It is well known that Christopher Nolan had been associated with Warner Bros. for a long time. However, due to the pandemic, Nolan insisted on releasing “Tenet,” and Warner Bros. failed to hold onto the theatrical window. Additionally, Warner Bros. announced the simultaneous release of theatrical films on HBO MAX in 2021, which angered Nolan, who had always supported movie theaters.
Since 2002, starting with his third film, “Insomnia,” Nolan had been collaborating with Warner Bros. Nevertheless, Nolan made the decision to part ways with Warner Bros. due to the aforementioned issues.
To find a good studio for his next project, Nolan held talks with various studios, including Sony Pictures, Paramount, Universal, and even Apple (why Apple, you may ask…).
After several discussions, Nolan ultimately chose Universal Pictures as the distributor for “Oppenheimer.” Universal Pictures boldly provided a production budget of one billion dollars and promised an additional one billion dollars for marketing when the movie is released. Why not choose me for promotion (just kidding)…
This one billion marketing budget may mostly be allocated to Oscar campaign efforts. It’s important to note that the Oscars operate on a membership voting system, and public promotion of a film by the distributor is within the rules. This is not bribery. Promotion is one thing; the quality of the film is the primary criterion.
Moreover, Nolan gets a 20% cut of the box office for “Oppenheimer,” and Universal Pictures is not allowed to release any other new films within three weeks of “Oppenheimer’s” release!
What Nolan values most is Universal’s commitment to a theatrical window of 90-120 days for “Oppenheimer” because Nolan believes that movies, by their nature, should be watched in theaters.
However, unexpectedly, Warner Bros. decided to release “Barbie” on the same day, and it’s reported that Nolan was not pleased with Warner Bros. for scheduling two major films on the same day, seeing it as detrimental to the film distribution schedule.
Whether it’s harmful or not, I don’t know, but as someone who frequents theaters, I am delighted. Due to the completely different styles of the two films, a new film called “Barbie Oppenheimer” emerged on the internet.
Now, the question everyone is concerned about: Is Nolan still a fanatic for practical effects in “Oppenheimer”? The answer is a definite yes.
Nolan probably wishes he could use a real nuclear bomb, but of course, that’s impossible. Nolan has revealed that he used a bomb with visual effects close to a nuclear explosion, but he remains tight-lipped about the specifics.
Not only did Nolan use practical effects for nuclear explosion scenes, but also for the visualization of the microscopic world, atoms, molecules, energy waves, and the depiction of cosmic wonders—all captured through special filming techniques.
For those who have seen “Interstellar,” you know about the cornfield scene in the beginning, which was planted years before filming. Similarly, for the Los Alamos laboratory scene in “Oppenheimer,” Nolan refused to use green screens and built an entire town on location for shooting.
Nolan is also a film and large-format fanatic. For the filming of “Oppenheimer,” he exclusively used film, capturing everything on 70mm IMAX film. Can you handle that?
As seen in the trailers, the film includes black-and-white scenes. These scenes were not created in post-production but were shot using black-and-white film. However, there has never been a 70mm black-and-white film made in the history of IMAX. To meet Nolan’s request, IMAX technicians had to develop a new 70mm black-and-white film specifically for this movie.
Are there any film enthusiasts excited about this?
In other words, Nolan has indirectly invented a new specification for film production: 70mm black-and-white film.
This film has a runtime of 180 minutes, three hours of IMAX film, almost pushing the limits of film projection trays.
So, if you are fortunate enough to see the original IMAX film projection, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Unfortunately, as of now, only 30 IMAX theaters designated by Nolan will have the pure film projection.
But personally, laser IMAX is already satisfying enough. Oh, and this is not an advertisement for IMAX! I also think so! Nolan started with 8mm film, so he has a strong dedication to the pure traditional techniques of film, format, and cinema.
As for choosing which screening to watch, I recommend going for a larger, better-sound theater. Most importantly, try to get seats towards the back because there are numerous close-ups of faces in the film!
Now, why did Nolan choose Oppenheimer as the subject for his film? Apart from Nolan’s preference for making films about “men,” there was a “hint” in “Tenet.”
The dialogue about Oppenheimer was originally in the script of “Tenet.” When shooting that scene, Robert Pattinson was present. After the shoot, Pattinson gifted Nolan a collection of Oppenheimer’s speeches from the 1950s as a wrap gift.
