Given my distaste for Christopher Nolan’s last foray into history with Dunkirk (2017), I did not hold out much hope for Oppenheimer.  Yet, the alternative for this weekend was Barbie.  I do not mind seeing most movies, and with the glowing reviews it has gotten, my preconceptions could likely be misconceptions.  With the choices between something I assume to be a ridiculous look at a classic toy and a classic story as told by a ridiculous director, I chose the latter.  That is Oppenheimer, by the way.  Since I did not see Barbie, I lack evidence as to the truthfulness of my assumptions.  What I can say about Oppenheimer is that at least Nolan reigned in the excesses of his usual time bending style.  Now to tell you more about it.

Since this is a Christopher Nolan production, you are not going to get a straight chronological narrative of the life of Julius Robert “Oppy” Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy).  Instead, this biographical work is told as part of two hearings taking place late in the career of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb.”  The first is a committee hearing for the approval of Admiral Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) as the Secretary of Commerce, a cabinet position.  The other is a security hearing Oppenheimer faces in the years after World War II, in 1954.  The film swings back and forth between these two meetings in examining Oppenheimer’s activities.  It then goes back to his time in college, studying physics in Europe before coming back to the United States.  It is as a young man that he first began theorizing about the possible powers of the split atom.  Upon returning to his native country, he settled in as a faculty member at the University of California at Berkeley.  Though scientific pursuits took up most of his attention, he also became interested in the communist party.  This is the best way of describing it, or at least it is according to the movie.  I am a historian, though I cannot claim any expertise on the title character, so I will take it at its word.  In any case, it will lead to problems for him later, like the aforementioned hearings.  For now, it puts him into contact with the more ardent communist, Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh), who becomes his lover.  I mean that in the carnal sense, by the way, as his desire for something more settled is rebuffed.  In the wake of this, he meets Katherine “Kitty” Harrison (Emily Blunt), a wedded woman and former communist.  They hit it off, and she becomes pregnant before she can obtain a divorce and marry Oppenheimer.  This might seem to be a time of settling for him, but then tensions around the globe lead to the outbreak of World War II.  This is of significance for a scientist like Oppenheimer because it is a German physicist who is the first to split the atom.  Oppenheimer immediately sees the significance of this with the growing conflict, particularly in the hands of the Nazis: the atomic bomb.  The United States government does as well, and soon Oppenheimer is visited by the soon-to-be General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon).  He is the head of the military component of what will become the Manhattan Project, the research and development of the world’s first atomic bomb.  Because it is Oppenheimer who brought much of this science to this country, General Groves asks Oppenheimer to be the lead scientist.  Though Oppenheimer is aware of his genius, he is at least cognizant enough to understand that he cannot do it alone.  Therefore, one of his first requests is that they build a veritable city in the middle of nowhere for the small army of researchers needed, giving rise to the facility known as Los Alamos, New Mexico.  This takes care of two issues.  The first is secrecy.  Location is a major factor here, the site being forty miles away in any direction from anything.  Thus, how do you get a parcel of geniuses to live in the middle of nowhere?  The veritable city takes care of this second issue, being a place where those invited to work could live with their families.  From there, it is only a matter of time before they collect enough plutonium and uranium to construct their atomic bombs.  Relatively speaking, this is the easy part.  The challenge comes in what to do with it after this is accomplished.  A number of those involved express grave concerns over its actual military use.  At every turn, Oppenheimer dismisses their objections with what amounts to a company line: that the scientists’ job is simply to build.  Its use is out of their hands.  Yet, once the first successful test is completed and the bomb’s catastrophic power is witnessed by so many, including its “father,” he begins to have doubts.  While the rest of the country fêtes him, he starts speaking out against further development of atomic weapons.  He even suggests that they work with the Soviet Union to discuss limiting the use of these arms and thereby stemming their proliferation.  In the race with Russia during the Cold War, such views were seen as, in their most innocuous connotation, un-American.  This is when Admiral Strauss becomes particularly important.  Though he had given Oppenheimer a plush post-war job at Princeton University, working alongside the likes of Albert Einstein (Tom Conti), Admiral Strauss also felt humiliated by Oppenheimer during their time working together on the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).  Thus, it is Admiral Strauss that arranges for one of Oppenheimer’s enemies to get a hold of the extensive dossier kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under J. Edgar Hoover.  The board inquiry to which Oppenheimer is subjected forms the basis of why much of his story is told.  The long and short of it is that while they feel he is a loyal American citizen, his security clearance is revoked.  It is a setback for him, and many of his secrets come out into the open.  However, Admiral Strauss does not receive the final vote from the Senate as to his confirmation as the Secretary of Commerce, owing to many scientists speaking out against the way he treated Oppenheimer.  In the end, Oppenheimer is vindicated, and that is essentially where the film ends.

