Fantastic video! And the music comparison is great. Cinema is unique because modern viewers and critics tend to focus so much on only parts of the whole instead of the finished picture as a piece of art. If people talked about music like they do about films now, they would be criticizing notes within the piece without the context of its place within the arrangement. I guess just like that example wouldn't make sense, it's kind of the same with judging Oppenheimer (the man). We have to recognize that a note played exactly where it is within the piece is, in a way, responsible for making up the whole, but obviously a single note is only there based on the many notes which came before it, and is just a tiny part of something infinitely more complex than itself.
Yes I can but the equations are too tough for me, sadly. Also, I hope Nolan makes "Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Movie" at some time. Also, currently: "A moment of historic danger: It is still 90 seconds to midnight - 2024 Doomsday Clock Statement" Also, 31:36 very correct "causality as a human construct" is quite right. Causality is a construct that is applicable to a certain model (simplification, elimination of "details outside the system") of the world. Change the model, and the cause-effects links change. Syndey Dekker writes in "Drift into Failure": _We have no well-developed theories for understanding how such complexity develops. And when such complexity fails, we still apply simple, linear, componential ideas as if those will help us understand what went wrong. This book will argue that they won’t, and that they never will. Complexity is a defining characteristic of society and many of its technologies today. Yet simplicity and linearity remain the defining characteristics of the theories we use to explain bad events that emerge from this complexity. Our language and logic remain imprisoned in the space of linear interactions and component failures that was once defined by Newton and Descartes._ When we see the negative effects of the mushrooming complexity of our highly interdependent society today (an oil leak, a plane crash, a global financial crisis), we are often confident that we can figure out what went wrong - if only we can get our hands on the part that broke (which is often synonymous to getting our hands on the human(s) who messed up). Newton, after all, told us that for every effect there is an equal and opposite cause [well, not quite, he was only talking about momentum exchange, but okay]. So we can set out and trace back from the foreclosed home, the smoking hole in the ground or the oil-spewing hole in the sea floor, and find that cause. Analyses of breakdowns in complex systems remain depressingly linear, depressingly componential._
The mere thought that some people can confidently say that the filmmaker should've put actual images, put more focus on this or that is bewildering to me... The answer is always NO. It's his film, and you're the person watching. That's all there is. Period.
Leaving aside--for a moment--the ideas being conveyed, may I say how much I am in awe of someone possessing this degree of precision and sophistication in a language that is not their first?
As a physicist, the "can you feel the music" line, is the best phrase I have ever heard for capturing the what physics, and understanding a lot of other things, are really about. For modern physics, many things are paradoxical and unintuitive, but there is often still patterns, structure, and a weird logic to it. You can deduce a lot of what we know from doing the math and getting into the weeds, but you can reduce the effort it takes if you know where to look. You can see how it all works together and make out patterns in the chaos, to tell where it will go next, like how you can sometimes guess the next note or sequence of a song, you have never heard before. This can be applied to a lot of other topic as well, especially understanding Nolan films. It is all about hearing the music, once you can do that, you will flow along with the story not getting that lost.
It's also just nice to see a highly funded movie with bohr, feynman, Walter white acting uncertain regarding his identity, Fermi, Einstein ofc, nice to see hill and szilard as well. I wish dirac could have found a way to talk trash about poetry 😂
In my opinion the "can you hear the music" line is about the difference of mathematical formalism to physical meaning. The best physicists are usually not the ones who master the mathematical formalism the best, but who have brilliant physical intuition. For them the formulas are just a way to write down their mental images and insights. They usually are not good at precise calculation (like Oppenheimer) or even disdain mathematical formalism (like Einstein) and have much more sympathy for back-of-the-envelope calculations (like Fermi) or visual representations (like Feynman). To say in the style of the movie "formalism can bring you only that far", but for real new insights one has to transcend it.
@@scepticalchymist Yeah exactly. I was trying to stick with the music analogy, but thats the kind of idea I think it is getting at. It is not just about the work, the formulas, and the mathematics, it is about understanding and intuition. It is the ability to step back, see the bigger picture, notice what is missing, and finding a piece that might fit. Note that this doesn't discount rigorous mathematics, a lot of Steven Hawking's greatest contributions are consequences of merely rigorously applying mathematics. Though considering Hawking's paralysis and inability to do much himself, that must mean his intuition, his incomprehensibly strong mental reasoning and mental understanding, and his ability to communicate it all to normal everyday people, are indicative that he likely could "hear the music" very well.
I've taken an introductory course in physics and have only dipped my toe into more advanced physics, but that "feel the music" line still resonated with me and you've put into words what I could not.
9:34 I’d argue this was purposefully done by Nolan. If the colorized perspectives are intended to primarily mirror Oppy’s perspective, this would show how little Oppy thought of this exchange, and how he assumed Strauss would have taken it. Consequently, in the black / white version, we see how Strauss really took it (or how Nolan has decided to PORTRAY how Strauss took it)
Yes I completely agree. It is obvious to me that the change in focus was specifically intended and not as a result of lazy filming/editing/directing. We see Strauss in focus for only long enough to recognise him, and he is again immediately out of focus.
"Oppenheimer" is a study of ego. Nolan's statement, that I'm left with, is that ego is the most destructive force in our world. Ego leads us to conflict, to misunderstanding, to war. We wouldn't build bombs, if not for that. The way that Oppenheimer and Strauss mistrust & misunderstand each other, and ultimately cause each other's destruction, is analogous to the behavior of nations and of humanity as a whole throughout history. We are in that moment again. In the US, in Israel, Argentina, Russia, and elsewhere, one man or one ideological group has us heading for destruction.
I agree. Nice to see someone express it that way ... a study of ego. What struck me most after watching it was simply how Oppenheimer admits to Einstein that he fears he has destroyed the world and still, when he is older and offered accolades by the government ... he shows up and accepts. The audience seems to be invited to feel glad for him about this ... I'd prefer it if we were invited to be critical of this.
Or in the UK, Gaza, Iran, China, India, Pakistan, and the Ukrainian Oligarchs. The war of egos, misunderstanding, paranoia and lust typically require at least two players.
I see your point as a half of the story. The story to me is about the inevitability of the bomb. Two sides brought it there, scientific and human. The idea of chain reaction wasn't just about the physical process but the development of the field of physics and science as a whole too. The moment we uncovered the power of the atom, the bomb became inevitable. You could see that so clearly at the beginning of the movie. It wasn't an idea that only 1 man is capable of arriving at. Nope, multiple scientists from both sides of the war were capable of this. So the development of the bomb was unavoidable given the second inevitability, the human's ego. And it takes 2 to tango like the other comment said. It's because if one side gave up, there was no guarantee the other would have too. The politicians were small minded, egotistical and petty. But they were not exceptional and people like them were on both sides of the war. The bomb would ultimately be used, that is also unavoidable. If it wasn't on Japan in 1945, it would have been somewhere else at another time but there was nothing anyone on Earth can do to stop this. Oppenheimer did it so the other side couldn't have gotten their first and he did try to avoid using it but he didn't have the power to do so. The story about Strauss and Oppenheimer highlights what you say about human nature. Even in the aftermath of something so extreme, the small minded human still focus on personal vendetta, still wanting to build a bigger bomb, still forever putting their selfishness ahead of everything else. Oppenheimer was an exceptional man but people seem to think he was responsible for it all while he was just an atom in the chain reaction. Of course as an intelligent and good human being, this fact forever torn him. He never regretted what he did but he also lived with guilt until the day he died
@@JC_923 Yet it was only inevitable because of ego. Because of the power dynamics of egos, fuelling a destructive spiral. Remove the root cause and it's no longer inevitable.
It's worth noting that in the scene where Oppenheimer compares the nuclear material to a sandwich, the focus not being on RDJ's character is a way to show how, in that moment, Oppenheimer isn't even thinking about him, despite that character viewing the moment as a personal battle between the two.
I guess the expectation one went with affected this movie’s perception more than usual. I didn’t go in expecting a war movie but a drama, and enjoyed the it in the big screen.
Yeah pretty much. Tons of mainstream audiences got caught up in the IMAX summer marketing of it all and likely wanted less talk and more spectacle, when it was never trying to be that. The movie's about his journey and perspective through the situation, flawed perspective or not - it's not about the war directly. Many of the very people that complain about the last 30-40 minutes being pointless or boring likely just went in ready for a different movie. However one criticism I will have about the whole "men in suits talking in rooms" thing is that Nolan could stand to have gotten a bit more creative with the location variety. Yes, realistically, much of it was entire scenes having been edited around...but nothing is stopping a film from conveying the ideas expressed in real life meetings through the vehicle of other locations and encounters.
@@Chrisratata I kinda liked the men in suits talking style. I’m a big fan of 12 Angry Men and got some vibes of that during the courtroom/testimony scenes. Completely agree with people confusing IMAX with spectacle. I saw it in IMAX and for me it was a “larger than life” view of the advent of quantum physics and atomic bomb.
@@Chrisratata I so f-ing love it when people explain why others didn't like the movie for them. Personally, I did not expect a war movie. I expected the thematical exploration of how the invention of nukes led to the MAD doctrine & the redefinition of the international security relations. A political thriller, if you like. I think, in a time when 2 nuclear powers are engaged (not with each other) in war with their neighbours, maybe it would be an acute subject to re-examine. We got instead the story of an estranged man with guilt who gets torn apart by quasi nameless no-ones in history for their own political gains, because the man was a communist. Regardless of the quality the latter was implemented (which was high), yes, I was disappointed.
@@juggadaaku4219 i loved that aspect of it too, i just feel like going back to the same exact rooms with the same exact people could've been dialed back just a small bit. Even if just one of those scenes (or you might as well call them sub-scenes) had been reappropriated to a different location with the same info reveal and same style, the balance would've been more perfect for me personally
every element is so full, meaningful and masterfully executed. when people try to criticize it, I can understand that, but all criticism falls so flat every time :D
two things: towards the circular idea, the visions he was having of the sun were about fusion, which was a repeat of his earlier visions of fission. He can see the same process of creating a huge power then losing control of it. Second, I needed the line from the army guy "With all due respect, we'll take it from here." for it to really hit me that he felt the loss of control. Socially and politically, the ground work was already laid to wrest his control away.
For what it's worth coming from a physicist; one who has fielded numerous technical questions from lay-people regarding "actual happenings" in the Manhattan project, I greatly appreciate this aesthetic interpretation of this movie. I have actually been led by your informed critic's words to extra dimensions of the movie. My family has asked me to buy a copy of it for occasional re-viewing, and I guess some re-interpretation through their eyes. I think your words of guidance will help keep on improving the total experience for me. best regards DKB
I'm a physicist and worked at Los Alamos Labs. With my inside knowledge of Los Alamos and the Manhattan Project I knew what was happening and recognized the names of various scientists. However, for an outsider, I think the film could be confusing. I've suggested to my friends to conduct some basic research into the Manhattan Project, Los Alamos, Oppenheimer, etc. before viewing the film, everything in the film will then make more sense.
On the characters with gimmicks... That scientist really did play the bongos. And the scientist who couldn't help but look at the explosion looked because he was the spy and was especially motivated to observe all details to report to the Soviets.
@@ximono I don't think they're referring to the character who runs out during the trinity test to see the explosion, but the character who peeks behind the cover during previous test explosions, that was Klaus Fuchs.
Regarding the 'lackluster' compositions: Nolan shot this movie for IMAX, a giant screen. He adjusted his compositions for the format, resulting in frames with many characters 'crammed' in the middle. If he spread them out, you'd have a sore neck before the halfway mark.
I also think "worse" composition FEELS REAL as opposed to the "every frame a painting" aesthetic the video essayist mentioned. Nolan has never directed that way. That's ok as it's a stylistic choice. These compositions THEN are perfectly shot and staged as they ADD to the NOLAN aesthetic of realism.
I've felt that Nolan makes his images simple yet the most aesthetically pleasing they can be the same way a writer might do the same with their sentences. Sort of like Raymond Carver
The "don't try to understand it, feel it" and "can you hear the music" things apply to the Dark Knight trilogy as well. The Dark Knight is the perfect equation, perfectly plotted. But The Dark Knight Rises is not trying to be that. It's more about the feelings since it's circling back around to stuff Batman Begins started and focused on the character instead of the philosophical issues the Joker presents.
I definitely like the Dark Knight trilogy, but I'm not sure those movies can totally get a pass from a plotting stand point, logistically speaking. TDK in particular has a lot of instances of incredulity - like the first scene for example, one of the members of the bank robbing team shoots the alarm guy when his job is done, then a minute later, decides to literally tell another member of the team that he did that - with that team member behind him no less, like, the thought wouldn't occur to the guy that someone else on the team was told something similar, and that he would be in similar jeopardy, and especially that he would be in danger after telling that guy and not to do it in a vulnerable state? still a fun scene, but there are a lot of moments in that film and the others that are glued together by a strong need to suspend disbelief.
One of the many wonderful aspects of this movie is the simple fact that it is a movie for grown ups. Not a franchise, comic book or video game adaptation; no multi-verses, or superheroes, etc. Sure, it's a movie heavy on dialogue and men sitting in rooms. But that dialogue moves like an action scene. It never felt like a 3 hour movie. It made you feel, think, and question. Directors like Nolan and Villeneuve have brought their singular visions to screen time and time again, and let's hope they continue to do so.
One aspect of the Prometheus myth, maybe you do know this, is that eventually Prometheus was freed from his torture and became a lackey for Zeus, but he had to wear a ring made from the stone to which he had been chained.
@@DFMoray It doesn't have any magical effect. It's simply a ring. I suppose it marked him as being in thrall to Zues, and maybe a reminder that he could be sent back.
@@scarletkingdom2359Because the film is based in the Novel "American Prometheus". And the story is basically playing of the themes of (demi)gods being punished for giving man such a powerful force that redefines what it even means to be human!
@@smorrow I read his autobiography. If I remember it right he wrote that he played the bongos in the celebration after the Hiroshima bomb. Something he wasn't proud to admit later.
I initially disliked the pacing, but I understood it to be reflective of an explosive chain reaction. The music, so to speak, is that of an audible feedback loop. It's very well done in that regard.
You have to first understand that Cillian Murphy BUILT Oppy over 6 months ALONE. HE arrived on set with a fully formed character which Nolan admitted " I took the performance for granted" I didn't direct Cillian". " Cillian inhabited the character completely". Murphy created every moment and adjusted Nolan's script to fit his Oppy. Watch Murphy's filmography - he has created amazing characters for thirty years. To address the blocking listen to Hoyte the DP on blocking for IMAX screens. The very physics of an 80ft screen that curves on the periphery forces the DP to block for the screen.
There are so many ideas you discuss I rarely disagree with and, to the contrary, loudly celebrate as so incredibly insightful. This is truly one of the best channels on UA-cam.
I did not click at all with Oppenheimer the first time viewing it, and given its length it is very hard to make the choice to give it another go, especially since I have never enjoyed a Nolan film for its direction. My biggest issue with Oppenheimer, at least as much as I understand it, was that it did not have any moments of emptiness or contemplation, the entire film felt like it was screaming various forms of affect at me, trying to sweep me up rather than giving me something to actually think about. To me it feels like a thing that is arguing so hard for its own importance that people eventually cave and grant it that importance whether they have found it or not. As such, it's hard for me to give it the benefit of a strong retry when I am not convinced that the "something" I find won't just be my own submission to the film's aggrandized understanding of itself.
Seen it multiple times. Adore it. I'm versed in the basic physics involved, the Greek mythology symbolism used, the whole Los Alamos history, and trained in the language of cinema. I have no doubt these have helped me to understand it to a degree. It's why it repays multiple viewings. A very complex work of cinematic art. ❤❤
To me the movie was about the tragedy of man’s ability to create, not just examining ambition on a personal level, but as an entire society, always barreling forward with new discoveries, good or bad, and everyone is powerless to stop it, even when they can see the writing on the wall, compartmentalizing evil they’re taking part in. So yeah basically what’s goin on right now with AI It was also a bittersweet look at the amazing abilities of mankind, our ability to work together and get shit done, but reflexively a tragedy because that kind of cooperation just couldn’t extend between warring countries. Personally I found the film pretty lackluster though. Some tasteful moment to moment editing and performances, but poor overall editing and story. The drama felt unfocused.
I agree with your thematic analysis for sure, but the subtlely added layer to the themes that made the experience great to me is that his growing dilemma resonated with me on a personal level... Similar to what you speak of on a societal level, individually us nerds are oftentimes motivated by being sorta self-wowed by making novel scientific advancements for the pure sake of it. Like getting drunk on crafting a beautiful painting well enough that much thought of what comes next is mostly drowned out. And even worse is how someone may then take your work and practically pervert it in ways you may not agree with. Oppenheimer had whispers of growing concern for the consequences of his work, but he didn't truly wake up to it until his creation was being wheeled off with nothing left for him to do, and awakened even further with hearing the reports of each use of it.
Oppenheimer does both the rise and fall of the man from his subjective perspective, and the buildup/fallout of one of the most pivotal moments in history, like watching cinematic lore. I can only imagine writing a screenplay which is constantly jumping through points in time simply to paint character motivations.
In terms of rewatchability, for me it is on the same par as The Revenant. Good movies. and the first time I watched these two movies, I liked them. But I don't feel any desire to watch them again. And I don't think I ever will. The difference with Tenet is that Tenet is not a good movie. And so it's obvious why I wouldn't watch it again. Oppenheimer, like The Revenant, does not have an emotional pull. Sure, it's pretty to look at. But that's not enough to draw me in and make me want more.
For me, it’s the opposite. Mushroom clouds have always had an emotional pull for me…but this story is much more than just a dramatization of how humans created the bomb. The need for human beings to be “recognized” by their peers even when creating such evil and destructive weapons is one of the most disturbing and controversial aspect of the film. That part near the end where Strauss is having a meltdown before being denied was the best part of the movie. He was a vindictive piece of shit but he was saying the quiet part out loud. Most of the people that partook in the creation of the bomb (including Oppenheimer) were narcissistic political animals who might have felt some guilt after the fact, but the need to be recognized for “owning” the atomic bomb was the most important thing to them. This is obviously an over simplification. But the movie ultimately doesn’t answer whether Oppenheimer would have rather not been the father of the bomb…
It definitely had an emotional pull on me. The (self-inflicted) tragic story of the man, the immense destructive power unleashed on the world. How can you not be affected by that? The film was long and slow, but with an uneasy emotion running through it as an undercurrent.
Thank you for putting words to how my subconscious experienced this movie. I have struggled to do so myself. Herzog's "ecstatic truth" vs "the accountant's truth" comes to mind. The picture Nolan painted of Oppenheimer is so much more truthful than the typical biopic that strives to be historically accurate. That's what great art is capable of, to say what can't be stated plainly.
It's worth noting about Nolan's blocking that he could have been intentionally trying to capture a naturalistic representation, the kind of semi-composition you would see when looking at an archival photograph of historical events. Cinéma vérité by way of IMAX?
im glad you also thought the actual explosion itself was somewhat lacking. It wasnt just that it looked like a gasoline explosion, the scale felt off. when watching footage of real nuclear detonations you can see they are taken from miles away and have some sense of scale as its always a giant explosion in the middle of an even more giant empty wasteland. The explosion in Oppenheimer is too zoomed in, you cant get a sense of how big it actually is
Yeah, while I don't agree with his other criticisms, or they didn't affect my experience of the film, the power of the Bomb felt underwhelming. They needed to show it from further away, but they couldn't do that, because it would have been revealed as a very large ordinary explosion. Real distance shots of the Trinity Test show its true size. Of course, it was nothing compared to the H-bomb tests that came later, but the one in the film certainly didn't feel like it could wipe out a city.
You are quite right. This is the one point where I felt CGI would have done a better job. On the other hand, the story was not about the bomb as such, but the effect it had on the people making it and the aftermath, so I didn't think it detracted too much from the film. But yeah, it _would_ be nice with a larger looking blast.
You should get an award for that ad read at the end. Idk how they do compensation, but at minimum you exceeded any expectations they could have had. Great video btw, fwiw.
Probably the best video on Oppenheimer I’ve seen to date Was absolutely consumed by this movie last year. Saw it in 70mm IMAX film 4 times before it was out of theaters You hit the nail on the head of “feeling the music” and this being a direct response to conforming to our brain rot templates for movies One thing I hadn’t considered that you made me aware of is Nolan’s choice of not including real footage of events in *his* universe
The reference to Prometehus or American Prometheus is the title of a biography which the film was based on American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. To add another layer it's more of a reference to Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley as he regrets the failture to stop the Arms Race, the rejection of the Acheson-Lilienthal plan and nuclear regulation which he was very outspoken about, and how close we have come to annihilate ourselves several times. “Oppenheimer’s warnings were ignored-and ultimately, he was silenced. Like that rebellious Greek god Prometheus-who stole fire from Zeus and bestowed it upon humankind, Oppenheimer gave us atomic fire. But then, when he tried to control it, when he sought to make us aware of its terrible dangers, the powers-that-be, like Zeus, rose up in anger to punish him.”
I feel it’s held back too much and most viewers are impressed by hearing a bunch of science talk they can’t understand. Imagine with me for a second how much more impactful the movie would be if it showed the morning the bombs were dropped in Japan with all the carnage and told that part of the story as well. I can think of plenty of nerdy scenes that could’ve been cropped out to make room for that. Idk I don’t think it has much replay value. I’m probably super in the minority but it was boring. I liked Killers of the flower moon far more for movie of the year.
I actually _did_ understand the science talk. I read a book about the Manhattan Project as a teenager, and remembered enough details to understand what they were actually talking about and roughly who the scientists were. The science talk still impressed me.
Dont take this the wrong way. I do like some of Nolans movies. But expeting the audience to invest 3h of their lifetime, several times, for multiple watches, just so that the movie can be enjoyed is imho not a mark of quality but a lack of screenwriting. Oppenheimer is a decent movie with solid social commentary on the matter. But whats the use of movies if i in the same time can read a biography or two about him and have more enjoyment while doing so?
@huntardhc2286 it's just his style, he makes movies -like Memento, The Prestige, Tenet - where his creative choice is that there's enough density that the audience will most likely pick up on different details upon multiple viewings. It's literally just a creative choice, and his movies tend to do well with audiences so it seems to be working.
@@anthonymartensen3164 idk about that. Placing eastereggs, layered shots, out of focus details etc. is a tool that many filmmakers use. And yes: it is a sign of quality. And i would never debate that Nolan isnt a great artist in that regard. But that is not what i am talking about. Pacing, building and releasing tension, coherence - these are the fields where there are imho problems every now and then in his movies. Usually they dont matter but in Oppenheimer i did notice them very clearly. The movie feelt quite disjointed and about the last third of it felt tacked on without adding much substance. As i said its a decent movie overall. I thoroughly enjoyed about half of the scenes. But the other half felt like unecessary padding. I might be wrong, but i dont think that will go away on repeated watches.
Oppenheimer as an even more modern Frankenstein can apply to many biographies. That is one of the reasons the original Frankenstein became such an iconic warning of the danger of scientific change and discovery. I think Nolan is force fitting this trope into the history of the event. Christopher Nolan does what many modern film makers do; they try to emulate the successes of the past with cheap imitation than risk an original vision. In Oppenheimer he does this at the expense of history and ignores important historical questions. These questions are not merely for academics but have earth shattering implications for humans everywhere. It is sad that Nolan chose to sidestep these questions and give us this tired trope. It reminds me of James Cameron who had the opportunity to tell the story of the Titanic, one filled with real dramatic stories of sacrifice and survival, and instead turn it into boilerplate romance.
One thing I respect about Oppenheimer (and Nolan's films in general) is he does not shy away from the complexity and contradictions of the character. Nolan refuses to take a side, lecture, turn the movie into an agenda piece, excuse Oppenheimer or condemn him. He depicts the man as he was, with all his science, ego, ramifications and guilt.
I was disappointed in the movie because of bad writing. This kind of movie lives or dies by the quality of its dialogues.... and those were not well written, like at all. To contrast, take a listen to the interviews with the real Oppenheimer - there is so much thought and nuance in his turns of phrase, all of that subtlety was erased in the movie, in favor of soulless expository dialogues. And it's obvious why that's the case. After Interstellar, Jonathan Nolan stopped co-writing scripts with his brother, all the dialogues took a hive dip in quality. Dunkirk barely had any dialogues at all, and then Tenet and Oppenheimer have characters who keep talking and talking without saying anything of value, and feel like quest-givers in an RPG. Meanwhile the actual RPG characters in Jonathan Nolan's Fallout show are more believable and relatable that real people in Oppenheimer.
I still haven't seen it but I feel like I would spend the whole movie comparing it to the HBO mini-series Hiroshima from the 90s. That film was very personal and lacked any bombasidy. Shot on the cheap too with lots of stock footage and interviews with veterans. I recommend it if you want more context.
They should have concentrated more on his life as a young grad student and even as a young boy growing up. That was much more influential on his life and decision-making process as an adult man.
There’s just something about the way that Nolan’s films are edited that really puts me off. There’s no ebb and flow between scenes or conversations. It just all goes at a breakneck pace and as a result, I really struggle to connect with the characters. For example, Oppenheimer and Kitty’s relationship goes from them meeting for the first time to them professing their love within the space of a couple of minutes. Everything on screen is telling me that they’re in love, but I just didn’t feel it. And considering how important their relationship is to the story, that’s a flaw. And for contrast, I vividly remember really liking the scene when Oppenheimer meets Groves for the first time because it actually slowed down for a second and let the conversation breathe. It actually felt like two people talking, rather than two robots doing exposition. Sadly, those moments were few and far between.
Absolutely understandable critique, but to be devils advocate, I’d argue that very few biopics that cover any significant length of period in a persons life - and especially if there are many supporting figures moving in and out - ever manage to achieve the time of “ebb and flow” you’re seeking..
@@ManSeekingMeaning I get that it had a lot to fit in and if it didn’t go at the pace it did, we’d have a 5 hour movie. But it’s just not something I could look past for this movie, or indeed any of Nolan’s films since Dark Knight Rises. I just can’t connect with them.
Yep, i thought the editing of Oppenheimer was an absolute mess and felt like they tried to fit 6 hours into 3. There was hardly any time to absorb any of the dialogue. I personally couldn't enjoy it at all.
Nolan is a poor director of actors. There's scarcely one dialogue scene in his entire filmography that is notably well acted and directed. Many of his films are like watching an expensively photographed, sub-standard 1970s TV show.
@@badinfluence3814 Well, the acting in Oppenheimer was probably the best part of it, but I didn't care about any of the characters which is a common thing for me when watching Nolan films. Just very mechanical directing with not much heart.
The problem with the Oppenheimer is that it's not about Oppenheimer. It's about... I don't really understand what. Or don't care - I wanted/expected to see a movie about the genius behind one of the greatest feats of modern science. A genius who managed to put together a team of other geniuses and made them work together. As Tarkovsky's Solaris was, as Lem himself said, a 'Crime and Punishment' in space, the Nolan's Oppenheimer is reflections on the personal morals in relationship and a moral choices of society and its leaders.
You are very, very generous about this movie. It was a reasonably good film but largely unfocused and indifferently shot. And yes, the Trinity explosion was poorly executed.
cant believe you ripped this video from the Oppenheimer bluray special features section and just uploaded it to youtube as if we wouldn't notice! all that to say, great video! think you have perfectly captured the essence of the film and Nolan's work in general. truly the new standard for media analysis videos.
I really didn't like this movie. The historical and personal narration is rushed, shallow and feels like an adaptation of a Wikipedia article. The metaphysical visions are kitsch. The only part that was captivating was the trial because it was focused and with some depth to it. The question is why make historical biopics at all? They're never great movies and are mostly an excuse for people not to read about history and just get a snippet from a grandiose flick. Great movies need to be more focused or much longer like lotr, but even then it's better to just read the damn book:)
As a historian who started working on film production a few years ago, my problem with the script is that it fell into traps biopics often do: too much context. A biographer will already add more detail than necessary to build a better picture of the person, and the screenplay writer will often get lost in all that detail and not make enough cuts. Biopics are already very hard to edit, so we're almost always left with a lengthy film that often feels pretentious. Oppenheimer is very interesting but it does feel like it takes itself too seriously to work as just a movie.
Ive only watched oppenhiemer once, in IMAX. I completely agree with the analysis, i also believe that the characters, the themes, the story structure, etc. completely embody the characteristics of the collective conscious/unconscious. Its like the collective efforts of humanity in all aspects of what we intend to achieve are apart of one giant enveloping wave, that with each contribution from an individual, strengthens this wave we all are swept up in. Thats why on an individual scale, when given proper attention, we feel this existential dread but are not sure where it started or how it will end because it is all apart of the cyclical nature of our being. Hopefully i worded this correctly.
As always - great video. I view Trinity test differently - for me it's a moment when we can hear Oppenheimer's music, music which despite remarks you've mentioned Oppenheimer directed. We see Trinity from his point of view - as beautiful, powerful force that's seen for the first time created by skill and knowledge and discovery. You can see glimpses of it in earlier scenes when you see the visualizations and hear the music for a brief periods when he describes issues in physics for example or when he hears an idea from someone else. But those are only glimpses, parts of Magnum Opus that he is working on
There are so many people that relate to Oppenheimer and live through him, but will never conclude to a magnitude of his impact. But with that being said, the 2023 story of him is inspiring for people that are exceptional at what they do and those who want more
24:38 “The guy with the Bongo’s” = Richard Feynman as an unnamed support character was a nice Easter Egg ua-cam.com/video/yRcOEnIOzII/v-deo.htmlsi=6VF0jFhMTp6lypbd Edit: On a side note: There is another theory why Oppenheimer lost his security clearance - he was involved in a UFO crash retrieval, and they no longer trusted him afterwards. Here’s a talk / presentation about it. ua-cam.com/video/LC__df-S3QM/v-deo.htmlsi=S89BIWaYkYRihCa4&t=2162
What We need Is a special edition where the only thing they do Is edit out the sex scene where Oppenheimer gets the idea for the "I have become death" quote from his girlfriend reading it to him in bed, before the Manhattan project as well.. I had difficulty enjoying the movie after that with my eyes rolled fully back. I was just glad I was able to hold back letting out an audible groan.
