oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan, shows his intention from the first scenes. That of telling two stories at the same time, through different time lines that run in parallel. On the one hand, the version of Julius Robert Oppenheimer(Cillian Murphy) on the role he had to play at a critical moment. On the other, a total and to a certain extent violent historical event that forever changed the balance of power in the world and the way of understanding human destructiveness.
But the film is neither a biography nor, essentially, a historical drama. The plot moves between the two genres and maintains a delicate balance based on two visions of the truth. what led to oppenheimer to focus all his determination on creating a weapon that, he knew, would be a sinister fracture for the time? What made the making of the atomic bomb necessary at a time when the specter of war was more real and threatening than ever?
Christopher Nolan does not try to explore morality, much less, in the perception of an ethical dilemma at hand. What he wants is something bolder and he achieves it through a dense and harrowing plot. Make it clear that both oppenheimer like the United States they did nothing but accept an inevitable destiny. That of advancing against the clock and defeating the contemporary evil that was brewing in Europe under the shadow of the Nazis.
oppenheimer
oppenheimerChristopher Nolan’s is a meticulous and dark take on a controversial part of American history. Through the figure of the scientist, the director delves into direct – and almost political – questions about the arms race, peace and war. Which allows the argument to show a hard time when the lesser evil was the only option between catastrophic possibilities.
But the film is also a technical achievement of considerable magnitude. Not only by the use of a subjective and an objective point of view, separated through the use of color. Also, because of the way the script and the editing create a gloomy atmosphere to move towards a tragedy.
The event that changed the world forever
It may seem like a justification for the arms race in the middle of World War II. But the story avoids falling into Manichaean positions and shows two extremes of the events it tells. oppenheimer he is a man convinced that the atomic bomb is a necessity. At best, a blind battle to stop a ruthless enemy from achieving a crucially important scientific triumph first.
Christopher Nolan shows the character from his contradictions and humanizes him, thanks to an inner tension that becomes darker as the narrative progresses. Gradually, the titular scientist understands the many consequences of his decisions. The fact that he is creating a possibility of the future whose scope is, in essence and necessarily, disastrous.
But for the theoretical physicist, there is no escape. At best, he knows the decision is for the lesser evil. The script, also written by the filmmaker, is skillful enough to explore the character’s darkness without judgment. From his first appearances, Oppenheimer is a man bent on achieving a form of justice. In stopping a war, he in making decisions that no one else could.
A man in the midst of fearsome decisions
The plot turns him into a ruthless figure at times and at others, overwhelmed by the unsuspected weight of a historical role he never asked for. Much less, that he knows how to understand, support or elevate beyond the increasingly desperate effort to fulfill his duty. Which one is that? That of preventing a power weapon for a hecatomb from being in Nazi hands.
However, under this obsession, lies the audacity, the need to improvise, to verify the theories long meditated. According to the script, oppenheimer he needs to find meaning in an intellectual effort that is combined with visceral feelings.
The film does not make the perception of its main character easy and sometimes emphasizes his reckless quality. But at the same time, the existential anguish of knowing that what he is carrying out will push him, sooner or later, towards an inevitable horror. Over and over again, the story hints at how aware the scientist was that his work was only the beginning of a historical tragedy. Also, the little room for maneuver that he had to avoid it.
Oppenheimer, a technical prodigy
The plot uses some subtle tricks in an attempt to hide its two-part narrative. The most intelligent and well posed, the black and white shots that show the reality behind the life of oppenheimer. Little by little, the story completes itself by showing the world that the scientist had to face. At the same time, the hard internal processes that pushed him towards increasingly evident contradictions in his criteria. The montage puts both situations in parallel, although it is obvious that they occur before or after the central line of events.
But the director makes sure that the story and the edition do not give precise signals of when each event occurs. So the film seems to be in a subtle and timeless present in which everything happens at once. The only noticeable sign of where history is heading is, of course, the explosion of the atomic bomb. The fearsome and haunting moment, in all efforts, fears, hopes and ambitions, they are transformed into pure fire.
It is not a metaphor. Christopher Nolan directs all his efforts to cover every detail that he made the Manhattan project and the Trinity test. This includes long debates about ethics, the danger at hand and the greed of a time when the atomic risk was not comparable to that of the enemy with the best weapons. The director and screenwriter is competent and formally sober, meticulously recounting a series of events, but not in a linear order. So the tape goes from Los Alamos, to a US congressional hearing, to the various places where the world’s greatest minds were recruited.
It is then, when the feature film shows off its splendid cast. Leslie Groves (Matt Damon), becomes a guiding thread of events and situations. Kitty Oppenheimer (Emily Blunt), has the necessary firmness to question her husband, although the script misses some of the best debates between the two. Especially when they must shoulder the burden of responsibility that includes them in a terrifying possibility. That of being the architects of a possible end of human history.
The successes and errors of great figures
Through the couple oppenheimer raises the idea that the achievement of the scientist was more a combination of knowledge and talents. Which, at the same time, included a whole context that pushed him to give immediate answers to a dilemma of the time. The script explores North America, which has become responsible for world peace. Also, in the only country — and system — capable of dealing first with the Nazis and then with the possibility of Soviet power.
Something similar happens with the rest of the characters. Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh) has the peculiar weight of a voice of conscience for oppenheimeralthough the character —and the interpretation of the actress— seems underused. Edward Teller (Benny Safdie) asks the necessary questions and the uncomfortable ones, though most have no answers. On the other side, the Ernest Lawrence (Josh Harnett) is the embodiment of a country that wants to win. Who dreams of the perception of scientific triumph as a bargaining chip for global stability.
Even the approach to lewis strauss (Robert Downey Jr) is brilliant in his sense of political consequence replacing morality. When Oppenheimer is finally imputed and pointed out for the invention that brought death and victory, it is not done from the ethical judgment. At least Strauss doesn’t. Christopher Nolan uses the figure to explore the US as the scene of a frontal war against any opposition. The arrogance of military might turned into fear and underlying threat.
The terrifying beauty of the atomic hecatomb
The film holds up well between multiple settings, conversations, and data. But his great objective, of course, is to show the atomic disaster in all its power, terrifying beauty and detail. The much-heralded explosion is a dazzling technical and visual achievement and is, in fact, what will likely define the film in the future. It is the conclusion of both historical lines and although it takes time to arrive, it supports everything that was previously stated.
In fact, oppenheimer analyzes the purpose of horror from the utilitarian. The bomb explosion is described in detail and almost through the codes of horror movies. It is the fear, of all the characters, of an entire nation, of the world of the time, built and sustained in a flare that Christopher Nolan shows almost mythical. Tongues of fire that overwhelm any debate and that delve into the philosophical points raised up to then. Death is inevitable for peace. The threat, for the balance. The most chilling message that the film leaves behind.