A Review of Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer

The events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are some of the most well known in military history, sitting alongside the horrors of the Somme in their wholesale slaughter. However, what is perhaps far less known is the story behind the atomic bomb. Personally, I did not know a thing about the tale besides the fundamental facts surrounding the actual bombing and subsequent effects. My friends who have more knowledge in Physics have shared their opinions, highlighting the way in which the writing draws upon well established phrases and facts in a way that suggested a surface level engagement with the available material. But, I am not a physicist. As a mere audience member, I walked into that dark cinema on a Sunday morning with no expectations and walked out having been on an emotional rollercoaster. This film deserved all of the positive press it have received, being without a doubt one of the best films that I have seen since covid.

Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer tackled the challenging topics of this biopic through a range of artistic means that ambitiously sought to draw watchers into the experience of the story. The split narrative of the film, left us with three separate threads to follow, three chronologically ambiguous threads which left us in some suspense as we waited to fill these gaps. Despite the possible confusion of a non linear approach to a true story, the use of black and white scenes helped to add a sense of difference. The sequences including Robert Downey Jr’s character Lewis Strauss were those shot in black and white, being the latest in the sequence and perhaps the most ambiguous until the conclusion of the film. This bold choice worked wonderfully, leaving me intrigued as to whether others may choose to experiment with such techniques. Those scenes which were in colour followed to narrative of Cillian Murphy’s Oppenheimer, being arguably more conventional in their set up. However, interlaced between the conventional unfolding of this scientist’s life were images of fire which seemed both motif and prophecy. The foreshadowing of the climax of the movie gave a sense of gravity to the situation, a feeling that this was the pivotal moment of Oppenheimer’s life (which of course it was).

As we progressed towards the successful detonation of the atomic bombs, the tension was palpable. Despite the three hour length of the film, there was not a moment in which audiences were not one hundred percent invested in the action. With such a long run time there could easily have been a sagging in the pace, with the middle of the film becoming disinteresting. Yet, everything about the pace and tension was perfectly calculated in a way that highlighted Nolan’s mastery of the craft. Of course, this mastery would mean nothing if the big moment did not perform, going off with a bang so to speak. As we began the countdown the tension began to rise… and sure enough the explosion was all that an audience could have asked for. Coming in two waves, the sight and the sound of the bomb detonating were handled as two separate climaxes. The mushrooming of the fire was a feat of artistry, layered in a way that felt realistic as well as echoing Oppenheimer’s earlier dreams. Then the physical aspect hit them, very literally blow them off their feet.

I could rave endlessly about the beauty of this movie, but at the end of the day it is a story about a tragedy, about the ways in which scientific exploration can cross boundaries, both in what is believed possible and in what ought to be done. The film lingered thoughtfully upon this second point, the tunnel vision of The Manhattan Project widening to take in the horrors they had caused. You could feel the guilt that Oppenheimer carried with him, the weight of the deaths that he had been responsible for. This was manifested into small moments within the larger celebration (screams and peeling skin amongst the cheers), but also in the overall performance of Cillian Murphy. There is no denying the talent of this performer; Murphy conveyed every emotion so clearly even in those moments where he was not speaking. Such emotional depth feels rare, even in hallowed halls of acting fame, and it could not have been more clear that Murphy was the only logical choice for this role. This is not to say that the cast was not one of collective brilliance. The star studded credits woven through even the smallest of roles, highlights the calibre of Nolan’s work and his ability to draw towards him a talented cast.

For my first experience of Christopher Nolan I could not have asked for a more spectacular performance. Every element of this film was flawlessly executed, from the use of monochrome to the explosion to the subtlety of Murphy’s emotional performance. The use of the motif of the ‘destroyer of words’ added poignancy to the narrative unfolding and reminded us of the responsibility that scientists hold in their hands. Physicist friends have told me that the story relies too heavily on the famous quotes and well known facts, yet to bring a story of complex science into the blockbuster field is a feat that requires the masses to understand the storyline. As long as the story does not deviate from the truth, there is no need to exclaim in distress. It is easy to nit-pick when you are knowledgeable on a subject, but ultimately the gift of theatre and film is the ability to bring stories to those who would not have otherwise encountered them. If a few more people take an interest in science, history or international politics, this film has achieved its goal. And, most importantly, if people remember the ability of film to make us feel something, if they were emotionally engaged with the story, Nolan has succeeded. All in all, this was a spectacular piece of cinema, which reminded me while I fell in love with films in the first place.