A Thumbs Up for Oppenheimer
Segun Ade-Martins
In Oppenheimer, Nolan clearly marks the narratives as fusion in colour film and fission in black and white film. Fusion sequences mostly feature the war years and Oppenheimer’s struggles at UC Berkeley with Lewis Strauss.
Fusion, as the name denotes, involves coming together, while fission involves separation. Not only are these metaphors for the human-level events occurring in the timeline of the film, but they also represent phenomena in physics used to create nuclear reactions for warfare and electrical power generation.
The fission sequences follow Lewis Strauss’ quest and how Oppenheimer ‘antagonises’ his journey; just like Memento, you need a key or code to unlock the plot as it zigzags along the timeline.
It’s not that complex. The key is the inner turmoil of J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy), which is set up right away. You don’t need to understand quantum physics to follow what’s going on. You, however, have to follow the dialogue as closely as possible.
What didn’t work
Which brings me to the first issue of the film. A lot of the plot—almost all of the plot progression—is through dialogue.
Additionally, remembering the names of the characters was a bit of trouble because their introductions were either brief or non-existent.
The film didn’t need to be three hours long. A runtime of well over two hours seems indulgent. To think, I thought the Dark Knight was a tad too long back in 2008.
What worked
Where the dialogue might be too much, the intercutting is brilliant and the epitome of juxtaposition. At about the middle point, events from the fusion sequences overlapped with the fission sequences, and that crossover was subtle but powerful.
The scene where General Groves (Matt Damon) recruits Oppenheimer was the best dialogue scene of the movie until that point.
The next good piece of dialogue was with Isidor Rabi (David Krumholtz), as the heart of the movie’s dilemma began to unfold. The dialogue from this point on becomes better.
By better, I mean the scenes layer context and subtext while having succinct character moments that wrap into intriguing plot twists and, of course, still serve to provide exposition.
The climax of the film works on so many levels.
First, it’s a double climax; the quest to build the atom bomb is the driving quest. As that question gets answered, soon we are confronted with a new question: should it be used?
Of course, if you know the history, the outcomes have been spoiled for you. However, when you are immersed in your seat watching it unfold, it grips you.
I had futile desires to manipulate this history. Other than that, the climaxes work to really put the man, Oppenheimer, under immense pressure. By the time the end comes around, you are shaken by Oppenheimer and Strauss’ fears.
Shaken by the contrast of the scale and scope of the fears, one big and thoughtful. The other is small and petty.
The culmination of these quests is played throughout the film; it is the north star of the film. At almost every turn, Oppenheimer and the cast of characters measure the size of their fears.
What kind of film is it?
It’s a biopic drama told in the most thrilling and entertaining way. Christopher Nolan uses all the tools in his arsenal to create a 4D puzzle for us to unravel.
As earlier stated, it is the epitome of juxtaposition. Also, it bears the DNA of quite a few Nolan movies.
Christopher Nolan melds the singular inner focus of Memento and Insomnia with the scientific discipline of Interstellar, with the fear of men as the central theme.
The result is the most enthralling three hours I have participated in since the Irishman.
Takeaway
This is definitely a must-see. If you have ever said in your life that you enjoy watching films, you must watch this and watch it seriously. If not now, then at a later date, even if it’s 20 years from now. Just keep it on your watchlist.
I rate this film a 9.5 out of 10. It’s just that good. And with Nolan films, they age well and improve as you rewatch them.
• Ade-Martins writes from Abuja