Nolan actually read it, got hooked, and then read the book “American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer” by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin.
So, Nolan decided that he wanted to make a film about Oppenheimer, inspired by these materials.
Even back in 2005, when the book was published, Sam Mendes, who directed “1917,” wanted to make a film about Oppenheimer but couldn’t realize it. The author of the book also thought it would be challenging to bring Oppenheimer’s complex life to the big screen.
However, Nolan achieved this goal, using the book as inspiration to create a film about Oppenheimer’s story.
Now, let’s move on to the impressions and reviews of “Oppenheimer.”
The film is shrouded in mystery, and the ratings were not revealed even during the premiere.
As of the time of writing this analysis, both the Rotten Tomatoes professional critic score and audience popcorn score are surprisingly consistent at 94%, making it Nolan’s best-performing film on Rotten Tomatoes, tying with “The Dark Knight.” Interestingly, both films have critic and audience scores of 94%.
On IMDb, “Oppenheimer” has a score of 8.8, also a high score, tying with “Inception” at 8.8 and slightly lower than “The Dark Knight” at 9.0.
On Metacritic, the professional critic score is 89, and the audience score is 9.0, making it Nolan’s highest-rated film on the platform.
To avoid excessive praise, let’s first talk about the film’s shortcomings!
After “Dunkirk,” Nolan once again attempted to create a film set in real historical contexts with “Oppenheimer.” Oppenheimer, as the father of the atomic bomb, plus the trailers focusing on the events before and after the bomb’s creation, might have raised your expectations for atomic bomb explosions!
BUT, here comes the twist! From the movie’s title, “Oppenheimer,” it’s evident that this is a biographical film about Oppenheimer himself, not a movie that teaches you how to make and deploy an atomic bomb. If you expect a significant portion of the film to showcase the visual spectacle of atomic bomb explosions, you might be disappointed.
If you started recognizing Nolan from “Inception” and “Interstellar” and equated him with mind-bending and spectacular visual effects in defining his works, then “Oppenheimer” might also disappoint you.
However, if you want to see a biographical film that is easily understandable, focusing on Oppenheimer’s hero-like growth as the “father of the atomic bomb,” you might also be disappointed.
This film is almost entirely comprised of dialogue scenes, possibly accounting for over 90%. If you are not a native English speaker and watch a screening without subtitles, it might be very challenging. It’s like a high-difficulty 3-hour listening test, believe me!
Even with subtitles, you might find it difficult to keep up, especially during the first viewing.
The film’s entry threshold is also as high as ever. Don’t expect Nolan to guide you gradually into that “good night” of history. Like “Dunkirk,” “Oppenheimer” starts in the middle and disrupts the chronological narrative by interweaving the upper and lower halves.
Additionally, many important characters are introduced and scattered throughout the film. If you are not familiar with that period of history and the people involved, you might get confused by the numerous frequently appearing characters, and in the end, only remember Oppenheimer, Einstein, and Tony saying “I love you three thousand times,” along with Matt Damon returning from Mars.
Watching “Oppenheimer” requires more patience and some homework, so there will be related content in the analysis.
If you watch “Oppenheimer,” adjust your expectations accordingly, and mentally prepare yourself for a 3-hour dialogue-driven movie. “Oppenheimer” will not be like “Inception,” “Interstellar,” or “Tenet”—it won’t be an adventurous action film. It is a film where artistic qualities surpass commercial entertainment, and even in the film, Nolan doesn’t bother to exert any effort to please the audience.
Therefore, some people may not like this film. In fact, since Nolan’s first work, he has been criticized for having skilled film techniques but also being filled with craftsmanship. He always deliberately disrupts the narrative timeline in his films, and this self-indulgence has become more refined over time.
I understand all of these criticisms, but I think this is also why Nolan is Nolan. Nolan won’t make a film like Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove,” and “Oppenheimer” won’t feel like David Fincher’s “The Social Network.”
Even if you understand Nolan’s films, each time he brings a completely different work, familiar yet with a sense of freshness.
To understand this, let’s look at Nolan’s familiar use of deconstructed timelines.
Nolan’s Time Deconstruction
For Christopher Nolan, the art of cinema lies in the construction of time and space.
Whether it’s Nolan’s debut film “Following,” which untangles time scenes through the protagonist’s hairstyle and injuries, or “Memento,” completely subverting the chronological narrative logic of traditional films, or the intricate time progression in “Inception,” or the protagonist’s time revisits in the black hole cube in “Interstellar,” the one week, one day, one hour structure in “Dunkirk,” or the temporal pincer movement in “Tenet.”
Nolan has a special affinity for time and space, which is one of the reasons he stands out in the film industry. Many people watch “Oppenheimer” not because of the Oppenheimer IP but because of Nolan’s IP.
“Oppenheimer” continues to embody Nolan’s distinctive understanding of time and space.
The storyline of the film spans a long period, divided into three phases in Oppenheimer’s life: pre-atomic bomb, during the atomic bomb, and post-atomic bomb. Whether you like it or not, these three phases, much like a piece of music, intertwine seemingly disorderly in the film but eventually come together like a beautiful quantum entanglement, forming a portrayal of Oppenheimer’s triumphs and tragedies.
Similar to “Memento,” “Oppenheimer” uses color and black-and-white to make distinctions. However, unlike “Memento,” the color and black-and-white segments in “Oppenheimer” are not used to indicate chronological order but rather to distinguish between the subjective and objective.
The color parts stem from Oppenheimer’s subjective perspective, representing what Oppenheimer sees, thinks, and imagines.
On the other hand, the black-and-white segments showcase objective events surrounding Oppenheimer. Later in the film, similar to “Memento,” “Oppenheimer” undertakes a merging and elevation of the black-and-white and color segments, creating a particularly splendid effect.
The temporal order of the color and black-and-white sections is not chronological and orderly but rather disrupted and reorganized, contributing to the film’s further narrative complexity—an excellent Nolan tradition of not spoon-feeding the audience.
Although the film has a runtime of 3 hours, the pacing is exceptionally fast. Events unfold one after another, creating a chain reaction and an impact on Oppenheimer’s spirit, perfectly mirroring the chain reaction of nuclear fission depicted in the film. The interconnected events in the film are like the chain reaction of a nuclear explosion, forming a breath-taking and suffocating experience.
Apart from the dual style of color and black-and-white and the nonlinear narrative, Nolan, to enhance the film’s watchability, incorporates elements of various genres. You’ll notice elements of thriller, horror, and hallucination, especially in a scene where Oppenheimer experiences an illusion of a disfigured woman, who turns out to be Nolan’s daughter.
Nolan mentioned in an interview that he wanted his daughter to explore different states of life and death. This is a significant shift from “Interstellar,” where he gave his daughter a serene and obedient moment, to “Oppenheimer,” where he plays with the concept of “disfigurement.”
Additionally, the scenes of Oppenheimer’s secret trial and hearings incorporate elements from legal dramas.
However, the most significant departure Nolan makes in “Oppenheimer” is the prevalence of dialogue scenes!
Dialogue Scenes
While Nolan doesn’t abandon his narrative deconstruction in “Oppenheimer,” he seems to respond to the longstanding criticisms from fans. Some argue that Nolan’s emotional construction for characters is weak, and his dialogue is often burdened with explanatory roles. Well, how about this! “Oppenheimer” constructs characters and advances the plot almost entirely through dialogue.
Compared to “Dunkirk,” where characters were frugal with words and dialogue was sparse, “Oppenheimer” propels the plot almost exclusively through dialogue. Nolan starts building tension and emotion from the very beginning of the film, not through grandiose panoramic views of the brutalities of World War II or gruesome war scenes, but by relying on the characters’ conversations to create a sense of humanity marching toward its fate.
At the beginning, through dialogue alone, we understand that if the U.S. doesn’t develop the atomic bomb, Nazi Germany might take the lead. The discourse of who holds the authority over the ultimate weapon is crucial.
From that moment, the film seems to enter a countdown of humanity’s future.
The abundance of dialogue between characters may feel overwhelming at first, but if you treat these uninterrupted dialogues as moments for imagination outside the film, you’ll sense the expanded possibilities of characters and plot.
Due to the disruption of time and space, the construction of dialogue becomes a connecting presence transcending time. The film’s dialogue is like threads connecting various events, making seemingly insignificant plot points and Oppenheimer’s connection to the atomic bomb gradually converge like layers of stacked dialogue, eventually forming a funnel.
