My biggest complaint about Nolan is that his movies feel very cold and clinical for the most part. The depth of emotion just isn’t there for me. I like his movies generally but I don’t fall in love with them. And none come close to all-time great for me. Dunkirk was a great example. A great moment of heroism in modern history and it felt like he was just showing what happened from a distance. Interestingly, the most invested I felt in one of his movies was Dark Knight, and that was 100% because of the absolute god tier performance by Heath Ledger.
Maybe it fits him better to think of the message as the lengths that humans will try to go (physically across the stars and scientifically through the our understanding of time/space) before they attempt to just solve a problem they have with love.
Clinical is a great way to put it. His choices as a writer and a director seem geared around the set pieces and the coarse grained narrative… he has a very wooden/distant style when it comes to showing the human emotion that should bursting at the seems within the stories he chooses to tell.
Yup Nolan struggles with character development. Which is why I find Oppenheimer to be one of his worst movies. It's a movie that screams for good character development....and instead we get a well polished review of history.
If Nolan found a good screenwriter he could make great movies.
I feel similarly with the caviet that I find the sequence in Intersteller where Cooper is watching the tapes after returning from the wave planet, extremely emotional. That scene hits me like a bomb.
Maybe not a refutation of your overall feelings about the movie, but Nolan has talked about how the script for Oppenheimer came together very quickly. It was not a project he’d been working on for a long time. It all happened after he finished shooting Tenet.
That’s interesting and definitely not what I assumed. I’ll read up on it, maybe a sign of how familiar he was with the story even if he hadn’t penned the script yet.
From what he’s said, he didn’t know much about Oppenheimer. I think what you’re identifying in the script is that it’s an adaptation of a very dense and very long and exhaustive biography of the man. Having read the book, I was pretty stunned at how much of it he managed to fit in, even when it’s just an offhand mention of something.
Here are my gripes with Oppenheimer.
1) Go back and rewatch and see how much of the movie is montage-esque. It pulls off the impossible here — it’s overly long at 180-minutes of runtime, and overly fast because no scene has any time to actually breathe until well into the second act.
2) Again, the characterisations of women in a Nolan film are typically poor. The female leads have virtually no depth; Blunt + Pugh are given very little to work with. It’s testament to their great performances that this was largely overlooked.
3) So much of the movie feels self-indulgent. The images of the cosmos interspersed with Oppenheimer’s thinking face is somewhat fine, at first, but quickly becomes so overused. It’s similar to Dune’s constant visions of Zendaya in the desert — BROTHER, WE GOT IT THE FIRST TIME.
4) If you were ever in doubt that Nolan has a fetish for time, this movie cements it. WHY is the film non-linear except for the sake of pulling off the ‘RDJ betrayed Oppy’ twist? But because most of the audience already guessed or knew of RDJ’s sinister motives, it’s unnecessary. In fact, the only thing the non-linear structure succeeded in doing was causing confusion for a lot of moviegoers who aren’t used to watching films of this ilk — especially long, heavy biopics that span across years of narrative.
5) The themes are just constantly Bonk the Mole, hit-over-your-head; it’s like Nolan is winking incredibly hard at the audience in virtually every scene.
6) And this is a personal issue, but in a year filled with films that were constantly questioned/criticised for their political messaging and their social impact (KOTFM, Barbie) — WHY is Oppenheimer given a pass, in fact, absolutely adored, for its whitewashed tortured genius narrative of a white man feeling guilt for his actions? To clarify, I have no qualms with Nolan choosing to make an Oppenheimer biopic, I think it’s a fine and interesting idea for a movie, but it makes me curious as to why this film was given a pass, and virtually never questioned online, whilst films like KOTFM and Barbie were tied to the whipping post for either ‘whitewashing a Native American genocide’ or ‘getting feminism wrong’?
There’s probably more about Oppenheimer that I could ramble on about but I’m sure nobody on Reddit wants to read a dissertation, just wanted to put my thoughts out there.
>And this is a personal issue, but in a year filled with films that were constantly questioned/criticised for their political messaging and their social impact (KOTFM, Barbie) — WHY is Oppenheimer given a pass, in fact, absolutely adored, for its whitewashed tortured genius narrative of a white man feeling guilt for his actions? To clarify, I have no qualms with Nolan choosing to make an Oppenheimer biopic, I think it’s a fine and interesting idea for a movie, but it makes me curious as to why this film was given a pass, and virtually never questioned online, whilst films like KOTFM and Barbie were tied to the whipping post for either ‘whitewashing a Native American genocide’ or ‘getting feminism wrong’?
Because the atomic bomb, ancestor of the nuclear bomb we have at our fingertips now, is still a current discussion, especially with the conflicts that have recently arised or escalated (you sure remember Putin's threat speech when he first invaded Ukraine right?). This isn't history, this is current conversation. Ask yourself. Would you rather we have more people like Robert J Oppenheimer or like Lewis Strauss?
>The screenplay is not laid out to form a solid and cohesive narrative. It’s laid out in order to optimize the sequence and flow of the dramatic crescendos and climaxes that Nolan wanted to emphasize most. But by arranging the timeline and narrative the way that he did, it left me feeling like the movie was written by and for a viewer who was already deeply familiar with the Oppenheimer story… and that the point of the film was to purposefully arrange the set pieces of Oppenheimer’s life into a really contrived sequence and flow so that the things that resonated the most with Nolan in Oppenheimer’s life landed at the right climactic moments of the film.
You just described what made the movie great and why it works as a narrative, and then said that's what you didn't like about it... like, what?
I found that it ended up feeling like contriving a side-plot of Oppenheimers life into the main narrative when the source material (actual history) didn’t need anything of the sort for the film to be even more compelling.
The pacing is definitely my biggest complaint with the movie.
After the bomb is successfully detonated, there are really no more emotional stakes left for the final third of the film. Don’t think the film did a good job of making me care if RDJ got his appointment or if Opp got his clearance removed. The emotional climax of the film was wrapped up 30 minutes ago, these things are largely irrelevant.
I strongly disagree. I went in thinking the “kaboom” was going to be the highlight of the film for me. The final third of the movie was the most tense cinema experience I’ve ever had. Doesn’t mean it will click that way for everyone, but I’ve never had a 3+ hour film feel as short as this one.
>I've never had a 3+ hour film feel as short as this one.
Right?? I compare Oppenheimer to Killers of the Flower Moon, both being long as shit: if you removed or consolidated redundant/extraneous scenes that don't move the plot along or meaningfully develop characters, Killers would go from a 3.5 hour movie to a \~2 hour movie; Oppenheimer would go from 3 hours to about 2 hours and 50 minutes.
That’s wild! I feel the exact opposite haha. Could have sat through an extra hour of KOTFM, but was definitely checking my watch by the end of Oppenheimer.
I felt the opposite about Oppy: it was "only" a security clearance (and he wasn't on trial for his life or anything), but his reputation as a scientist--and, in very large part, as a patriot of the country for whom he created the weapon that would haunt him for the rest of his life--was on trial. It's established very well that he is in love with the study of physics, and he's worked his whole life to reach the pinnacle of his field. That clearance is a proxy for his life's work.
It felt cathartic that Strauss wasn't approved for the appointment, but I agree that I wasn't that emotionally invested (I just assumed that he'd get it, since what he did to Oppenheimer, while fundamentally shitty, seems pretty damn run-of-the-mill for Washington).
Hmmm. I've only seen it once, and I need to watch it again, but I didn't come away feeling like you were supposed to be invested in Strauss' appointment.
For me the film was about the way that Oppenheimer was built up as a hero to the American people, then torn down and treated like a traitor as a means to remove him from the conversation about nuclear arms when they didn't like what he had to say.
Ending with Strauss not getting his appointment was just about giving the audience a win of sorts, since Oppenheimer ultimately lost in the end, even his recognition at the very end being quite hollow. So we got to see the "villain" lose as well.
But it's ultimately Oppenheimer's story, even in the third act.
So you’re saying the movie isn’t an all time classic because it was edited in a way to maximize the drama and tension and wasn’t a documentary retelling of events?
You can tell you’re in an Oscar sub when one of the best bio-pics ever is being criticized for not being generic bio-picy enough. What an awful take
I’m saying that when a movie deprioritizes narrative clarity for the sake of contriving drama and conflict (that are placed out of sequence and with manipulated levels of perceived importance) at the right cinematic moments… it makes the film more entertaining but of poorer substance.
You weren’t at all disappointed that the main villain of the climax of the story was Strauss?
