Do you really think that portion of his life would have been able to be adequately covered during the what…20 seconds of “repeated explosion close-ups”? 
It was a 3 hour movie. IMO, 5-10 minutes of a young man growing up in a full-floor Manhattan apartment with 3 maids and a chauffeur, a summer home on 7 acres on Long Island, who was given a 28 foot sailboat on his 16th birthday, and who was educated in an extremely liberal environment, having what seem to be emotional breakdowns in college - would’ve been worth it.
Other than the fact that you suggested it’d replace the “ repeated explosion close-ups” which weren’t, AFAIR, either repeated or lasting more than a minute at most, I can’t see 5-10 minutes of a childhood montage fitting in thematically at all in this movie. There were already scenes establishing Oppenheimer as a megalomaniac and possible narcissist willing to murder his professor. His childhood background is certainly fascinating - but would be hilariously out of place in this movie.
We know from the film that (a) his father was a “self-made” (meaning rich) man, (b) his family owned vast tracks of land in the West, where he spent a lot of time as a kid, and (c) he didn’t speak Yiddish. That, along with his speech and mannerisms, was more than enough to tell observant viewers everything they needed to know about Oppenheimer’s background.
Thanks. I guess I missed those references. (And according to the book, I’m not entirely sure “self made” or “vast tracts” are accurate.)
Book is proving tedious. I’m about 150 pages into 600 or so - not sure I want to slog through to the end.
I think it was in the conversation with Rabi when Yiddish was brought up that Oppenheimer was described as being from “The other side of the Park.”
Finally saw it. My take would be that it’s a very good movie with a few questionable parts.
In general, it’s a good discussion of the morality of the bomb and an interesting look at some of the figures who were involved. It’s nice to see some of the big arguments on all the various sides given (though always in brief, headline forms) without judgement.
On that side, I’d give the movie an A.
On the other hand, everything about the Strauss situation felt less historical and, likewise, sort of pointless. It felt like they wanted a tale of intrigue to show how he was punished for saving the world and, at the end of the day, bad guys always win. But:
- He was denied a seat on a committee for Communist ties which he actually did have and his own allies admitted that he didn’t pass the official standard. He wasn’t jailed, was turned down for a job.
- The good guys did win.
- It wasn’t clear why the good guys won. Strauss gives a speech explaining the layers of indirection between himself and the review committee, but then the scientist community knows that he’s the one behind it and they’re saying so in front of Congress. It seems to imply that Strauss’s aide was a secret agent for Science.
They give a throwaway line that he just acted on his own to right a wrong and prevent bad people from getting into important positions but, if that’s the case, then that feels like a bigger message than deserves a one liner. - Overall, if they were trying to show that Oppenheimer was practicing self-flagelation via the review committee then it feels out of place when we’re talking about being turned down for a job on an opinion panel, after all his important work had been done already. Or if it was about showing people having the power to right wrongs, by stepping up against those in power, then they buried the lead by a mile. Either way, the whole plotline didn’t feel like it needed a third of the runtime.
The other parts of the movie that stood out as being lower quality were the matter of the poison apple (nothing that we see later really explains how his personality changed so much - and it’s not clear how anyone knew about it if he threw the apple away). It’s also curious why they decided to turn Truman into a cartoon character villain. He wasn’t quite as awkward in the film as Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s but it felt pretty out of place compared to everything else.
Bumped. Finally saw it. It’s been some crazy months at the Bullitt household.
I really liked the movie. It was done well. My wife did not like the hopping back and forth, but I thought it was managed well and it effectively tied together the complex issues — technical, strategic, combat, ethical, social, and political, surrounding the project. The cast was superb, both with actors I already knew and those I did not. Was that really Josh Hartnett? Was that really Robert Downey Jr? It was! Someone upthread called out David Krumholtz, and yes he did a good job. I learned quite a bit about the man and about that time. And, I need to read up on who Haakon Chevalier is. Or was.
Yeah, pretty much loved it. It was long but not overly so.
I streamed it at home. It’s not available for rent so I had to buy it to see it. Now that I own it, I’ll see it again, and maybe twice more.
This film is definitely a Best Picture candidate.
I did not know that: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/21/entertainment/cillian-murphy-matt-damon/index.html
Yeah, makes sense. And is understandable. It’s like you’re going to dinner with Oppenheimer himself.
I finally saw it (thanks Peacock), and I have to say while I liked it, I’d put it in the good but not great pile. I think the jumping around timelines got a bit gimmicky and ruined a bit of the flow of the film (I saw someone online say they watched a 3 hour trailer, and that is at times what it felt like). I really liked the exploration of the moral aspects of creating a nuclear bomb.
It deserves to be a Best Picture nominee, but I think American Fiction was the better film.
The science geek in me was a bit disappointed that all of the slow-motion orange clouds of billowing death were just generic special effects, and there was no attempt to even depict the actual physics inside one of the devices like I had anticipated after watching the trailers. There was also no post-Trinity examination of the landscape around Ground Zero, such as the rusty remains of the tower and the radioactive glass covering the ground. Loved Cillian in the role but somehow the actual screenplay left me cold.
I’m not sure how there could have been, since neither Oppenheimer nor Strauss were there.
I think he did a good job, but looking at the linked article up thread a few posts reminded me that Cillian Murphy is just too pretty for Oppenheimer IMHO. I found it slightly off-putting.
I think he looks like a lizard! Eeks! The Dachshunds try to kill thems!
I don’t let them.
Yes, but a pretty lizard.
I remember our old doxie trying to catch lizards when I was a kid. She once came in the house with a lizard tail in her mouth. That was all she ever caught. Just the tail. She’d have never made it with your crew!
Oppy was indeed: Oppenheimer: The Library’s Collection Chronicles His Life | Timeless
I saw it this week, and was struck by the overly loud soundtrack, which obscured the dialogue at many points.
Ah I mistakenly thought that comment was referring to the remains at the blast site in Japan, whoops! Yes of course he was at the test site.
I thought this was interesting. I am kind of surprised it took this long.
Best picture winner “Oppenheimer” finally premiered in Japan on Friday, eight months after a controversial grassroots marketing push and concerns about how its nuclear theme would be received in the only country to suffer atomic bombing.
< snip >
But Japan had been left out of worldwide screenings until now, despite being a major market for Hollywood.