Especially in the scene where Oppenheimer is secretly questioned in 1954, the emotional rendering created by sharp editing and the collision of dialogue between characters pierces the depths of Oppenheimer’s moral dilemma and anxiety. The scene feels like an explosion, mirroring Oppenheimer’s unrelenting gaze.
Upon completing the film, I initially found it perplexing why Nolan chose to construct the movie with extensive dialogue scenes when he had various expressive forms at his disposal. However, after witnessing the pivotal scene of Oppenheimer’s interrogation, I understood that the film’s heavy reliance on dialogue serves to align with Oppenheimer’s personality. In his early years, Oppenheimer was outspoken and daring, which eventually led to his later tragedy.
Nuclear Explosion Scenes
Although dialogue occupies a significant portion of the film, these scenes are entwined with a central attraction—the night of the atomic bomb nuclear explosion.
While this nuclear explosion scene is not lengthy, the meticulous preparation, atmosphere creation, and tight control of tension are praiseworthy. Viewers seem to be drawn into Oppenheimer’s world, participating in every aspect of developing the atomic bomb, from team formation to site selection, from encountering challenges to racing against time against NC. Audiences appear to meticulously engage in every stage of the atomic bomb’s development, although the internal detailed processes of making the bomb won’t be disclosed, and Nolan probably doesn’t know either.
In the development process, elements of espionage are interwoven into the black-and-white content, adding suspense to the creation of the atomic bomb. This adds an extra layer of mystery to the process. When the moment of the nuclear explosion finally arrives, the excitement and tension have reached their peak.
The film’s nuclear explosion is just a fleeting moment, yet it remains unforgettable, focusing on the sense of immediacy and fear.
Upon reflection, Nolan plays with the concept of “less is more” when it comes to the nuclear explosion. If the film were continuously filled with nuclear explosions, it might lead to visual fatigue, and the novelty of nuclear testing scenes would wear thin. A single impactful moment is more memorable, a perfect example of “hunger marketing.”
Moreover, the nuclear explosion scene is not as grand and exaggerated as one might imagine. It doesn’t strive to be overwhelmingly spectacular. However, Nolan, using his expertise, conveys Oppenheimer’s deep-seated fear at witnessing the nuclear explosion. At that moment, Oppenheimer feels like he has become the harbinger of death.
The film intentionally leaves the nuclear explosion to the audience’s imagination, creating a prolonged emotional aftermath. Even after watching the film, whenever memories link back to Oppenheimer’s mental world, a sense of discomfort, intensity, and anxiety washes over, while simultaneously feeling fortunate to live in times of peace.
After watching the film, I didn’t find the nuclear explosion scene too short to be unsatisfying. On the contrary, the destiny of humanity after the nuclear explosion entering an unpredictable unknown is the true core the film wants to convey.
There’s a theoretical hypothesis calculation (mentioned in the trailer) in the film, suggesting that the chain reaction from nuclear fission won’t interrupt and could lead to world destruction. However, the possibility is close to zero.
Fortunately, the world didn’t end after the actual nuclear explosion.
Yet, from another perspective, according to Nolan’s hypothetical scenario, the chain reaction of nuclear fission after the nuclear explosion has indeed occurred on a human level and has never stopped.
When humanity holds the ultimate weapon capable of destroying the world, the world’s pattern, like the chain reaction of nuclear fission, burns into every corner of the world. The moral and ethical dilemma Oppenheimer bears as the leader of the initial atomic bomb research in the face of McCarthyism is unprecedented.
Without a doubt, back then, to achieve the victory of world peace and justice, to completely destroy fascism, make Japan surrender, and quickly end the catastrophe of human war, it was necessary to take the essential means to end the war. That was what Oppenheimer thought at that time. He even hoped that the success of the atomic bomb would make war disappear from the earth forever.
However, when all this happened, Oppenheimer suddenly realized that he was just a pawn, not the player. The real chessboard had always been in the hands of those American politicians. During the rise of McCarthyism, Oppenheimer seemed more like a discarded piece after being used up.
Nolan, returning to his roots as a craftsman of cinema, effectively crafts a complex portrayal of Oppenheimer filled with shades of darkness and triumph.