When Al Pacino announced Oppenheimer as best picture at the 96th Academy Awards, his announcement was so subdued (and bizarrely stated) that the audience in the Dolby Theatre for a moment seemed unsure if they should even clap. It’s no secret why Pacino was less than surprised; Oppenheimer had been the favored pick all award season, winning a total of 7 Oscars, including one for lead actor Cillian Murphy. The film has enjoyed immense success since its initial release in July of 2023, contributed to by the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon that occurred when fans online realized that Oppenheimer had the same release date as as a movie that was in many ways its opposite, Barbie. While the “Barbenheimer” sensation undoubtedly helped it achieve its high earnings at the box office, virality alone cannot wholly account for the acclaim Oppenheimer has received since, and a closer look at the film and its core messages reveals that its success is anything but typical.
The three hour runtime of Oppenheimer consists of two blended-together sections. The first follows the life of the eponymous J. Robert Oppenheimer, popularly known as the father of the atomic bomb, as he builds relationships with fellow scientists, completes the infamous Trinity test, sees his bomb bring an end to World War II after it is used against Japan, and eventually goes on trial for his apparent ties to the Communist Party. The second, shot in black and white, is shown through the perspective of Lewis Strauss, as he spearheads the aforementioned trials in order to both diminish Oppenheimer’s political power and secure his own spot as the Secretary of Commerce.
What could have easily been a by-the-books retelling of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life instead becomes far more complex under Christopher Nolan’s direction. Most modern biopics tend to leave out the major shortcomings of their central characters, with protagonists escaping as flawed but ultimately redeemable. This pattern can be seen in movies as recent as Baz Luhrmann’s 2022 blockbuster Elvis, which leaves out the convenient detail that the singer met Priscilla Presley when she was just 14. However, Oppenheimer rejects this trend entirely. Rather than being a triumphant story about how Oppenheimer invented the atomic bomb and won the war, the film instead becomes a portrait of a man who chose to act without considering the consequences and ended up spending the rest of his life suffering as a result. Oppenheimer is constantly scrutinized throughout the film, both internally and externally, with major moments shaming him for switching his stance on arms only after the atomic bombs had already been dropped and depicting his guilt for indirectly causing the deaths of thousands. Any time Oppenheimer is given even the slightest opportunity to feel proud of his accomplishments, he, as well as the audience, becomes reminded that his lack of regard came at an unprecedented human cost and is not to be celebrated.
Through this condemnation of Oppenheimer as a person, the film, by extension, becomes a condemnation of his invention, the atomic bomb, and its use by the United States government as a tool of war. In fact, Nolan criticizes the US government nearly as much as he criticizes Oppenheimer himself. In one scene, a room of officials is finalizing the location where the first atomic bomb is to be dropped. A quick mention is made to Kyoto, which is ultimately taken off of the list of locations for no reason other than one of the officials had their honeymoon there, embodying the careless attitude the government had towards the use of such a deadly device in warfare. Another scene depicts Oppenheimer expressing his remorse during a meeting with President Truman after the bomb is dropped. His concerns are quickly brushed away, and an increasingly annoyed Truman asks, “Do you think anyone in Hiroshima or Nagasaki gives a shit who built the bomb? They care who dropped it. I did. Hiroshima isn’t about you”. In moments like these, Nolan solidifies the film’s message as one against war and makes sure the blame does not rest solely on Oppenheimer himself but also on the nation that dropped the bomb in the first place. Through scenes like these, Oppenheimer ensures that its audiences exit the theater clear about its stance towards the use of the atomic bomb and the responsibility the United States has for its impact.
For me, the success of Oppenheimer was as surprising as it was unsurprising. Sure, Christopher Nolan is a well-known director, and any project with his name attached is sure to receive attention. However, this level of triumph for a film that is so blatantly anti-war was one I did not see coming. As someone with relatives from Hiroshima, I was already well aware of the horrors that resulted from the atomic bombs. However, time and time again, I have heard the argument that the bombs were the only way to end the war and thus were justified. A film founded on the assurance that these bombs were not necessary and have caused more harm than good reaching this level of mainstream achievement seems to signal a greater cultural shift in how we think about America’s role in war. While it’s unlikely that perspectives on war will change overnight, the embrace of Oppenheimer has made me hopeful for the future.
Works Cited
Nolan, Christopher, director. Oppenheimer. Universal Pictures, 2023.
Oppenheimer Poster. 9 Apr. 2023. Live Science, Universal Pictures, https://www.livescience.com/everything-we-know-about-oppenheimer. Accessed 4 Apr. 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment