Unraveling the Destroyer of Worlds
Tackling the ethics and context of an endlessly intense historical debate.
In 1945, the development of the atomic bomb drastically changed the course of the world in its devastating impact on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, sparking a fiercely debated historical topic. Now, almost 80 years later, filmmaker Christopher Nolan has turned the debate into a massive box office success with a three-hour film that is replete with dialogue and partially shot in black and white film. Even given Nolan’s popular following, meme culture’s influence on the film’s success, and other similar stories having struck gold in the past, it’s wild to imagine that a movie of this nature with a topic this sensitive and intense has become a pop culture phenomenon. Oppenheimer, however, isn’t a typical run-through of the heated events in question. Nolan uses profound artistry in dissecting the background and impact of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s (the primary creator of the atomic bomb) work, the kind necessary to wholly comprehend and approach the history of events that still haunt the world today.
American Prometheus
First, we must look at the film’s titular subject. Doing so requires recounting how the construction and consequences of the atomic bomb come almost entirely from Dr. Oppenheimer’s own recollections and point of view. In this capacity, the viewer experiences Oppenheimer’s own perspective which shows the pressures and guilt which led to his infamous work.
It would be easy to view Nolan’s choice of perspective negatively. After all, the creator of one of mankind’s deadliest weapons isn’t someone we would necessarily rush to humanize. The film’s character development of Oppenheimer isn’t intended to completely pardon the physicist though, nor is it a full-on prosecution. Nolan dives into Oppenheimer’s conscience, recognizing how complicated his emotions and reasoning were, a mandatory component to understanding how the bomb was born.
Oppenheimer is shown as a man stricken with ethical and political worries from his relationship with Jean Tatlock, his and his brother’s support for causes and ideas backed by communists, including the efforts of the Spanish Republicans amid the Spanish Civil War, and the surveillance resulting from these associations which increases following his joining the Manhattan Project. The film doesn’t hold back in illustrating Oppenheimer’s internal guilt as he nonetheless pushes forward with the project. This creates the realism necessary to understand his situation and keeps open both criticism towards him and the understanding of his own moral questioning. It helps that Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of him is a tremendous, subtle recognition of his frequent state of anxiety that tops off a critical factor to the film’s narrative comprehension of its events.
As such, this execution of Oppenheimer’s perspective grants the viewer an ideal lens through which to understand the history of the atomic bomb. It gives us both his view in which understanding this background is mandatory, and plentiful context surrounding the world at the time of the bomb. Simply put, the breakdown of this brilliant but complicated scientist does more than enough justice to the repercussions that haunted him.
Fission and Fusion
Having experimented with plot structures many times before, Nolan presents two different timelines in this film through which to deliver this history. The first, Fission, follows Oppenheimer and his previously described recollections during his infamous security hearing. The second, Fusion, which is shown in black and white follows Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey, Jr.), who orchestrated Oppenheimer’s hearing and years later testified before the U.S. Senate regarding his nomination for Secretary of Commerce under the Eisenhower administration. This narrative divide proves itself to be pivotal in further developing the two major thematic elements, reflection, and power, which define this history.
The latter speaks through Strauss’ side. It is clear that he had been using the bomb’s innovation as a means to bolster his own political prospects, though he calls attention to the fact that Oppenheimer also sought it as a shield from political condemnation. Here, the timelines double down on the power grab at the center of the atomic bomb’s creation, pointing to the clear moral deceit that has swallowed these men, whether they personally acknowledge it or not. The clashing depictions of this perfectly highlight a major area of the historical debate, especially prevalent in the aftermath of the atomic bomb’s construction and wartime use, which reveals plenty behind those who led its impact.
As for reflection (a word perhaps too innocuous to describe the intensity of such events the two’s recollections never shown down amidst history watching them, expertly showing its critical implications. In the process, it also paints the significant difference between Oppenheimer and Strauss as to how the former has a visualized representation of the mental strain his consequences have had. This is perhaps the most revealing part of the timelines in how it manages to differentiate the sides to bring forward the perspectives and their reliability that the historical debate relies on.
It may seem daunting at first glance, but the further into the film one gets, the more satisfying the payoff of the timelines becomes. It is storytelling only Nolan could pull off effortlessly with so many complex details.
Becoming Death
Christopher Nolan has a reputation for his grandiose use of visual effects in film. This too is a loud, flashy film, which may not always work for a biographical drama—yet Nolan manages to earn the genre a perfect match that understands the gravity of the history it tells with Oppenheimer.
The editing and music become a constant force throughout the film, components that emphasize the tension and awe of Oppenheimer’s circumstances with ease. In turn, a brisk pace results and offers a consistent engagement with the historical value of each moment. This also lets the more heavily visualized moments fulfill their purpose in realizing the utmost scale being sought in exploring the psychological and ethical distress of the atomic bomb’s development. These elements are balanced so effortlessly as to fully unwind as much of the bomb’s unending impact as possible while highlighting the unavoidable conflict it presents.
Some have complained that this visual flare is largely unnecessary and a detriment to the film’s dramatic value. While a quieter, more low-key approach to this story possibly could have had an equally effective draw, to say that Nolan’s execution lacks the same value is simply false. This is the history of a device known for its massive propensity for death and destruction and the film is well aware of that. As such, Nolan chooses to maximize the cinematic experience to allow the viewer to envision the same fear and complexity that he views in it. This film isn’t an epic just for the sake of looking impressive. Nolan knows what he has in his hands and does everything he can to do it justice.
Granted, it’s nearly impossible to encapsulate the entire profundity of the atomic bomb’s development and use even with such dedication by filmmakers. As such the film has encountered criticism for its exclusion of the Japanese perspective of the bomb’s destruction. In many ways, however, it seems well aware of this and thus doesn’t seek to end the conversation but to emphasize a significant aspect of it through Dr. Oppenheimer’s experience. His ability to only imagine what he had allowed to happen to them rather than see them is profoundly revealing to the ethical conflict defining his experience. This chronicle is fully cognizant of the limitations of its characters and is sure to do its part in realizing both the awe of its happening and the gravity behind those allowing it.
In Closing
Christopher Nolan has opened up several points of analysis regarding the ethics, points of view, and impact surrounding the bomb with Oppenheimer. Taking the strengths of his previous films and a clear fascination with Oppenheimer's morality, audiences have been treated to not just a jaw-dropping blockbuster, but also an eye-opening psychological drama unveiling the heart of an unending ethical and historical dispute. He has created both a great movie and an imposing, necessary examination of one of the most monumental events in history.
 | A guest post by
|