There's a while already since I'm not going to cinema as often as I used to, but there are exceptions. "Oppenheimer" is one of these. Reasone: top 250 IMDb, Nolan and a feeling that it deserves a big screen viewing. TL;DR: I think its place in top 250 is justified, it's not Nolan's best - but it's probably among the top half, about the big screen.. I wouldn't call it a "must see", but it's true I didn't watch it in IMAX.
Who read my blog knows that I'm not really fond of biopics. Besides that, Oppenheimer's life is not the most offering subject movie-wise, despite his importance in the context of WW2 and his major contribution in the development of the first atomic bomb. That's why the best part of this production is to squeeze out a script that wouldn't probably be easy to top with anything else covering the same subject. The story builds up on three temporal lines, started simultaneously. The main one is the "classic" type, following the biography of the main character since his student years up to his involvement as a chief physicist in the Manhattan project and to the detonation of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This timeline merges afterwards with a second one, probably less familiar, covering "the trial". In brief, after WW2, Oppenheimer's activity became much more politically oriented than scientifical, implicitly drawing enemies and culminating with a closed hearing meant to revoke his security credentials, but which discredited him publicly. A third timeline, suggestively nuanced in black and white follows the reversal of that episode, happened a couple of years afterwards, when the principal political adversary behind Oppenheimer's hearing gets his own "trial" when attempting to occupy a secretary of state position.
"Oppenheimer" has perfect screenplay construction. A review that I read before watching it was saying something about the long length it has, where the third hour, coming ofter the nuclear explosions, is dilluting the effect and the movie should stop before it. I believe that's precisely the third our that makes it worth watching it. Even if in its beginning we have some dialogues that are a bit supperficial, the ending is filled with much more fine and mature nuances, some of them quite deep. From aspects that relate to form, like using the first person plural - a natural thing for a researcher given the typical writing customs - in complete opposition with an attorney's perception that interprets that as a lack of responsibility, to the fundamental idea that is built as a warning: mix science with politics and the last will bury you. There are some details, which I believe are more evident for who had some experience in research, and in particular in technical research. There's a point when somebody working in this area will most certainly have some opinions or even get forced by circumstances like management or other collateral activities, to take a position concerning more.. "humane" matters than the scientific niche. However, who's getting drawn too much into this direction will involuntarily end up sacrificing the other, which in an optimistic scenario will at least cost time, but worse might make the person a lamb to slaughter in a political jungle (the case of the movie). There's rare the case when somebody manages to fight both fronts and keep the standards high - because a technical area has a dynamic that sometimes is hard to keep up to even without something else distracting you. Anyway, we got into a very particular niche :) so let's move back to the movie.
As a cinematic experience "Oppenheimer" is ok, but not impressive. We have some nice shots, but overall its camera work is not spectacular. I appreciated the reserve on using CGI - I think it's better like that, but on the other hand I'm convinced that cinematography could've been better. The sound, as the editing are typical for Nolan, meaning a bit too aggressive, at least for start. Nevertheless, towards its end the video editing fills the gaps you fill in the cinematography, the result being probably the best edited movie hour I've watched in the last two years. The jumping between timelines begins in adagio and gradually advances to a tense allegro, which in the last ten minutes builds up into a sensory impact explosion.
My casting opinions are typically subjective, so we can move quickly over - what's obvious is that both Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. will probably collect plenty of nominations in the upcoming awards season. I didn't talk at all above about the biggest star on the poster though... = the bomb :) This will generate a long boring philosophical paragraph. To summarize it, unfortunately, despite the setting being more than 50 years ago, the movie is very timely. As I was saying about "1917", or more recently about "Im Westen Nichts Neues", it should probably be included on a mandatory watching list for many heads of states. I'm not sure though how much would they understand it...
The conclusion: it's a long movie and it can get boring. As I got bored by "Mank", "The Iron Lady", "Mr. Turner" or other biopics over the years. It probably won't happen though if you have some interest in history or some minimal technical background. And the latter can make you a bit subjective ;)
Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment