Especially in contrast to the momentous things happening around those men. Their petty personal problems and career concerns just seem too small to be the center of such a grand production.
I mean, it wasn’t just about them - it was about the intersection of science and government, politics and power, about how society turns on those who don’t toe the line, about how visionaries are often their own worst enemies… the film may not have spoken to you, but you can’t claim it wasn’t trying to say something.
You know, I just saw this today, and I think that’s an excellent summary of what the film is about.
No. And the theater I saw it at has seats that don’t bear up to 3 hours without moving.
I would say “portraying” complex personalities and characters. I personally doubt how much of those personalities and characters as portrayed are based on reality, or even known. The basic outline of events is true enough, but has anyone seen the transcript of the back-room hearing about Oppenheimer’s security clearance, or of that Senate confirmation hearing?
I liked the film quite a lot, but I thought that the writers made Lewis Strauss into too much of a comic book villain and scapegoat for what happened to Oppenheimer, a man who was apparently a pretty flawed hero. But that sort of simplistic ending is what can make this sort of movie a big hit.
It’s all in the public record, available here:
Strauss’s Senate hearing transcript is available here:
David Hill’s testimony starts on page 429. He doesn’t really hold back, though I don’t recall if it exactly matches what was in the movie:
My read was this was a visual representation of how Oppenheimer and Kitty felt at that point in the review board. The board members were ripping Oppenheimer’s life apart and dumping all his dirty laundry on the floor. Kitty knew everything about what her husband did with Jean and they had put it behind them. But they also didn’t want a room full of old white men talking about how he had an ongoing relationship with a communist before and during his marriage. When it was brought up in the meeting Oppenheimer felt naked and Kitty felt like the affair was happening all over again, right in front of her.
As for Strauss, I understand why he was there, he’s the petty asshole that ended Oppenheimer’s career. That’s a pretty important person in his life. And Strauss’ comeuppance was a real thing that happened, and provides a level of catharsis for the story that otherwise wouldn’t be there. I think Nolan could have done a better job with how each hearing is used as a framing device, but this is a complex story and I don’t think there’s much that could or should have been left out.
Good answer actually. I assumed that part was impressionistic or something, but I like your explanation.
Yeah there’s a few different points in the movie where it veers into impressionistic depictions of Oppenheimer’s mental state, notably early on in his youth when he was “troubled by visions” and after the bombs were dropped and he struggled with the enormity of what he had helped do.
What’s truly horrifying is to read the actual fine-print text of @Dr.Strangelove’s cite of David Hill’s testimony (post #185), and compare Hill’s list of concerns to any of dozens of current or recent politicians and cabinet officials.
Mr. Hill may as well be talking about Aliens for all the relevance his concerns have to the operating characteristics of so many of the powerful today. How our mighty have fallen in a mere 60-70 years.
It is distressing. On one hand, Hill’s comments are utterly scathing. On the other, they’re absolutely par for the course in some circles. Or worse, often enough. Naked self-interest at least sometimes aligns with the interests of the American public. But throw in some regulatory capture on top and you get a combination that works against the public’s interest pretty much at all times.
I saw it this afternoon at a regular theater, with about a dozen people in the audience. There’s nothing in the film that makes me think that I should have seen it in IMAX; there was too much talking and walking to make it a spectacle movie.
I had just seen the MSNBC documentary, which at two hours gave me a better feeling about him than the movie did, plus I knew quite a bit already, so I was kind of bored. Something that’s in the documentary that’s not in the movie is actual smoking, not just holding a lit cigarette or a few puffs on a pipe. As I was watching I thought it was a curious director’s choice; after all, he died of throat cancer at the age of 62.
But I would still recommend seeing it.
What did you think of the sex scenes? I’m betting they weren’t in the documentary.
Maybe that’s why I’m recommending it. But I’m sure there are some skeezy porn movies in the works.
I saw it yesterday and it was excellent. I learned some stuff I didn’t previously know, like the reason that the project ended up in New Mexico, because Oppenheimer and his brother had a ranch there and were familiar with the area.
The movie is definitely Oscar-worthy, and I expect it to be nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor (for Robert Downey Jr, though others may also be worthy).
As a working cinema projectionist, currently (at this very moment, in fact) showing the 35mm anamorphic widescreen version of Oppenheimer, I’d like to point out that this whole multi-format, multi-aspect-ratio confusion is overblown. There’s no definitive version, it was shot so it could be presented in different shapes and sizes; there’s no mandate that every bit of what the camera recorded on film must be projected; each of the several variations has been individually tweaked so nothing important is missing, no heads cut off, and given the stamp of approval by the film’s creators, so whether you see it on a giant Imax screen or your friendly local arthouse, you might be getting a different experience but not an inferior one.
I know I won’t convince the hardcore gauge nuts out there, but it’s true. God loves all formats equally, Go forth now and spread the gospel.
Even when the video is a horizontal letterbox inside a vertical letterbox inside a horizontal letterbox shown on a vertical phone screen?
yes.
God.
I finally saw it today and I think it’s an excellent movie, but not great. The movie’s pace was fine and it felt more like 2-hour movie. I was actually surprised when it ended. One thing that really came out is how multitalented Oppie was, and I guess his quick mastery of foreign languages tried to demonstrate this. To understand quantum mechanics, and be its pioneer in America, requires a completely different skillset than managing a gargantuan secret government project. I loved the role of Einstein in the movie as well.
I do wish Nolan would’ve spent more time on the double slit experiment. I think a quick 2-minute tutorial when he had it up on the blackboard would have been awesome. The movie should have spent a bit more time on the physics, and bit less on Oppie’s nemesis’s somewhat minor ambition of getting onto a presidential cabinet. I also loved how Truman erased all doubt on whose call dropping the bomb was, and knocked down Oppie a bit.
Finally, I completely agree with not depicting Hiroshima and Nagasaki scenes. The movie made clear just how many direct and indirect casualties there were in Japan, and also described the grisly way people died on more than one occasion. I feel like showing it would have actually been more gratuitous.
I didn’t watch it in the IMAX format, but may next week when I’m back in Manhattan (assuming it’s still playing in that format in the one theater in NYC that has it).
As of now it’s scheduled through Aug 17 at the Lincoln Square IMAX, however every single showing is completely sold out. Yes that includes 10:30am and 10:30pm. However it is likely to extend til Aug 24 when Gran Turismo is contracted to take that screen.
God truly does forgive even the most wicked among us.