I greatly enjoyed the BBC seven part TV series about Oppenheimer, with Sam Waterston. Decades later i remembered the scene with the "I am become Death..." quote. That series was a conventional narrative ending with the 1954 hearing where he lost his security clearance. It did not highlight his relationship with Strauss. Having that perspective helped me get the Nolan movie first time through.
What a brilliant essay ! You were able to grasp some layers which have escapes me and I have to say that it changed my perception of the movie in its favour. Thank you!
Cal me over-dramatic, but I cried the first time I watched the movie. As someone who's constantly keeping up with the news at that time, my tears just rushed because I thought it was Nolan's way of telling us that we are inching closer to what Oppenheimer was thinking about "setting the world on fire" It was tears of fear.
Nolan's dedication to realness and practical effects has also led to some criticism of Dunkirk. Nolan chose to use the actual location of Dunkirk to shoot those scenes. However, it looks quite different today than it did 80 years ago. Another location could have been used and dressed up or portions of the village could have been built on studio lots. You can see that is some of shots near where the modern monument memorializing the events there. Plus there were no CGI effects used in the evacuation scenes. The scenes depicted in movie failed to capture the huge numbers of people that were actually there in 1940 waiting to be rescued. There were tens of thousands of soldiers clustered on the beaches. The movie showed lots of empty beach with maybe several hundred or so people in total. The extra soldiers needed could have been filled in with CGI ones at least in the wide angle shots of the beaches.
Kitty: “You think because you let them tar and feather you that the world will forgive you? They won't.” Robert: “We’ll see.” This is probably the most cheeky fourth wall break in Nolan’s catalogue. It is also played so splendidly straight by Murphy that it doesn’t result in an over the top wink.
I'm so glad you came back to Oppenheimer a year later, Tom, as I have been thinking about it still since last July and I rewatched it about a week ago to see how I felt about it. On the latest rewatch, I felt haunted, moved, and terrified with some of its parts, but found it to be clumsy, difficult, obtuse, and requiring alot of patience (perhaps much the same as Nolan presents Oppenheimer himself). And yet, I am forgiving of its (many) flaws, because it's made by a director whose ideas and feelings I love and resonate with. Interstellar is another difficult, obtuse, and clumsy movies in many ways, and yet it left me moved long after watching it. I think Nolan can get away with alot in my book at least, because I see what he is aiming for as his end goals: the huge ideas about humanity, the nature of existence, of good and evil. So, it was a slog to rewatch Oppenheimer. But, I will rewatch sometime again in the future, and again after that, and it will still leave me haunted and upset as it did after the first watching. Because I appreciate that through its difficult 3 hour runtime, it's a metamorphosis from being unable to escape from the extraordinary awe and beauty of the universe in all the myriad ways that it exists to being unable to escape the extraordinary weight and horror of having unleashed unimaginable death and suffering onto the human race. This metamorphosis is like being human in a crystallized sense: we're curious, we awe, we wonder, we want to understand. And in our pursuit of understanding, we are horrified by what what we learn (and cannot unlearn).
So I wanted to address 19:10 in the video. It’s not that Nolan doesn’t want to use historical records to portray the movie accurately, but rather recreates the scenes based from actual recordings and photos. In fact we see nearly every other scene in Oppenheimer as a recreation of a certain photo or video of either the Manhattan Project, or Oppenheimer’s life. It’s his way of assuring us this is real, while still sticking to his methods.
For me personally, all the characters reacting to the A Bomb detonation were at the heart of the effect. Thank you, Tom. Especially for your points on composite characters which I’ve become more conscious of in this century.
I'm so sick of people complaining about the lack of the Japanese perspective. The film is about OPPENHEIMER, not about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan! it's an intrinsically subjective film, chronicling the Oppenheimer's journey. He did not see the bombs used, so neither should we.
Loved it on first watch a year ago in theaters. It only gets better on rewatches because you can better understand the interconnected pieces and names thrown around.
As always, your videos are incredibly articulated and engaging. But I think the torture of the main character of the film is not related to his decisions, but to his intelligence. Regardless of what he would have ended doing, life would have been hell for him. He saw the world, both in the small and the very large, the beginning of the universe and the end of time, the rational, physical, sexual, metaphysical, cultural and spiritual of the world around him. Throughout the movie you see an amazing fully rounded intellect struggling to find meaning in a world of normal people. Now that's pain, right there...
My third viewing was my favorite as well. The first viewing was needed to reset my expectations. The second viewing was to work through the machinations of the story structure, and to sort out the characters and some of the themes. The third viewing was to experience it.
I prefer when biographies are factual and let you create your own opinion instead of a creative reinterpretation, to me Ophenheimer is the movie equivalent to the musical Hamilton, a Fictional story loosely based in the life of an historical person.
I stopped the video at 22 minutes. I think the best questions is "Can you hear the music?" It's not only Oppenheimer's question to answer from a contemporary he greatly admired and saw as the future of the study but also the question to us as the audience. His question to us is two fold - 1) do we believe Oppenheimer could hear the music and 2) do we understand what "the music" is? Do we understand? I do - it's the ability for Oppenheimer for himself for us through Noland to witness and gain cursory understanding about what Oppenheimer and his contemporaries were envisioning. The first question is "Can you hear the music?" The second question is for Oppenheimer and through his experience to us - what does it mean to be a modern prometheus? Do we hear the music and what does it mean to be the one who brought man fire? The music is amazing and enticing. The chase for the study, understanding and producing a working model of this which has near unlimited power but cannot be seen is romantic and intriguing. For us (not me) to release what Truman refers to as 'the power of the universe' is a high point in quantum physics (from an outsider perspective). To be along on this journey of intellectual discover and witness the reward of a success - is both exciting and horrifying. We live with this question of science and technology everyday - from self driving cars to Ai - but do we want to return to an age where we didn't have airplanes or the Internet? All progress comes with questions of how we will use it and then the practical aspect of how it is actually used. These questions could be for former English Majors or historians or ethicists drinking wine and discussing the film after a viewing. Yes, I do hear the music - and in the 1980's - as we went from build more missiles to nuclear arms reduction - it was scary. How we lived through the 1980's until now is nothing more than a miracle delivered not by those following protocol but by those hitting the pause button as our world stood at the brink and decided to step back from the abyss. What is a modern prometheus and what are the consequences? This is the second question and deals more with Oppenheimer's experience than history. We see the intellectual wonder of a student gradually turn to dread. It needed to be made and he was the man to make it but at what cost? "You know how I said it might destroy the world - I believe we did." We witness 1% of what he really felt for it's impossible - or at least very difficult - to attach what he might have felt to a film. Composition: The film was made for a huge screen. The compositions were made for multiple future formats with primary focus on a 2 story screen where Nolan wanted the audience's focus to be in the middle of the frame with visual context added outside of the center. The IMAX screen is said to be almost too big - an audience could get lost trying to follow the action across it. Many modern action films - including Mad Max Fury Road - are shot with this consideration. An IMAX film with great composition would epic in scope but would also require a slower pacing. Imagine a slower version of Oppenheimer - leaning on the picture over the story pacing. This "composition cut" would be 3.5 - 5 hrs? Instead we are given a breezy flow which carries a cerebral and emotional story while sacrificing the Directory of Photography's "grand scope" shots. I would argue the Nolan's vision carried out by his band of merry men ("Robin Hood" - modern would be "people") was more than successful. We were given story over picture and were left with the dread Nolan wanted us to leave with. Setting: In today's age of "how can we wow the audience with a brain chemical high more than the last person did" we were given a return to the 1940's world as practical as Nolan gave us - which is exceedingly practical. Olive drab green, 1920's wood trains, austere classrooms with chalkboard technology - one wonders how all of this was even possible. In this modern age where many cannot navigate their own metro area without the aid of GPS - one could argue this 1940's world - recreated - is as exotic and exhilarating as the best CGI and virtual camera we have today. While the bomb explosion might have not been as grand as a CFI - virtual camera - one could argue it was as described by those who witnessed it. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate your thoughts and words on Nolan and this film - but sometimes - it's the song in our head - it's the haunting last look into Oppenheimer's eyes that leaves us with the question of the fire he gave us. To quote Gladiator, "Are you not entertained?!" Instead of cheering at the fight of the gladiators - maybe we are left with a deep understanding of what war actually looks like. In Oppenheimer - we are left with the haunting vision of the fire - the world ending weapon or the threat of this - that continues to haunt our world.
