By Ziqian Sheng
Oppenheimer is Christopher Nolan’s 12th feature film, and many among global audiences had been eagerly anticipating in it a movie that could match or even surpass his previous works. However, after patiently watching for three hours, I was left unsatisfied with the resolution. An essential question was carelessly answered by frequent cuts, wooden characters, and lightweight plot twists, leaving me feeling regretful for having gotten my hopes up.
On the promotional material I saw before entering the theater, it was described as follows: “Oppenheimer is an epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic J. Robert Oppenheimer who must risk destroying the world in order to save it.” The crux of the film lies in this dialectical issue of saving the world by potentially destroying it, a negation of negation. This is also the main concern of this article: how does Christopher Nolan interpret his protagonist’s response to this moral dilemma?
Specifically, this moral dilemma revolves around whether the development of atomic bombs, massively devastating weapons, would result in not only defeating one’s enemies but also in triggering an arms race with the imminent possibility of global annihilation. And alternatively, whether stopping such research would leave the Allied forces no choice but to continue in conventional warfare, with the cost of millions of American, Chinese, Soviet, and Commonwealth soldiers’ lives to secure victory in Tokyo and Berlin, concluding the war against fascism with an even grimmer triumph.
This issue particularly involves the ethics of utilitarianism. Let’s see how the film tackles it.
1. Dual-Narrative Technique
To help illustrate its conflicts, Oppenheimer employs a dual narrative using both colour and black-and-white scenes, representing “subjective perspective” and “objective perspective” respectively, according to Nolan. This dual-narrative technique evokes memories of The Godfather Part II, where contrasting viewpoints of the old and young Godfathers were employed. Such a juxtaposition of timelines often enhances the depth of characters and creates a grand historical backdrop. However, unlike The Godfather Part II, where the dual scenes solely denote different time periods, observation reveals that Oppenheimer’s perspective is represented in colour, while his antagonist Strauss’ is depicted in black and white. This narrative approach is distinct, attempting to amplify the contradictions of the film’s moral dilemma, which Oppenheimer and Strauss fall on opposing sides of, to the utmost.
Yet, the frequent switching between colour and black-and-white, apart from complicating the film’s narrative structure, appears to be a mere conceptual gimmick. The numerous fragments (including studying at Cambridge and Göttingen, extramarital affairs, lecturing, recruiting scientists, secret trials, and receiving honours) lack coherent connections and merely provide a cursory overview of Oppenheimer’s life. To draw a comparison, if The Godfather Part II uses its dual narrative like different cuts of lean and fat meat, then Oppenheimer is more like a mixture of lean and fat ground beef. In short, Nolan is using dazzling forms to evade the substance of his issue.
To greater effect, the film also features slow-motion, silent depictions of atomic fission, which not only relieve visual and auditory fatigue for the audience but demonstrate the power of silence.
2. Depictions Of Characters
For Oppenheimer himself, the film is ultimately an insufficient portrayal of his moral struggle. In particular, the growth of the protagonist matters here. Initially, Oppenheimer hopes the atomic bomb will lead to new patterns of behaviour by ending WWII. But it doesn’t, it leads down a contrary road. After the Soviet Union develops a bomb of their own, state superpowers continue the Sisyphean task of nuclear proliferation. The Sword of Damocles hangs above our heads. And Oppenheimer struggles between being an angel who ended WWII, and a devil who brought about the possibility of WWIII. He uses mystical discourse like the “Bhagavad Gita” to reconcile the conflict between the otherworld and realpolitik he experiences, and campaigns against the development of further weapons. But the more he tries to confront conflict, the more evil he uncovers in humanity.
Nolan focuses heavily on close-ups of his main character, intending to let the audience try to directly peer into his inner world through his face. For example, with his vacant eyes when he studies in Cambridge; reaction to the faces of the celebratory crowd he is addressing after the bombing of Hiroshima as they turn into grotesque masks of people being obliterated by the bomb; or speechlessness amidst dazzling white light in a security hearing. However, with due respect for these efforts, I couldn’t gain a sense of empathy for Oppenheimer through them due to the film’s depiction of historical shifts in his conscience so suddenly.
Yes, I understand the attempts to convey Oppenheimer’s overwhelmed feeling after the bomb is used, fear of being perceived as a harbinger of death, and the concerns for applications of bombs. But like Alfred Hitchcock’s successful movies show, fear requires a process, and a particularly extreme one when it originates from what first seems a blessing. Atomic bombs are not a sudden fright, like that of a ghost jumping out at you, for those wielding them. So when just a minute earlier Oppenheimer is basking in the cheers under stars and stripes, why does he suddenly feel guilty about creating a weapon that would kill so many people? In my opinion, to quote Oppenheimer’s famous words in the film, Nolan has not truly understood the atomic bomb, and thus, he cannot truly convey the fear of it.
For supporting characters Kitty (wife) and Jean (mistress) meanwhile, Nolan never delves into the most tender aspects; nuanced human emotions. Apart from regarding Oppenheimer’s wife and lover as objects of desire, nearly all the use the film has for them is as a vehicle to say that the act of bearing children is a mundane burden for women. This reduction of other characters feels quite inadequate. Viewers may notice a few female scientists, but for the most part, women are indeed merely objects of Oppenheimer’s lust in the film. Women who either commit suicide in the bathtub or become alcoholics. They are not the ones making the final decisions; at most, they are the ones folding laundry and calling Oppenheimer home.
3. Hasty Plot Developments
As the biography “Oppenheimer: American Prometheus”, that the film is based on, puts it, Oppenheimer, like Prometheus, brought fire to humanity, which is both warm and cruel. When dealing with thought-provoking subjects like this, one must delve deep, including into the inner struggles of characters, not simply pointing a heavy camera at a protagonist’s eyes, but using everything in the surroundings to reveal significant psychological shifts. The film’s background introduction to the development of nuclear weapons is insufficient, mentioning not much more tangible than the fear experienced by pilots witnessing the Nazi V2 rocket. It fails to emphasize the urgency of early nuclear weapons research, and could have focused more on the idea of developing nuclear weapons to save lives. During the research phase, scientists’ debates on whether to halt the development of nuclear weapons are reduced to Oppenheimer’s brief “theoretical” lectures.
After the successful Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions, there is more discussion of the fear of the Soviet Union’s involvement in a nuclear arms race, and regret for winning with the development of nuclear weapons at the cost of innocent civilian deaths and bringing more unpredictable risks to the future. Nevertheless, Nolan handles each twist and development too lightly, as if from a detached god’s perspective: this is how it had to happen.
Conclusion
The moral dilemma Nolan presents to us in Oppenheimer is summed up in a line from the film, which roughly goes: “I am only responsible for making the atomic bomb; I am not responsible for how it is used.” The problem is, Oppenheimer doesn’t really think that way, and how do you show that.
Oppenheimer can be seen in cinemas now.
MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY FILM INQUIRER 