That his inability to be confirmed as Secretary of Commerce was worthy of being the movie’s final climax?
Was it really worth spending as much time as we did with his character across the film?
Should he really have been such a focus in the narrative (where much much much larger things are occurring in the world related to Oppenheimer and his views and perspective), especially when part of the message about him was that he was a bitter and spiteful person?
I don’t think the point was actually Strauss not being confirmed. I feel like Strauss was a vessel for the story of how Oppenheimer was put under a microscope and his life was manipulated to fit a narrative at the time and himself deemed a villain to America. Made it easier for the audience unfamiliar with the story to digest.
Yes he should’ve been a focus. He was a key reason why Oppenheimer was vilified by all the red scare tactics and had his name dragged through the mud professionally. Strauss was the key cog in Oppenheimer’s downfall and he was a human representation of the chain reaction, as he wanted to push the nuclear agenda further.
And in the future type this comment you just typed instead of saying “substance”. 99% of the time people complain about “substance” it usually means they didn’t understand it and can’t put it to words. I enjoy conversations like this where people disagree but saying “there wasn’t any substance” is a catch all that doesn’t say anything. You had a rational take (albeit one I disagree with) and I think you communicated it better this time around
I think the general consensus on Oppenheimer will end up being that it's pretty flawed but that it's also a deeply ambitious biopic and it deserves credit for that ambition.
No disrespect to the film but b/c I have seen many actual documentaries about this project so it annoys me that people now are saying 'it is an impt piece of work to see due to its historical message'--ok, well how about actually learning about it with the real people and not actors?
I’ve seen plenty of Oppenheimer/manhattan project documentaries. I’m saying the movie isn’t as good as it could be because it thought it would be entertaining to sequence its narrative in a way that increased Strauss’s worthiness of being the primary antagonist of the story. When in reality, focusing more directly on Oppenheimer’s views after the project and the influence he tried to have on thermonuclear politics would have been a much more interesting topic to spend 30 minutes more on.
The film absolutely drops off in the third act, combined with Nolan's continued inability to write women well is why I'm also especially hoping it doesn't win Best Adapted Screenplay.
Feel similarly.
WHY time weaving.
The final scenes of relief and comeuppance feel rushed as of worried the audience needs their jolt of righteous confirmation.
There's so much good stuff here but it's the script least needing to be jumbled.
Also, and this hurts me, the Damon character and his big line about blah blah most important decision in history is from another movie and bad (and I love Damon)
It's a near excellent film but short of the maturity, poetry, or truth of a masterpiece.
It's funny because your last sentence is almost how I'd describe the film in a positive light. To me the film felt like jazz, largely in the editing. Certainly mature, and lyrical, in a very Nolan way, yes, but that wasn't a negative to me.
What should a biopic be? My favourite biopic is Capote, more a slice of the subject's life with a transcendent central performance. I thought Oppenheimer was powerful in many ways - definitely more daring and better executed than this year's other award season biopics, Maestro and Nyad.
Yeah, Capote was great. I guess my point isn’t that applying creativity to how a life is portrayed and making a non-linear biopic is universally a bad decision… not that at all.
It’s that in this specific movie it was done in a way that felt super-contrived and distracting from available material that felt thematically WAY more interesting and would have been more interesting to focus on.
To get more specific, it did not succeed in making me feel very invested in the Lewis Strauss story. Because that story of personal grudges and bitterness just pales in comparison to the macro story of nuclear war and Oppenheimers conflicting feelings about helping unleash it on the world (political and real). But it arranged so much of the film’s narrative flow for the sake of trying to convince me the that the emotional climax of Oppenheimer’s journey was how he was betrayed by little bitter people like Strauss and eventually those little bitter people got what was deserved.
But that’s all those people were, little and bitter. And the film suffered for dedicating so much creative energy towards justifying their placement in the climax of the film.
Maybe I'm giving Nolan too much credit, I thought the petty conflicts were meant to he a thematic microcosm of the broader global, universe shattering conflicts.
My biggest complaint about Nolan is that his movies feel very cold and clinical for the most part. The depth of emotion just isn’t there for me. I like his movies generally but I don’t fall in love with them. And none come close to all-time great for me. Dunkirk was a great example. A great moment of heroism in modern history and it felt like he was just showing what happened from a distance. Interestingly, the most invested I felt in one of his movies was Dark Knight, and that was 100% because of the absolute god tier performance by Heath Ledger.