Adore this film, have seen it numerous times now in the theaters and incorporated the soundtrack into my weekly playlist. Nolan just brings so much to the table with this one and the cast is able to capitalize on it in such authentic ways. Perfectly paced, intense, but genuine. I think the vision for the work is quite clear too.
awesome video. I think it's worth noting that Nolan intentionally left out everything "outside" of Oppy's field of view, because this movie is explicitly from his perspective and Strauss's. Hence why they didn't show the bomb dropping in Japan... Oppy didn't see it he only heard about it and that's what happens in the movie. I think it is a great creative choice. Scares the audience with what we don't see.
I've now seen it a score of times and I love it. My favorite storyline in the entire movie, though, has to be Kitty and Robert--such a profoundly human relationship for someone as deified as Oppenheimer.
I finally watched the movie and found that it succeeded in one respect very well. It managed to keep me interested in the main Character and wanting to know how things were going to work out in the end. The story is a highly complex one that involved thousands of people and yet they managed to narrow it down to a highly personal story that encapsulated the high stakes involved at the time. The use of the atom bomb on the people of Japan to bring an early end to the war has to be analyzed in context with the war as a whole. Although I share the horror of unleashing this bomb on a civilian population, the cities involved did have vital war manufacturing facilities within them which are downplayed somewhat in the movie. The fact that Tokyo was deliberately not targeted and the reasoning for that are omitted from the film. To truly grasp the viciousness of the Empire of Japan you need to study their occupation of Korea and China. In America for some reason not much is taught in our history classes about the Empire of Japan's occupation which started in 1931. Once you discover the truly horrific things that happened during this occupation you will better understand the reasoning that went into using the bomb to end the war. War is hell on earth and it always tries men's souls let us hope and pray we never endure another world war!
The story of Oppenheimer and the development of the atomic bomb has been well documented and I had the advantage of reading many books about the subject since the mid 70's. Nolan's film is very well done and is sufficiently deep and accurate, leaving many viewers a bit confused, I get that. I say to those folks to do some research first about this incredibly important time in history and maybe they will "get" what it's about.
My take on Oppenheimer is that below all the effects and the plots, it's an inquiry of the american mind to try to validate if socialism and european values is good or not. This is why the film goes on for 30 minutes after the bomb climax, and why so much emphasis is put on politics, and communist idealists plotting around pre-ww2.
Feynman did a talk entitled "Los Alamos From Below" in which he describes what it was like to be a minor but not minor cog in the project. It's easy to find. Recommended.
Nolan is a showman at end of the day. He has mastered taking any subjects and cater to satisfy his taste with saucy ingredients of music/sound and serves to audience. He naturally falls somewhere in between an arthouse and mainstream which mostly works in his favor.
As I sat in the Theater, I couldn't help but wonder If like, Thors & Thorfinn, in "Vinland Saga" That Oppenheimer, after realizing what he had help Create, if he started down the Path of Becoming a "True Warrior". It's Too Much to Articulate Here, but I Imagine that you'd be able to Ascertain what I'm trying to Convey As Always, Excellent Work 🙏🏾
Personally, while watching the movie, I was constantly reminded of exurb1a's video about nuclear bombs, their history and potential future. Those reminder's were the words, at the back of my mind saying either "We have discovered a 24th century technology in the 20th" and "The bulletin of the atomic scientists devised a doomsday clock where midnight symblozes complete nuclear apocalypse. Right now, we are 100 seconds to midnight". For me these thoughts were enforced by politicians and other people (both in the movie and real life) that were not interested in the science/non violent utilization of the bomb demonizing/abusing those that did not want to use the destructive potential of the bombs.
How do you feel about Oppenheimer? Can you hear the music?
Amazing 🤩
Oppenheimer help to create a monster putting the power of gods into the hands of children.
Fantastic video! And the music comparison is great. Cinema is unique because modern viewers and critics tend to focus so much on only parts of the whole instead of the finished picture as a piece of art.
If people talked about music like they do about films now, they would be criticizing notes within the piece without the context of its place within the arrangement.
I guess just like that example wouldn't make sense, it's kind of the same with judging Oppenheimer (the man). We have to recognize that a note played exactly where it is within the piece is, in a way, responsible for making up the whole, but obviously a single note is only there based on the many notes which came before it, and is just a tiny part of something infinitely more complex than itself.
Yes I can but the equations are too tough for me, sadly.
Also, I hope Nolan makes "Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Movie" at some time.
Also, currently: "A moment of historic danger: It is still 90 seconds to midnight - 2024 Doomsday Clock Statement"
Also, 31:36 very correct "causality as a human construct" is quite right. Causality is a construct that is applicable to a certain model (simplification, elimination of "details outside the system") of the world. Change the model, and the cause-effects links change. Syndey Dekker writes in "Drift into Failure":
_We have no well-developed theories for understanding how such complexity develops. And when such complexity fails, we still apply simple, linear, componential ideas as if those will help us understand what went wrong. This book will argue that they won’t, and that they never will. Complexity is a defining characteristic of society and many of its technologies today. Yet simplicity and linearity remain the defining characteristics of the theories we use to explain bad events that emerge from this complexity. Our language and logic remain imprisoned in the space of linear interactions and component failures that was once defined by Newton and Descartes._
When we see the negative effects of the mushrooming complexity of our highly interdependent society today (an oil leak, a plane crash, a global financial crisis), we are often confident that we can figure out what went wrong - if only we can get our hands on the part that broke (which is often synonymous to getting our hands on the human(s) who messed up). Newton, after all, told us that for every effect there is an equal and opposite cause [well, not quite, he was only talking about momentum exchange, but okay]. So we can set out and trace back from the foreclosed home, the smoking hole in the ground or the oil-spewing hole in the sea floor, and find that cause. Analyses of breakdowns in complex systems remain depressingly linear, depressingly componential._
The mere thought that some people can confidently say that the filmmaker should've put actual images, put more focus on this or that is bewildering to me... The answer is always NO. It's his film, and you're the person watching. That's all there is. Period.
Leaving aside--for a moment--the ideas being conveyed, may I say how much I am in awe of someone possessing this degree of precision and sophistication in a language that is not their first?
It's scary to think he's probably more detailed and thought-provoking in his first language.
Thanks for that, really appreciate it!
A very insightful comment. Thank you for taking a moment to note this.
What is his first language?
