Oppenheimer is Nolan's worst film

I think I'll leave it there. I didn't like the film very much.

I didn't like the film at all.

I can understand this. In a way, because I know the history, I like the movie as that. It captures a piece of a moment in time that has huge consequences for the subsequent years and probably "forever".

For me, the next post is my question....what would you, or anybody else for that matter, prefer it to be and how would you re-write history? I've seen comments about adding emotionally appealing elements that are not part of the actual story and the question about why it has to stick to history and these somewhat baffle me....kinda like the Civil War story where the South wins at Gettysburg, revisionist stories about documentable events. The historian in me bristles at that, especially since this IS such a pivotal event that has been written about many times.

I guess, I think that for some people, this is just not the movie or story for them. Like it or not, it happened, and it's a story that has huge consequences on a daily basis, even now. Tossing in some non-canonical events for script purposes opens up a can of worms about just what should be added to the story.

I'll try to answer your post...Like you, I'm fascinated by the history of Oppenheimer, the Manhattan Project, the communist espionage, the 'red scare', the human equation to end WWII by being first to make a weapon of mass destruction, the eventual falling out of favor of Oppenheimer the man and so much more. The truth is indeed stranger than fiction and one helluva story.

Rewrite history? Did someone say they wanted that in the movie? I don't want that. I can tell you how I would have preferred the story to be told. I'll post some of my thoughts on this:

My problem isn't with being bored by the story of Oppenheimer, I'm bored with Nolan. I've never been a fan of his film making style and I think he covered a weak script by using flashy editing tricks and a mega over powerful score.

I dunno what film people are watching where they just see a closeup, rather than the mountain of moral weight and numinous fear of a man who made one of the most dangerous and important decisions in human history, but to each their own.

Yeah, I think a lot of the criticisms of Murphy's performance are "all he does are making close ups into the lens", but I think this is a very narrow way to simplify his performance. His acting and the emotional weight he feels for his actions during the war and how his country betrayed him are all one and the same. I don't think it's hard to figure out what the reason for his facial expressions are and, though I don't care a whole lot about acting, I think Murphy's face conveys all there is to be said about his character. Yes, part of his performance involves close up shots, but why stop analyzing his performance there?

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

I read American Prometheus, I don't think there was another choice on how to play the character. Even the people who knew him best believed he was impossible to understand at times, full of contradictory traits.

But Nolan isn't David Lean, and the movie remains a missed opportunity to explore one of the most enigmatic and contradictory historical figures of the 20th century.... just imagine if Lean and Robert Bolt could have tackled this one.

I somewhat agree. I don't think the film truly comes alive until the final hour when the personal drama gives way to political thriller and is able to capture the mythic themes of power and betrayal alluded to with the opening quote. That said, I did feel the final hour was strong enough for the film to make the jump from 7/10 to 8/10.

Regardless, my post wasn't so much about the character Oppenheimer but about Murphy's performance.

Christopher Nolan is the new Steven Spielberg where it is now fashionable to disregard any artistic merit he may have simply because his movies are crowd pleasers, box office draws, and are often award winners.
What’s that saying? Familiarity breeds contempt.

I should say, it's not Murphy's fault for the 'close ups into the lens.' Murphy is a capable actor. The fault is in the director who favors flare and what arose out of the music video style of movie making. Alot of today's audience is use to that style of film making so that's probably why Nolan is so well liked. But I don't like his directorial style.

Image if Nolan had made Lawrence of Arabia, I'd say he'd ruin it, others might say it's amazing. It's all in what one wants. I know you say you don't care much about acting as it's not the most important part of a movie to you, fair enough. To me acting is paramount and visual flair can be a distraction.

If that is directed at me you're wrong. I've disliked every Nolan film I've seen except the one about the two stage magicians. With Spielberg I love a lot of his films and dislike others that he's made. War Horse and A.I. I'm looking at you. For me it has nothing to do with how box office popular a director is or isn't.

It’s directed in a lot of people. Maybe not including you, if you never liked any of his films to begin with.

