Words of a Watchman

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

“Oppenheimer,” under the direction of Christopher Nolan, masterfully weaves the tale of Robert Oppenheimer, the man at the forefront of the atomic age. The film adeptly balances historical gravitas with the personal intricacies of its central figure, crafting a narrative that is as intellectually stimulating as it is emotionally resonant.

Nolan’s style is nonlinear; meaning that he will switch back and forth in time between relevant events. The earlier events are filmed in black-and-white, and the more recent scenes portrayed in colour. This is an excellent technique to help the viewer to tell the difference.

Ciaran Murphy’s portrayal of Oppenheimer is a nuanced tapestry of ambition, conflict, and introspection. While some may yearn for further depth, Murphy captures the essence of a figure wrestling with the monumental implications of his work. His performance brings to light the internal struggles of a brilliant mind navigating the moral labyrinth of scientific advancement.

The narrative smartly integrates elements that highlight the inherent drama of Oppenheimer’s life, including his affiliations with the Communist party. This aspect of his past becomes a crucible for the film’s exploration of loyalty, integrity, and the high stakes of political ideology. The film doesn’t shy away from the complexities of these associations, portraying them as pivotal chapters in Oppenheimer’s life that contribute to his multifaceted character.

In its portrayal of personal relationships, the film introduces a romantic subplot that, while adding a layer of human emotion, adheres to the cinematic tradition of blending personal narratives with historical events. This relationship not only enriches the character’s backstory but also serves as a lens through which audiences can explore the more intimate facets of Oppenheimer’s life amidst his monumental public achievements.

The film reaches a poignant climax as Oppenheimer, having been exonerated from charges of treason, faces the paradoxical loss of his security clearance. This moment is emblematic of the complex interplay between personal integrity and institutional suspicion that defines much of his story. It is here that the film introduces a meeting with Albert Einstein, a character whose wisdom and perspective offer Oppenheimer a semblance of solace. Einstein’s sage advice serves as a beacon of philosophical reflection, urging Oppenheimer to contemplate the broader implications of his contributions to science and their indelible mark on humanity.

A rivalry is portrayed between Oppenheimer, who did not want to develop the “Super” (hydrogen bomb), and Edward Teller, who worked on that H-bomb project. I am not sure of the historical accuracy of this adversarial relationship, but it added a dramatic element to the movie.

Through its attention to historical detail, character development, and the inherent drama of Oppenheimer’s life, the film invites viewers to ponder the ethical dimensions of scientific discovery. It’s a narrative that not only chronicles the achievements and trials of a pivotal figure in modern history but also presents a meditation on the profound responsibilities borne by those who dare to venture into the unknown realms of knowledge.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the subplot of his conflict with a jealous US Senator was unnecessary and distracting. I feel that the movie could have been made shorter and more concise without that. But, maybe it was important to include into the overall narrative.

It was clear that Oppenheimer placed the future of humanity ahead of the future of his own family, and the relationship with his own wife and children. It was an incredible conflict for him, in face of World War 3, that he did not want to see humanity destroyed.

Oppenheimer understood his profound role in changing the direction of the world, through his work on nuclear weapons.. He expressed this twice in the film, through quoting a line from the Bhagavad Gita: “I have become death, the destroyer of worlds.”

In the end, Oppenheimer felt that he had “blood on his hands” to President Harry Truman in the Oval office. Truman corrected him, saying that it was his (Truman’s) decision to drop the bomb, not Oppenheimers. But somehow I don’t think this made Oppenheimer feel any better.