This Version of Oppenheimer Would Have Been Better...
Less Haunted Genius; More Slighted Egotist
đ¨đ¨ SPOILER KLAXON đ¨đ¨
A flawed character is an interesting character.
Superman? Yawn.
Batman? Yes please! Inject your weird pseudo-fascistic moral compromises into my veins!
I donât know what J. Robert Oppenheimer was like as a person, what with him being dead and all.
Neither, apparently, does Christopher Nolan, whose latest film Oppenheimer is a THREE (3ď¸âŁ) hour character study that never fully gets to grip with its main character.
I assume that the guy had some flaws. I would have liked to see Oppenheimer explore more of them.
Character Arc, Character Shmarc
The first half of the movie pays lip service to the idea of Oppenheimer as a cocksure young egotist. We are repeatedly told how he is capricious, conceited, and self-obsessed.
The trouble is, aside from his womanizing and the first scene with Matt Damonâs Groves, we never really see it.
Instead, from the get-go, Nolan serves us his signature dish: the Haunted Genius- 1000-yard stares, hushed dialogue and furrowed brows, served with a sprinkling of existential dread.1
The result is that Oppenheimerâs character arc falls flat. Although his decisions change, no real contrast is drawn between his character before and after the key events of the movie.
The post-Trinity sequences, with Oppenheimer haunted by visions of death and confiding in an oddly caricatured Truman about having blood on his hands, are compelling. But their potency is undermined by the fact that this tormented Oppenheimer isn't new to us; early in the film, he's already depicted battling sleepless nights filled with fiery nightmares.
(It reminds of me of Kubrickâs The Shining, which Stephen King apparently hated because Jack Nicholsonâs character was already batshit crazy before he even reached the hotel.)
The frustrating thing is that, as Nolan insists on doing his trademark convoluted time machinations, there was a perfect opportunity to really double down on how Oppenheimer changed post-Trinity. The film regularly flashes forward to the post-war period. It would have been powerful to see a cocky, confident, conceited âpresent-dayâ Oppenheimer intercut with flash-forwards of him in full haunted genius mode. Instead, we just got various versions of the same character confusingly intercut with one another.
Three Cheers for Morality!
While Oppenheimer's character remains largely unchanged post-Trinity, his choices shift dramatically as he becomes involved with the anti-nuclear movement.
Hereâs the thing. Oppenheimer is a hypocrite. He is instrumental in building the bomb; later, he campaigns against nuclear weapons.
Just because he is a hypocrite does not mean that he is wrong, immoral, or unjustified in his views. But it does mean that he is interesting!
What drives a man to renounce his own creation? Can one escape from their past? Does hypocrisy preclude morality? Should one, and can one, distinguish between moral conviction and egotism?
Iâd expect a character study to be going to town on these questions.
Nolan, though, appears uninterested.
Instead of a deep dive into Oppenheimer's psyche, the final hour is structured as a procedural sprinkled with a dash of Sorkinesque politics minus the snappy dialogue.
Characters who genuinely question Oppenheimer's mental state, such as Robert Downey Juniorâs serpentine Strauss and Jason Clarkeâs fiery prosecutor Roger Robb, end up painted as the villains. RDJ, despite diving into some tantalizing early material, is eventually reduced to moustache-twirling, monologue-driven villainy by the climax. It's ironic, really: his final speech touches on some genuinely interesting character points, but the presentation nudges us to essentially brush them aside.
My Version
Letâs imagine Iâve got the call from Christopher Nolanâs agent (it could happen!)
Nolan wants me to meet him in his penthouse to discuss a Nolan x Ed Oppenheimer Directorâs Cut. Whatâs my pitch?
Rework Oppenheimerâs portrayal in the first half so we are shown the size of his ego (if we have to get Cillian in for reshoots, then so be it. He is majority owned by Nolan now). Let the guy crack a few jokes. Sand down those cheekbones. Portray him as effortlessly charismatic, brilliant, and a bit of a dick. Iâm prepared to indulge Nolanâs funky chronological calling card as long as it underscores the shift in Oppenheimer pre and post-Trinity.
Get the audience thinking more about Oppenheimer as a character in the second half. In particular:
Explicitly parallel the Trinity test with the scene where the bomb is taken away from Oppenheimer, leaving him powerless. Highlight the blow this deals to his ego. Make these the twin centrepieces of the movie. The goal is to make the audience consider the relationship between Oppenheimerâs ego and his conscience.
Let RDJ make his big speech at the end, but to a more sympathetic audience and in a less Evil Villain way. Draw explicit parallels between the slight to RDJâs ego when Oppenheimer embarrasses him in front of the hearing committee and the slight to Oppenheimerâs when the bomb is taken away from him.
Iâll wait for Nolanâs call.
This is, to be fair, the role that Cillian Murphy, a man whose cheekbones are the only organic material known to man that can slice through diamonds, was born to play.
I love " SPOILER KLAXON", I may have to steal it at some point đ¤