The music video/prolonged trailer style won't work for everyone, I would imagine, but my main takeaway was how the film was reminiscent of Z with how much gravity the technical elements brought to the film. I've had issues with Nolan's loud sound effects in the past, but I finally warmed up to them with this film. I'm not sure if it would work as well with a rewatch now that I can't watch it in the theaters anymore, but I definitely had a real blast with it in the theaters.

I felt bad for my Mom though as she kept covering her ears every five minutes

I don't have the time to do this, but if you look for post by me where I mention Nolan I'm pretty sure you'll find me dissing him way back when. Oh the movie I like of his is The Prestige, which if I remember correctly wasn't a typical Nolan non linear, abbreviated scenes, movie.


***I just remember I watched like 10 minutes of his Batman movie and walked away from it. Not a fan of his.

I haven't seen Z so I can comment, though I know that film is respected by many.

I kept turning the volume up and down trying to avoid ear drum fatigue

That’s fine if you’re not. In that case, my post doesn’t apply to you if his films never worked.

Some of the criticisms, however, that I’ve seen are the kind I’ve seen levied against Spielberg before.

Yup I know what you mean...in music like movies, underground artist are considered avant garde but once they become hugely popular they're considered a sellout by some. Not me though I just like what I like.

So, I’ll preface this with the understanding that not every direction will hell with everyone. Heck, I’m not a big fan of Fulci or Cassavetes, so I get it. The difference I’m seeing here is, while I can see the artistic merit behind Fulci and Cassavetes, my issues are with other aspects of their films. It doesn’t seem like many are willing to acknowledge much in the way of Nolan’s abilities. *
His films are particularly good at capturing the inner turmoil of his main protagonist. Guilt is usually a main theme within what is essentially, character studies. Batman’s survivors guilt and ensuing trauma in The Dark Knight Trilogy.*
Oppenheimer’s guilt over the mass murder of an entire city -twice!! The way he pivots from a confident physicist, ready to change the world, to a broken man who resembles a modern day Prometheus (bringing it full circle with its literary source) his psyche is his torture, rather then the proverbial vulture (?) that rather then pecking at his innards, pecks at his very soul.*
The look in his face, when he says “There’s blood on my hand…” conveys far more emotion than one seems willing to admit. It’s in the eyes. *
RDJ also gives easily one of his best performances, as the conniving and egocentric Strauss, whose manipulations backfire, leaving him hoisted by his own petard.*
I have not seen Interstellar yet. It’s been ages since I’ve seen Memento, but remember thinking bf it was great 24 years ago, and is due for a rewatch. *
Dunkirk, Insomnia and The Prestige are good, but probably could sue a rewatch each. Tenet is good, but gets confusing and, surprisingly predictable, as I was able to figure out quite a bit of the supposed surprises during the film. Like The Prestige and some of his other films, I can see issues with what some have decried about his third act issues.

That's what makes this movie echo debates that historians have had since 1945. Having read a bunch of the historical books on this, I could not help but conclude that someone was going to get a bomb, most likely Nazi Germany, the USSR or the US. Britain gave their research to the US and Japan was hardly a player, even though the US didn't really know that due to wartime secrecy.

Somebody was going to build one, sooner or later; the principle of how it works was "out". I think it's best that it was the US, at least if you don't trust Stalin and think Hitler was horrific. It's the lesser of 3 evils.

Oppenheimer was in the middle of all this as well as the middle of the whole Red Scare craziness. In regard to real images I've seen over the years (wearing my historian costume) most of what I saw in the movies were good do-overs of the real ones. His gaunt physique, baggy suit, bug-eyes and that iconic hat really fit.

I don't think anybody who was involved in the project ever completely got past it, but they also realized just how this deal with the devil happened. It's really difficult to see how it would have ended differently that wasn't worse. Somebody was going to get one (and then more) and somebody was going to use it. The movie portrayed just a part of this drama. Oppenheimer was the most visible character and, considering his fate, the one most people familiar with that era would remember.

Nolan's take is not too far from a lot of documentary shots of Oppie himself. Just point to Google images for Oppenheimer and see the strong resemblance between movie frames and contemporary photos of the man himself. The part-time history geek in me has read and viewed a lot about these events and the movie seems very familiar in that sense. There's a real look to the images of this era and the movie version hits on that quite well. I don't think it's an accident.