Oppenheimer film review. 5/5. (Spoilers, Spoilers & More Spoilers 😉) Final Edited Version:
The New Yorker describes Christopher Nolan’s biopic as Ultimately a History Channel movie, that misses its protagonist’s complexity. It’s in the title dated July 26, 2023 in the New Yorker. It can be found here:
To some degree this upsets me. Nolan’s attempt I found to be bit of film-noire that edited it as a past, present and back again mantra has tremendous entertainment value. At times this helps elevate a dramatic nuance. At times it can be a little confusing to the historical rookie. As a journalist, I believe the film offers a dramatic and engrossing construction of Oppenheimer’s life.
Which some hard core physicists may find annoying, or maybe even some college bound student studying scientific theory, I found the dramatic roles of Murphy and Damon and the rest of the cast to be grounding.
To understand the political realm of that era was truly eye opening. I think the retribution of which Brody and many speak of when referencing Oppenheimer may ultimately be a result of some McCarthy-istic sympathy. Anti-Communist. But people forget, science knows only science. Not country nor race nor gender or Country. Especially not political parties.
To quantify his leftist sympathies as his undoing is to neglect the justice to his character and great injustice this movie is establishing. Understanding the nature of Oppenheimer’s sympathies towards a communist led group is to understand that in Oppenheimer’s view the most direct way to oppose the fascism occurring in the Country of Spain was indeed to financially help the only other strong opposing party during that campaign at that time.
It is a tragedy this man was stripped of his clearance in my opinion. Maybe this is the crux at which our conclusions lie about the history and actuality of what events took place. (Brody and Myself) Yet it is not what the heart yearns for sensually or entertainingly that determines us. It is our actions.
Communism and fascism ruled the world outside the United State’s young Democracy in the early 1940s and even before that.
To even phrase Oppenheimer as, and I quote, “the man of principle directly responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives,” is an audacious and somewhat specious statement. Yes. This is an evident fact. Oppenheimer was indeed that man.
But Oppenheimer was not President Truman. Oppenheimer was not the General Command Advisory Board to Truman either. Who recommended to Truman that risking the lives of respectfully 100s of thousands more on both sides of the conflict a raid on the Japanese Islands themselves would have cost. Japanese propagandists had women diving off cliffs with their children when describing the barbarism of a democratic foreigner coming to take over their way of life. The Japanese people themselves would have never surrendered.
I protest this idea that Germany’s defeat in May, 1945 provides any moral compromises for Oppenheimer. The objective of the war also included retribution for the initial attack on Pearl Harbor by an even more evil Authoritarian rule that had consumed the entire Pacific Theater. Which my grandfather and former President George H. Bush were a part of on the U. S. S. San Jacinto.
Poisoning the German food lines I think was more than covered in the initial openings of the film when Oppenheimer tried to poison his German appointed tutor until finally being recommended to study under a different Headmaster.
Yes I am analyzing Oppenheimer’s character as would anyone watching this film would do. As does Brody in his article alludes to. Oppenheimer even in the film speaks of how he, “Has become death,” and does so right in the middle of a sexual encounter.
The overall psychosis and mental surgery one could take upon Oppenheimer’s mindset and motives is left up to the viewer in my opinion. Yes Oppenheimer was the creator of the bombs that destroyed Hyroshima and Nagasaki. Yet he was not the commanders who picked which cities to drop the bombs on.
“Oppenheimer” the film as a whole, in the end, in my opinion is a masterpiece. Yes Oppenheimer’s ambitions can be left up the viewers discretion as well. I think the film shows an injustice to Oppenheimer politically that serves him as does it as an injustice socially.
I think the film perfectly portrays a man conflicted with his creation. Something poets often suffer from more so than journalists. I was studying journalism until life left me choosing food over books.
The drama behind Oppenheimer does show his dark side. Much of which Brody entails in his article. Very interestingly describing an ambitious and somewhat aggressive individual in their youth. But who isn’t?
The interactions with Einstein, upon reflection, did give a very deep aspect to Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of a man so complex as Oppenheimer. I would dare anyone to follow in Murphy’s shoes mind you. Mr. Brody may indeed have some insight onto a more devilish side to Oppenheimer with some kind of experience that I lack.
Yet Mr. Brody comes across as if the film had lacked too much of Oppenheimer’s complexity. Whereas I propose Mr. Brody this question: Has there ever been a more complex person than J. Oppenheimer?
RMC 
Leave a comment