@@yannick7965that isn’t a language
As a physicist, the "can you feel the music" line, is the best phrase I have ever heard for capturing the what physics, and understanding a lot of other things, are really about. For modern physics, many things are paradoxical and unintuitive, but there is often still patterns, structure, and a weird logic to it. You can deduce a lot of what we know from doing the math and getting into the weeds, but you can reduce the effort it takes if you know where to look. You can see how it all works together and make out patterns in the chaos, to tell where it will go next, like how you can sometimes guess the next note or sequence of a song, you have never heard before. This can be applied to a lot of other topic as well, especially understanding Nolan films. It is all about hearing the music, once you can do that, you will flow along with the story not getting that lost.
It's also just nice to see a highly funded movie with bohr, feynman, Walter white acting uncertain regarding his identity, Fermi, Einstein ofc, nice to see hill and szilard as well. I wish dirac could have found a way to talk trash about poetry 😂
In my opinion the "can you hear the music" line is about the difference of mathematical formalism to physical meaning. The best physicists are usually not the ones who master the mathematical formalism the best, but who have brilliant physical intuition. For them the formulas are just a way to write down their mental images and insights. They usually are not good at precise calculation (like Oppenheimer) or even disdain mathematical formalism (like Einstein) and have much more sympathy for back-of-the-envelope calculations (like Fermi) or visual representations (like Feynman). To say in the style of the movie "formalism can bring you only that far", but for real new insights one has to transcend it.
@@scepticalchymist Yeah exactly. I was trying to stick with the music analogy, but thats the kind of idea I think it is getting at. It is not just about the work, the formulas, and the mathematics, it is about understanding and intuition. It is the ability to step back, see the bigger picture, notice what is missing, and finding a piece that might fit.
Note that this doesn't discount rigorous mathematics, a lot of Steven Hawking's greatest contributions are consequences of merely rigorously applying mathematics. Though considering Hawking's paralysis and inability to do much himself, that must mean his intuition, his incomprehensibly strong mental reasoning and mental understanding, and his ability to communicate it all to normal everyday people, are indicative that he likely could "hear the music" very well.
Great comment
I've taken an introductory course in physics and have only dipped my toe into more advanced physics, but that "feel the music" line still resonated with me and you've put into words what I could not.
Getting cited by Like Stories of Old absolutely made my day!
Amazing video as ever!
The crossover is crazy
beyond well-earned 🙌
👊🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
9:34 I’d argue this was purposefully done by Nolan. If the colorized perspectives are intended to primarily mirror Oppy’s perspective, this would show how little Oppy thought of this exchange, and how he assumed Strauss would have taken it.
Consequently, in the black / white version, we see how Strauss really took it (or how Nolan has decided to PORTRAY how Strauss took it)
Yes I completely agree. It is obvious to me that the change in focus was specifically intended and not as a result of lazy filming/editing/directing. We see Strauss in focus for only long enough to recognise him, and he is again immediately out of focus.
Yes, thank you, I was about to write the same thing!!! There's no way this was an accident!!
yeah theres no way it wasnt.
"Oppenheimer" is a study of ego. Nolan's statement, that I'm left with, is that ego is the most destructive force in our world. Ego leads us to conflict, to misunderstanding, to war. We wouldn't build bombs, if not for that. The way that Oppenheimer and Strauss mistrust & misunderstand each other, and ultimately cause each other's destruction, is analogous to the behavior of nations and of humanity as a whole throughout history. We are in that moment again. In the US, in Israel, Argentina, Russia, and elsewhere, one man or one ideological group has us heading for destruction.
I agree. Nice to see someone express it that way ... a study of ego. What struck me most after watching it was simply how Oppenheimer admits to Einstein that he fears he has destroyed the world and still, when he is older and offered accolades by the government ... he shows up and accepts. The audience seems to be invited to feel glad for him about this ... I'd prefer it if we were invited to be critical of this.
Or in the UK, Gaza, Iran, China, India, Pakistan, and the Ukrainian Oligarchs. The war of egos, misunderstanding, paranoia and lust typically require at least two players.
I see your point as a half of the story. The story to me is about the inevitability of the bomb. Two sides brought it there, scientific and human. The idea of chain reaction wasn't just about the physical process but the development of the field of physics and science as a whole too. The moment we uncovered the power of the atom, the bomb became inevitable. You could see that so clearly at the beginning of the movie. It wasn't an idea that only 1 man is capable of arriving at. Nope, multiple scientists from both sides of the war were capable of this. So the development of the bomb was unavoidable given the second inevitability, the human's ego. And it takes 2 to tango like the other comment said. It's because if one side gave up, there was no guarantee the other would have too. The politicians were small minded, egotistical and petty. But they were not exceptional and people like them were on both sides of the war. The bomb would ultimately be used, that is also unavoidable. If it wasn't on Japan in 1945, it would have been somewhere else at another time but there was nothing anyone on Earth can do to stop this. Oppenheimer did it so the other side couldn't have gotten their first and he did try to avoid using it but he didn't have the power to do so. The story about Strauss and Oppenheimer highlights what you say about human nature. Even in the aftermath of something so extreme, the small minded human still focus on personal vendetta, still wanting to build a bigger bomb, still forever putting their selfishness ahead of everything else. Oppenheimer was an exceptional man but people seem to think he was responsible for it all while he was just an atom in the chain reaction. Of course as an intelligent and good human being, this fact forever torn him. He never regretted what he did but he also lived with guilt until the day he died
@@JC_923 Yet it was only inevitable because of ego. Because of the power dynamics of egos, fuelling a destructive spiral. Remove the root cause and it's no longer inevitable.
@@ximono but you can't remove ego. It's part of human nature and that's why the situation was inevitable.
It's worth noting that in the scene where Oppenheimer compares the nuclear material to a sandwich, the focus not being on RDJ's character is a way to show how, in that moment, Oppenheimer isn't even thinking about him, despite that character viewing the moment as a personal battle between the two.
I guess the expectation one went with affected this movie’s perception more than usual. I didn’t go in expecting a war movie but a drama, and enjoyed the it in the big screen.
Yeah pretty much. Tons of mainstream audiences got caught up in the IMAX summer marketing of it all and likely wanted less talk and more spectacle, when it was never trying to be that. The movie's about his journey and perspective through the situation, flawed perspective or not - it's not about the war directly. Many of the very people that complain about the last 30-40 minutes being pointless or boring likely just went in ready for a different movie.
However one criticism I will have about the whole "men in suits talking in rooms" thing is that Nolan could stand to have gotten a bit more creative with the location variety. Yes, realistically, much of it was entire scenes having been edited around...but nothing is stopping a film from conveying the ideas expressed in real life meetings through the vehicle of other locations and encounters.
@@Chrisratata I kinda liked the men in suits talking style. I’m a big fan of 12 Angry Men and got some vibes of that during the courtroom/testimony scenes.
Completely agree with people confusing IMAX with spectacle. I saw it in IMAX and for me it was a “larger than life” view of the advent of quantum physics and atomic bomb.
@@juggadaaku4219 You beat me to it. 12 Angry Men is one of my favorites.
@@Chrisratata I so f-ing love it when people explain why others didn't like the movie for them.
Personally, I did not expect a war movie. I expected the thematical exploration of how the invention of nukes led to the MAD doctrine & the redefinition of the international security relations. A political thriller, if you like. I think, in a time when 2 nuclear powers are engaged (not with each other) in war with their neighbours, maybe it would be an acute subject to re-examine.
We got instead the story of an estranged man with guilt who gets torn apart by quasi nameless no-ones in history for their own political gains, because the man was a communist.
Regardless of the quality the latter was implemented (which was high), yes, I was disappointed.
