Oppenheimer is a philanderer and neglectful of his family. The movie is candid about this. However, nothing comes of it. His extramarital affair proves problematic in his security clearance hearing. Beyond this inconvenience, we get no indication that Oppenheimer’s infidelities try his soul. This feels silly for a movie that wants to tell the story of the man who “built the bomb.” Insofar as Oppenheimer pursues science, he is beyond reproach. Trivial matters like the raising of children and marital sanctity are worth overlooking for a man like this, right? I found this insincere. The movie’s treatment of human experience and morals, specifically as regards sexuality, was not compelling.
While tripping headfirst into the Materialist trough, the movie (perhaps unsurprisingly) also gets Communism wrong. All of the Communists we meet are rich; they flit between dinner parties at mansions. Oppenheimer is not Communist per se, but he is close, and his brother absolutely is. They own a massive ranch, for Pete’s sake.
Being a Communist is not the same type of thing as being black, having red hair, or even being Jewish. It is a worldview, freely accepted, with serious consequences: both around the world and in the life of Oppenheimer.
In a gut-wrenching scene that the movie rushes through, Oppenheimer brings his infant son to his Communist friends. He offers up his son for them to raise, since he and his wife can’t find it in themselves (or in their massive house) to raise their one child. The irony is bitter and harsh, yet the movie feels blissfully unaware of its irony.
Oppenheimer falls into the parlance of modern films and deals carelessly with ideologies. Point for Materialism and Communism; point against the movie’s artistic value.
The Ugly
There are multiple pornographic scenes. Some will disagree; I will call them what they are.
A disturbing parallel has emerged between science and art: the craving of absolute knowledge. While modern science since the Enlightenment has sought absolute knowledge by which to conquer nature, modern art bares all in the attempt to conquer the audience. Filmmakers, actors, and actresses can take pride in their indignity so long as it arrests viewers. “Captivate… by whatever means necessary,” seems to be Hollywood’s slogan. Most often, this means gratuitous sex.
Some may roll their eyes and say, “Yes, but the story is superb…” Such scenes do not erase the excellent parts of the movie. I propose that they are like photos of human genitalia strapped across the waist of Michelangelo’s David. Pornographic scenes are gross, unnecessary, and reflect lazy artistry. Art that utilizes pornographic content is more interested in keeping eyes on itself than in leading souls further up and further in.
In Closing
I recommend this movie, with the above warning about the pornographic scenes to skip. It ain’t free of the usual modern movie biases. But Oppenheimer is a fascinating story, expertly told, of a man who changed the world.
Excellent review. I agree with your observations about science and artistry. It would make a good seminar discussion.
I watched the movie with VidAngel and thus spared the pornographic scenes.