Since Oppenheimer is three hours long, I hope you do not mind the severe paraphrasing I did in describing to you the plot.  With the way Nolan typically constructs such things, I thought I was in for trouble.  As I have already said, things are a little more straightforward this time.  There is some jumping around chronologically, but this one is positively tame compared to his other work.  It took me a minute to understand one aspect, though, and that is the switching between black and white and color.  The black and white is used for when the narrative shifts to Admiral Strauss’ point of view, and color is for when it is focused on Oppenheimer, for the most part.  Really, this is me speculating, but I came up with this theory while watching it, and it seemed to hold up as far as I can remember.  The black and white Admiral Strauss has a monotone quest for power, seeing everyone around him as either a source of help or a hinderance in obtaining more of it.  Oppenheimer is more complex, thus the color.  His character bears more scrutiny in a religious sense, but I will get to that in the next paragraph.  For now, I will label him an anti-hero.  One of many old clichés is that nobody is perfect.  This is true for Oppenheimer, who cheats on his wife with Jean at one point and builds a weapon responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.  Granted, one can make the argument that he is more of a tragic hero.  After all, that same bomb saved lives, too.  To that I say, “tomato-tomatoe.”

What I just mentioned about Oppenheimer in the last paragraph points to a paradox that can also be applied to Christianity.  In explaining physics to one of his students, Oppenheimer makes the claim that two seemingly opposite forces exist side-by-side, and yet it works.  Before I go on, be warned: there is some heavy-duty theology to unpack.  I find this notion interesting because the Holy Trinity is often described in these terms.  How can one thing also be three distinct things at the same time?  Scientists will tell you that math can prove their contradictory assumptions.  Christianity has faith, and we Catholics have thousands of years of it.  In this light, I find it even more telling that the initial firing of the atomic bomb is referred to as the “Trinity Test.”  Oppenheimer comes up with the name, and with it his theories are proven true.  Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit, one of the three, and you do not need to blow anything up in order to know of Its existence.  With such terminology, it points to one of the more troubling aspects of the film, and this historical event by extension.  Oppenheimer and his colleagues are/were playing God.  I use the double tenses there because we are dealing with true events.  Oppenheimer was the mind behind the bomb.  While he used his God-given intellect for the purposes of destruction, the film underscores a few other things with which God has imbued us.  Whether we acknowledge Him or choose to bury His existence in our hearts and minds, the scientists at least seem to understand that they are messing with powers they did not fully understand, much less control.  Oppenheimer sees the flawed nature of man, and correctly predicts the arms race it initiates.  In his more optimistic moments, he assuages himself by saying that such a weapon could end all war.  We Christians should want this fervently.  Ultimately, it ended a war, but the world has become a more dangerous place in the process.  Again, this is something that Oppenheimer was aware of, and the film portrays him as a martyr to the cause of curbing the excesses of atomic proliferation.  I do not know if this Catholic is willing to give Oppenheimer this label, but I can do the next best Christian thing and forgive him.

The one thing I cannot forgive in Oppenheimer is the nudity.  Sex scenes are nothing new in films, of course.  Here, there is a moment when Oppenheimer is portrayed as naked before his committee hearing.  I get what is Nolan is going for with this shot.  Yet, when his affair with Jean is discussed, Kitty’s imagination runs with it and pictures Jean in the room having sex with Oppenheimer.  This is totally unnecessary and could have been removed without losing its meaning.  Otherwise, you have a pretty straightforward historical drama.  And it is dramatic, if you are interested in that sort of thing.  I do not think most people are, which is why I was surprised by the full movie theater present to see it.  I would not call this a ringing endorsement, but it is better than any other Nolan film I have seen this side of The Dark Knight (2008).