Have you ever heard someone tell a story and continue to forget important details? So, they have to go back to tell you parts that they overlooked? Well, that is what watching Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” (2023) feels like. Between the multiple extensions in theaters and rave reviews there is a clear positive consensus “Oppenheimer” is being placed on a pedestal. It is being hailed as a new standard of cinema, some say usurping “The Godfather” (1972) as the holy grail for film majors. But should it be? Or are we conflating yet another heady and hard to follow film as peak cinema?
Over the course of the three-hour runtime, Nolan tackles J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life, spanning from his education, the entire development of the atomic bomb, and his later involvement in political affairs due to his fame.
If that sounds like a lot, that’s because it is. Nolan attempts to cram what could have been two movies or an entire docuseries into a single cohesive film. On top of that, the story he starts with is already complicated, but he further convolutes it by telling it all in a non-linear fashion.
The life of J. Robert Oppenheimer is long and storied, full of affairs, conflict, and government contention. Nolan attempts to cover all three of these by interlacing them.The story of the atomic bomb alone could fill a feature length film even before adding in the complex life of Oppenheimer. Nolan makes one of the most critical scientific and militaristic developments a background piece for the story of Oppenheimer cheating on his wife with the guiding question of whether or not he was a communist.
The tale of “Oppenheimer” would have been better off left as a book or, at most, a compelling drama miniseries of the likes of “Chernobyl” (2019). Which would allow the narrative room to breathe, and give the audience more hope of keeping up. Oppenheimer’s story is an important one and needs to be told, but Nolan’s use of the film format did not do it justice.
Nolan is well known for pushing his mind-bending methods of non-linear storytelling to the limit, as he did in Inception (2010) or Interstellar (2014), but “Oppenheimer” was not the tale to tell in this fashion. Between a massive cast of essential characters, multiple timelines, and additional storylines that intersect said timelines, it takes an absurd amount of concentration over the course of three hours to follow the movie. Had he not somewhat differentiated the times using color or black and white, most viewers would have been entirely lost. Trying to remember when we are and who is who every time the plot jumps distracts us from truly engaging with the film’s incredible performances and complex themes. None of this is to say that non-linear storytelling is bad, simply that it must be used in moderation – something that “Oppenheimer” lacks.
The standout aspect of this film is the acting across the board. Both Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer and Robert Downey Jr. as Strauss were flawless. Murphy manages to encapsulate Oppenheimer’s troubled brilliance, and authentically portray his struggle with the ethical responsibility, and repurcussions of creating of a weapon of mass destruction. Downey’s performance, while a smaller role, is even better. After deprogramming his association with Iron Man, you can appreciate Downey’s portrayal of the discrepancy between Strauss’ overt actions, while convincingly showing his underlying thoughts and emotions. Both of these performances have a high likelihood of receiving academy award nominations, if not wins.
Unfortunately, Nolan relied too heavily on the strength of the actors and the experience of the IMAX format, leaving the scene-by-scene cinematography uninspired. With a handful of notable exceptions, most of the movie feels like a bland march of static camera shots occasionally interrupted by a striking visual. Thankfully, the acting performances provide enough engagement to not entirely lose the audience. So, while the acting is a step above the rest, the cinematography fails to fully complement it.
The camera is meant to serve as the eyes of the audience. But rather than immersing the viewer so that we feel as if we are actively participating, it feels more like the audience is a fly on the wall – a passive observer of all that unfolds.
It’s no question that the production quality is top notch. The set design, costuming, and use of practical effects bring an excellence most filmmakers can only dream of. This caliber of production quality loses meaning if the higher up creative decisions fail to make the film interesting in the first place – something that is easy to do when you are writer, producer, and director with no one wanting to tell you no.
Not all good movies need to be artsy in nature, but when they are it would do us well to reflect on if it was truly artistic, or simply hard to follow. Movies can fulfill as many different needs or wants for a viewer, but at their core shouldn’t movies act as entertainment? Oppenheimer had the potential to both entertain and inform the audience, but instead we received a muddled mess of storylines that made the lady next me in the theater fall asleep. I don’t think “Oppenheimer” is the new gold standard for cinema, but rather a subpar movie for the likes of Christopher Nolan.
Article written by Andrew Stephens.