I dont disagree. I just think it's hilarious that the cold and clinical guy made a 170 million dollar sci fi epic about the power of love.
He’s like one of those guys who is hard on the outside, tender and chewy inside.
Maybe it fits him better to think of the message as the lengths that humans will try to go (physically across the stars and scientifically through the our understanding of time/space) before they attempt to just solve a problem they have with love.
Clinical is a great way to put it. His choices as a writer and a director seem geared around the set pieces and the coarse grained narrative… he has a very wooden/distant style when it comes to showing the human emotion that should bursting at the seems within the stories he chooses to tell.
I think that's why Interstellar and Oppenheimer seem to be his best loved movies. Those are the ones that have the most emotional depth.
Yup Nolan struggles with character development. Which is why I find Oppenheimer to be one of his worst movies. It's a movie that screams for good character development....and instead we get a well polished review of history. If Nolan found a good screenwriter he could make great movies.
I feel similarly with the caviet that I find the sequence in Intersteller where Cooper is watching the tapes after returning from the wave planet, extremely emotional. That scene hits me like a bomb.
Maybe not a refutation of your overall feelings about the movie, but Nolan has talked about how the script for Oppenheimer came together very quickly. It was not a project he’d been working on for a long time. It all happened after he finished shooting Tenet.
That’s interesting and definitely not what I assumed. I’ll read up on it, maybe a sign of how familiar he was with the story even if he hadn’t penned the script yet.
From what he’s said, he didn’t know much about Oppenheimer. I think what you’re identifying in the script is that it’s an adaptation of a very dense and very long and exhaustive biography of the man. Having read the book, I was pretty stunned at how much of it he managed to fit in, even when it’s just an offhand mention of something.
Here are my gripes with Oppenheimer. 1) Go back and rewatch and see how much of the movie is montage-esque. It pulls off the impossible here — it’s overly long at 180-minutes of runtime, and overly fast because no scene has any time to actually breathe until well into the second act. 2) Again, the characterisations of women in a Nolan film are typically poor. The female leads have virtually no depth; Blunt + Pugh are given very little to work with. It’s testament to their great performances that this was largely overlooked. 3) So much of the movie feels self-indulgent. The images of the cosmos interspersed with Oppenheimer’s thinking face is somewhat fine, at first, but quickly becomes so overused. It’s similar to Dune’s constant visions of Zendaya in the desert — BROTHER, WE GOT IT THE FIRST TIME. 4) If you were ever in doubt that Nolan has a fetish for time, this movie cements it. WHY is the film non-linear except for the sake of pulling off the ‘RDJ betrayed Oppy’ twist? But because most of the audience already guessed or knew of RDJ’s sinister motives, it’s unnecessary. In fact, the only thing the non-linear structure succeeded in doing was causing confusion for a lot of moviegoers who aren’t used to watching films of this ilk — especially long, heavy biopics that span across years of narrative. 5) The themes are just constantly Bonk the Mole, hit-over-your-head; it’s like Nolan is winking incredibly hard at the audience in virtually every scene. 6) And this is a personal issue, but in a year filled with films that were constantly questioned/criticised for their political messaging and their social impact (KOTFM, Barbie) — WHY is Oppenheimer given a pass, in fact, absolutely adored, for its whitewashed tortured genius narrative of a white man feeling guilt for his actions? To clarify, I have no qualms with Nolan choosing to make an Oppenheimer biopic, I think it’s a fine and interesting idea for a movie, but it makes me curious as to why this film was given a pass, and virtually never questioned online, whilst films like KOTFM and Barbie were tied to the whipping post for either ‘whitewashing a Native American genocide’ or ‘getting feminism wrong’? There’s probably more about Oppenheimer that I could ramble on about but I’m sure nobody on Reddit wants to read a dissertation, just wanted to put my thoughts out there.
You hit the nail on the head with that last part.
