When I compare this movie to other nuclear disaster genre films, this one does not come close to the emotion, tension, horror, and sense of doom that other films of this genre convey. The two competing works that come to mind are the mind-blowing, trauma inducing Threads of 1984 and the more recent Chernobyl (2019). Both, albeit made for TV, render Oppenheimer in Nolan’s attempt to make cinematic history, a failure, (regardless of what the Academy may think). Nolan is best known for films that require the viewer to watch and rewatch them, because he is so brilliant and his works so complex, you can’t possibly get all the nuance in one sitting. I would contrast this with watching Dr. Strangelove (1964). One viewing of Kubrick’s darkly humourous masterpiece is enough. You never have to watch it again, because it is so perfect, so masterful a piece of art, that years after I still chuckle remembering the same scenes. Everyone remembers Dr. Strangelove’s hand with the mind of its own and the President admonishing the generals and politicians that “There is no fighting in the war room!” when two of them become locked in a brawl. If I watch it again it is for the sheer joy of scenes I already loved the first time and to marvel at Kubrick’s clear (yet hilarious) warning. Nolan has none of this brilliance. If I have to rewatch a film to fill in the missing pieces, has the film maker really done their job? Recall that his Memento used a similar non-linear narrative, hailed and praised in its time. The faithful spent hours decoding the scenes, running them backward and forward and otherwise marveling at its hidden secrets. I saw it once and have not considered rewatching it. His movie Tenet has a similar effect on the faithful. When I expressed disappointment that the film was incomprehensible and seemed intentionally impenetrable, friends who liked it urged me to give it a second viewing. Then I would appreciate it more. I considered that activity for a moment. Life, however, is too short.
I saw Oppenheimer in IMAX 70mm. I mistakenly thought that this meant that some of the effects would be enhanced, such as the cinematography, sound, music score, and immersiveness. My experience wasn’t the least bit enhanced in the IMAX theatre. In fact, I tried to appreciate the relentless shaking of my seat and the colourful kaleidoscope of swirling cosmic and nuclear gases, but I wasn’t feeling it. It seemed gratuitous. What a movie like Threads does with an image of a woman asking feebly for water that never comes, Nolan could never evoke, with his unending mushroom clouds and explosions that fill the screen. Threads, in that one scene, gives the viewer the revelation, in graphic form, that in war there are no winners. And in nuclear war people die in horrific ways. Chernobyl shows this expertly. In that TV limited series, we know what is going to happen, but viewers may find themselves saying to the characters all the same, “No don’t do that!” and “Stay away from that bridge that is spewing fallout all over you. You are going to die from the inside out from radiation poisoning!” That series did a good job of keeping the tension and interest up, in spite of the fact that the events are part of the common historical record. It seemed to me that the cinematography and audio of Oppenheimer would work just as well or better on a smaller screen. In this IMAX film many scenes are so closeup I was distracted by the pores on the actors’ faces.
If I hadn’t consulted the Wikipedia page on the movie, I would never have known that the colour scenes are intended to convey the viewpoint of Oppenheimer and the black and white scenes other character viewpoints (such as Strauss’s). An online reviewer expressed disappointment that dialogue moved along so quickly and sometimes so incoherently, that he only understood about seventy-five percent of what people were saying. And here I thought (as many viewers must) that I was missing dialogue because of hearing loss or lack of concentration. Indeed, the action and the dialogue move along at a breakneck pace. Three hours of my life went by in a blink. It is not true, as it sometimes is in life, that the good times go by too fast. In this case, those three hours are filled with confusion and disappointment. If I didn’t know who some of the scientists were already, I was utterly dismayed trying to figure out who all the characters were and how they fit in. As it was, the presence of President Lyndon Johnson and others passed me by. By the time I could wonder “who was that?”, another seemingly new character was pontificating or making a brief appearance to interact with Oppenheimer. Names were dropped, scientific findings were referred to in passing and many of the historical figures have cameos for no more than seconds. Whether you understand the scientific jargon or not, many will be lost in the sea of references to black holes, heavy water, uranium, wormholes, protons, neutrons, and nuclear chain reactions. This clipped fast paced dialogue that comprises much of the script is a technique I clearly do not like. It makes it seem that something important is being said, or here is something that moves the plot along, but really for all I know, the conversations may mean nothing at all. It is not genius to leave your audience understanding only three-quarters of the dialogue when most movies give you one hundred percent. Twenty minutes in, when I saw that this was going to be the tone for the rest of the movie, I wondered if it was worth my time. I know how it ends and if the filler was going to be like this with occasional explosions, I’m not going to last. Wikipedia would probably be more exciting and less predictable. In fact, later when I read the synopsis of the movie on Wikipedia much was explained that you cannot get in a single viewing of the film. As I said, that’s what Nolan wants: for you to study him and his works for generations to come. On the other hand, who am I to rain on what he feels his legacy should be. Let his faithful study him. Maybe history will prove me wrong.
There are, however, scenes I will never forget. They are the black-and-white scenes that feature Strauss. I don’t mind Robert Downey Jr. I don’t love him either. Or rather, until this movie. If ever an actor shone and whose performance you will remember, it is Robert Downey Jr. as Strauss. Downey was a delicious, vindictive, sinister piece of underhandedness that I never knew could be inside of him. The Strauss character had the most depth and was the most interesting of all the characters. That is not to say that the acting in general was bad. With its star-studded cast, I thought the acting was excellent. If you see this film, it is worth it to see the supporting character that Downey brings to life. Just don’t see it in IMAX. And happy rewatching if you are one of the faithful.