“Oppenheimer” takes two full hours with repetitive scenes, endless dialogues, and a tiresome atmosphere, accompanied by an extended music (from the beginning to the end of the film in the style of second-rate TV movies) that keeps the audience waiting for a beautiful scene to come: after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Oppenheimer delivers a speech to celebrate their victory in the war, but a surreal and unsettling atmosphere prevails, in which we are get closer to the inner turmoil of Oppenheimer. A troubled and turbulent inner which does not know whether to celebrate or mourn. Lights and faces blend together, and the image of ashes of Japanese people defeated by victorious America, challenges the notion of triumph. Oppenheimer does not know whether he should be happy or sad. In a stunning image, when he tries to leave the meeting, he sees a charred corpse in the hallway on which he unintentionally steps on and unwittingly becomes an accomplice in a mass murder.
However, this remarkable scene, with its impactful portrayal of the internal struggle of the atomic bomb’s father after facing the consequences of his actions, remains the only memorable element. In the final hour, the film reverts to a tedious and highly verbose courtroom drama, ultimately aimless and meaningless. Any thoughtful and intelligent filmmaker would likely has started his film with the same scene and delved into the fascinating exploration of this unique character’s psyche in this particular situation, leading to a profound astonishment. But Christopher Nolan, who is like an inflated balloon(exactly like this film) suffers from lack of personal perspective and intellectual depth. At best, he is a skilful technician serving Hollywood and studios, creating films solely within the framework and continuation of Hollywood’s perspective (although a powerful marketing campaign surrounding him, stating that the best Batman is indeed his Dark Knight, but comparing Nolan’s film to Tim Burton’s personal, dark, and astonishing work- “Batman Returns”- is a laughable comparison that remains a joke).
However, “Oppenheimer” appears to be a highly successful film at the box office and in mainstream film criticism, owing this more to an impressive and astounding marketing campaign that accompanies well-known newspaper and magazine critics, whether they want it or not; They may want to be part of this million-dollar advertising campaign, or unintentionally, they are influenced by hype and positive reviews from others, lacking the courage to dissent.
But upon closer examination, “Oppenheimer” is a highly Hollywoodized film that adheres to predetermined rules from the beginning to the end without offering anything fresh or innovative and it does not matter who the director is (any skilled technician could have created these scenes with all the resources and available facilities). Character development is essentially absent, and the entire film serves the momentary glorification of the protagonist. From the beginning to the end, it feels like we are faced with a perpetual climax, a climax that lacks any depth or excitement at all. The filmmaker’s approach is entirely based on typical TV serials, and the continuous and incessant use of music truly torments the soul. The music does not allow room for silence or contemplation, which is essential for any serious artistic work, something Nolan fails to grasp.
Instead, Nolan appears more interested in pandering to current trends in his self-indulgent film: Rather than delving into the inner world of his character, he constructs the entire film around the context of communism/Soviet Union, as the current political events have heightened concerns about nuclear war with Russia. Whether the audience wants it or not, they find themselves contemplating the story to current affairs. This manipulation of the audience reaches its peak at the film’s end, where Nolan concludes the film with a dialogue between Oppenheimer and Einstein and a hackneyed expression of concern for the end of the world, portrayed through ridiculous special effects. These cheap fireworks – using as atomic explosions between many scenes for no apparent reason – pale in comparison to Nolan’s grand ambitions and a real explosion for the bomb-testing scene.
Furthermore, Oppenheimer, much like “Dunkirk” (which resembled childlike computer games more than a film), is an advocate of extreme and repugnant patriotism, which has no connection to the thoughts and world of a modern intellectual.
Yet amidst much ado about nothing, we must not forget that Auteur theory remains valid at least in some cases over the decades: a filmmaker without a unique perspective and original signature- no matter how skilled and talented as a technician- is incapable of creating a good film, as Nolan did not create any good film during the last two decades (Despite the widespread acclaim from critics worldwide for this inflated balloon).
© 2020-2023. UniversalCinema Mag.
thanks for info