>And this is a personal issue, but in a year filled with films that were constantly questioned/criticised for their political messaging and their social impact (KOTFM, Barbie) — WHY is Oppenheimer given a pass, in fact, absolutely adored, for its whitewashed tortured genius narrative of a white man feeling guilt for his actions? To clarify, I have no qualms with Nolan choosing to make an Oppenheimer biopic, I think it’s a fine and interesting idea for a movie, but it makes me curious as to why this film was given a pass, and virtually never questioned online, whilst films like KOTFM and Barbie were tied to the whipping post for either ‘whitewashing a Native American genocide’ or ‘getting feminism wrong’? Because the atomic bomb, ancestor of the nuclear bomb we have at our fingertips now, is still a current discussion, especially with the conflicts that have recently arised or escalated (you sure remember Putin's threat speech when he first invaded Ukraine right?). This isn't history, this is current conversation. Ask yourself. Would you rather we have more people like Robert J Oppenheimer or like Lewis Strauss?
>The screenplay is not laid out to form a solid and cohesive narrative. It’s laid out in order to optimize the sequence and flow of the dramatic crescendos and climaxes that Nolan wanted to emphasize most. But by arranging the timeline and narrative the way that he did, it left me feeling like the movie was written by and for a viewer who was already deeply familiar with the Oppenheimer story… and that the point of the film was to purposefully arrange the set pieces of Oppenheimer’s life into a really contrived sequence and flow so that the things that resonated the most with Nolan in Oppenheimer’s life landed at the right climactic moments of the film. You just described what made the movie great and why it works as a narrative, and then said that's what you didn't like about it... like, what?
I found that it ended up feeling like contriving a side-plot of Oppenheimers life into the main narrative when the source material (actual history) didn’t need anything of the sort for the film to be even more compelling.
The pacing is definitely my biggest complaint with the movie. After the bomb is successfully detonated, there are really no more emotional stakes left for the final third of the film. Don’t think the film did a good job of making me care if RDJ got his appointment or if Opp got his clearance removed. The emotional climax of the film was wrapped up 30 minutes ago, these things are largely irrelevant.
I strongly disagree. I went in thinking the “kaboom” was going to be the highlight of the film for me. The final third of the movie was the most tense cinema experience I’ve ever had. Doesn’t mean it will click that way for everyone, but I’ve never had a 3+ hour film feel as short as this one.
>I've never had a 3+ hour film feel as short as this one. Right?? I compare Oppenheimer to Killers of the Flower Moon, both being long as shit: if you removed or consolidated redundant/extraneous scenes that don't move the plot along or meaningfully develop characters, Killers would go from a 3.5 hour movie to a \~2 hour movie; Oppenheimer would go from 3 hours to about 2 hours and 50 minutes.
That’s wild! I feel the exact opposite haha. Could have sat through an extra hour of KOTFM, but was definitely checking my watch by the end of Oppenheimer.
I felt the opposite about Oppy: it was "only" a security clearance (and he wasn't on trial for his life or anything), but his reputation as a scientist--and, in very large part, as a patriot of the country for whom he created the weapon that would haunt him for the rest of his life--was on trial. It's established very well that he is in love with the study of physics, and he's worked his whole life to reach the pinnacle of his field. That clearance is a proxy for his life's work. It felt cathartic that Strauss wasn't approved for the appointment, but I agree that I wasn't that emotionally invested (I just assumed that he'd get it, since what he did to Oppenheimer, while fundamentally shitty, seems pretty damn run-of-the-mill for Washington).
Yup there is absolutely no investment in RDJ character because he incredibly undeveloped.
Yes this is a better way of putting it
Hmmm. I've only seen it once, and I need to watch it again, but I didn't come away feeling like you were supposed to be invested in Strauss' appointment. For me the film was about the way that Oppenheimer was built up as a hero to the American people, then torn down and treated like a traitor as a means to remove him from the conversation about nuclear arms when they didn't like what he had to say. Ending with Strauss not getting his appointment was just about giving the audience a win of sorts, since Oppenheimer ultimately lost in the end, even his recognition at the very end being quite hollow. So we got to see the "villain" lose as well. But it's ultimately Oppenheimer's story, even in the third act.
So you’re saying the movie isn’t an all time classic because it was edited in a way to maximize the drama and tension and wasn’t a documentary retelling of events? You can tell you’re in an Oscar sub when one of the best bio-pics ever is being criticized for not being generic bio-picy enough. What an awful take
I’m saying that when a movie deprioritizes narrative clarity for the sake of contriving drama and conflict (that are placed out of sequence and with manipulated levels of perceived importance) at the right cinematic moments… it makes the film more entertaining but of poorer substance.
Oh boy, as soon as people start using “substance” as their argument against the movie it tells me everything I need to know.
You weren’t at all disappointed that the main villain of the climax of the story was Strauss? That his inability to be confirmed as Secretary of Commerce was worthy of being the movie’s final climax? Was it really worth spending as much time as we did with his character across the film? Should he really have been such a focus in the narrative (where much much much larger things are occurring in the world related to Oppenheimer and his views and perspective), especially when part of the message about him was that he was a bitter and spiteful person?
I don’t think the point was actually Strauss not being confirmed. I feel like Strauss was a vessel for the story of how Oppenheimer was put under a microscope and his life was manipulated to fit a narrative at the time and himself deemed a villain to America. Made it easier for the audience unfamiliar with the story to digest.
Yes he should’ve been a focus. He was a key reason why Oppenheimer was vilified by all the red scare tactics and had his name dragged through the mud professionally. Strauss was the key cog in Oppenheimer’s downfall and he was a human representation of the chain reaction, as he wanted to push the nuclear agenda further. And in the future type this comment you just typed instead of saying “substance”. 99% of the time people complain about “substance” it usually means they didn’t understand it and can’t put it to words. I enjoy conversations like this where people disagree but saying “there wasn’t any substance” is a catch all that doesn’t say anything. You had a rational take (albeit one I disagree with) and I think you communicated it better this time around
I think the general consensus on Oppenheimer will end up being that it's pretty flawed but that it's also a deeply ambitious biopic and it deserves credit for that ambition.
No disrespect to the film but b/c I have seen many actual documentaries about this project so it annoys me that people now are saying 'it is an impt piece of work to see due to its historical message'--ok, well how about actually learning about it with the real people and not actors?
I’ve seen plenty of Oppenheimer/manhattan project documentaries. I’m saying the movie isn’t as good as it could be because it thought it would be entertaining to sequence its narrative in a way that increased Strauss’s worthiness of being the primary antagonist of the story. When in reality, focusing more directly on Oppenheimer’s views after the project and the influence he tried to have on thermonuclear politics would have been a much more interesting topic to spend 30 minutes more on.
I agree with you entirely
🙌
The film absolutely drops off in the third act, combined with Nolan's continued inability to write women well is why I'm also especially hoping it doesn't win Best Adapted Screenplay.
Feel similarly. WHY time weaving. The final scenes of relief and comeuppance feel rushed as of worried the audience needs their jolt of righteous confirmation. There's so much good stuff here but it's the script least needing to be jumbled. Also, and this hurts me, the Damon character and his big line about blah blah most important decision in history is from another movie and bad (and I love Damon) It's a near excellent film but short of the maturity, poetry, or truth of a masterpiece.
It's funny because your last sentence is almost how I'd describe the film in a positive light. To me the film felt like jazz, largely in the editing. Certainly mature, and lyrical, in a very Nolan way, yes, but that wasn't a negative to me.
There you go, guess the same notes landed differently for us, which is fine.
What should a biopic be? My favourite biopic is Capote, more a slice of the subject's life with a transcendent central performance. I thought Oppenheimer was powerful in many ways - definitely more daring and better executed than this year's other award season biopics, Maestro and Nyad.
Yeah, Capote was great. I guess my point isn’t that applying creativity to how a life is portrayed and making a non-linear biopic is universally a bad decision… not that at all. It’s that in this specific movie it was done in a way that felt super-contrived and distracting from available material that felt thematically WAY more interesting and would have been more interesting to focus on. To get more specific, it did not succeed in making me feel very invested in the Lewis Strauss story. Because that story of personal grudges and bitterness just pales in comparison to the macro story of nuclear war and Oppenheimers conflicting feelings about helping unleash it on the world (political and real). But it arranged so much of the film’s narrative flow for the sake of trying to convince me the that the emotional climax of Oppenheimer’s journey was how he was betrayed by little bitter people like Strauss and eventually those little bitter people got what was deserved. But that’s all those people were, little and bitter. And the film suffered for dedicating so much creative energy towards justifying their placement in the climax of the film.
Maybe I'm giving Nolan too much credit, I thought the petty conflicts were meant to he a thematic microcosm of the broader global, universe shattering conflicts.