@@juggadaaku4219 i loved that aspect of it too, i just feel like going back to the same exact rooms with the same exact people could've been dialed back just a small bit. Even if just one of those scenes (or you might as well call them sub-scenes) had been reappropriated to a different location with the same info reveal and same style, the balance would've been more perfect for me personally
I’ve been obsessed with this movie since it came out
The editing maybe? The pacing? The score? I don’t know but this movie is on another level to me
every element is so full, meaningful and masterfully executed. when people try to criticize it, I can understand that, but all criticism falls so flat every time :D
@@acevaptsarov8410 the movie is gracefully immersive
@@WILDCAT808 100%
Same here. I’ve watched it more than 10 times now. Truly amazing
I completely agree
two things: towards the circular idea, the visions he was having of the sun were about fusion, which was a repeat of his earlier visions of fission. He can see the same process of creating a huge power then losing control of it.
Second, I needed the line from the army guy "With all due respect, we'll take it from here." for it to really hit me that he felt the loss of control.
Socially and politically, the ground work was already laid to wrest his control away.
For what it's worth coming from a physicist; one who has fielded numerous technical questions from lay-people regarding "actual happenings" in the Manhattan project, I greatly appreciate this aesthetic interpretation of this movie. I have actually been led by your informed critic's words to extra dimensions of the movie. My family has asked me to buy a copy of it for occasional re-viewing, and I guess some re-interpretation through their eyes. I think your words of guidance will help keep on improving the total experience for me. best regards DKB
I'm a physicist and worked at Los Alamos Labs. With my inside knowledge of Los Alamos and the Manhattan Project I knew what was happening and recognized the names of various scientists. However, for an outsider, I think the film could be confusing. I've suggested to my friends to conduct some basic research into the Manhattan Project, Los Alamos, Oppenheimer, etc. before viewing the film, everything in the film will then make more sense.
On the characters with gimmicks... That scientist really did play the bongos. And the scientist who couldn't help but look at the explosion looked because he was the spy and was especially motivated to observe all details to report to the Soviets.
What, was he a soviet spy? I though he was just a wacky character.
@@ximonoKlaus Fuchs was one of 2 known soviet spies in Los Alamos
@@politedog4959 Ah, but that wasn't Fuchs in the movie, but George Kistiakowsky.
@@ximono I don't think they're referring to the character who runs out during the trinity test to see the explosion, but the character who peeks behind the cover during previous test explosions, that was Klaus Fuchs.
@@johngrizis I stand corrected then! I couldn't remember anyone else peeking in the movie.
This essay is masterful. You have given voice to a vague, inchoate impression that lurked inside me when I saw this movie. I think you nailed it.
Regarding the 'lackluster' compositions: Nolan shot this movie for IMAX, a giant screen. He adjusted his compositions for the format, resulting in frames with many characters 'crammed' in the middle. If he spread them out, you'd have a sore neck before the halfway mark.
Exactly
I can't believe I've never thought of that! Have to really rethink framing shots with that massive screen.
Nice catch! Never thought about that
I also think "worse" composition FEELS REAL as opposed to the "every frame a painting" aesthetic the video essayist mentioned. Nolan has never directed that way. That's ok as it's a stylistic choice. These compositions THEN are perfectly shot and staged as they ADD to the NOLAN aesthetic of realism.
I've felt that Nolan makes his images simple yet the most aesthetically pleasing they can be the same way a writer might do the same with their sentences. Sort of like Raymond Carver
The "don't try to understand it, feel it" and "can you hear the music" things apply to the Dark Knight trilogy as well. The Dark Knight is the perfect equation, perfectly plotted. But The Dark Knight Rises is not trying to be that. It's more about the feelings since it's circling back around to stuff Batman Begins started and focused on the character instead of the philosophical issues the Joker presents.
I definitely like the Dark Knight trilogy, but I'm not sure those movies can totally get a pass from a plotting stand point, logistically speaking. TDK in particular has a lot of instances of incredulity - like the first scene for example, one of the members of the bank robbing team shoots the alarm guy when his job is done, then a minute later, decides to literally tell another member of the team that he did that - with that team member behind him no less, like, the thought wouldn't occur to the guy that someone else on the team was told something similar, and that he would be in similar jeopardy, and especially that he would be in danger after telling that guy and not to do it in a vulnerable state? still a fun scene, but there are a lot of moments in that film and the others that are glued together by a strong need to suspend disbelief.
One of the many wonderful aspects of this movie is the simple fact that it is a movie for grown ups. Not a franchise, comic book or video game adaptation; no multi-verses, or superheroes, etc. Sure, it's a movie heavy on dialogue and men sitting in rooms. But that dialogue moves like an action scene. It never felt like a 3 hour movie. It made you feel, think, and question. Directors like Nolan and Villeneuve have brought their singular visions to screen time and time again, and let's hope they continue to do so.
it was a refreshing reminder this is what movies were before the rise of IP adaptations. and i say this as a massive superhero movie fan.
One aspect of the Prometheus myth, maybe you do know this, is that eventually Prometheus was freed from his torture and became a lackey for Zeus, but he had to wear a ring made from the stone to which he had been chained.
I didn’t know about this part. What was the ring for? Was it supposed to weigh him down?
@@DFMoray It doesn't have any magical effect. It's simply a ring. I suppose it marked him as being in thrall to Zues, and maybe a reminder that he could be sent back.
Never knew that, 🙏 thank you
How does that play into Oppenheimer?
@@scarletkingdom2359Because the film is based in the Novel "American Prometheus". And the story is basically playing of the themes of (demi)gods being punished for giving man such a powerful force that redefines what it even means to be human!
The guy with the bongo-drums was Richard Feynman.
Ohhh now it makes way more sense haha.
I knew that thanks to ‘Big Bang Theory’
Who didn't pick up the bongos until, I think, the 60s
That's a very German hyphen
@@smorrow I read his autobiography. If I remember it right he wrote that he played the bongos in the celebration after the Hiroshima bomb. Something he wasn't proud to admit later.
I initially disliked the pacing, but I understood it to be reflective of an explosive chain reaction. The music, so to speak, is that of an audible feedback loop. It's very well done in that regard.
You have to first understand that Cillian Murphy BUILT Oppy over 6 months ALONE. HE arrived on set with a fully formed character which Nolan admitted " I took the performance for granted" I didn't direct Cillian". " Cillian inhabited the character completely". Murphy created every moment and adjusted Nolan's script to fit his Oppy. Watch Murphy's filmography - he has created amazing characters for thirty years.
To address the blocking listen to Hoyte the DP on blocking for IMAX screens. The very physics of an 80ft screen that curves on the periphery forces the DP to block for the screen.
Summary of Oppenheimer: “This is a Nolan movie”
Either you die an anonymous physicist or you live long enough to start the nuclear era
if that;s the case, where is tom hardy mumbling things ??
There are so many ideas you discuss I rarely disagree with and, to the contrary, loudly celebrate as so incredibly insightful. This is truly one of the best channels on UA-cam.
I check this channel every day thinking “where is the next upload?” I’m so thankful rn
I did not click at all with Oppenheimer the first time viewing it, and given its length it is very hard to make the choice to give it another go, especially since I have never enjoyed a Nolan film for its direction. My biggest issue with Oppenheimer, at least as much as I understand it, was that it did not have any moments of emptiness or contemplation, the entire film felt like it was screaming various forms of affect at me, trying to sweep me up rather than giving me something to actually think about. To me it feels like a thing that is arguing so hard for its own importance that people eventually cave and grant it that importance whether they have found it or not. As such, it's hard for me to give it the benefit of a strong retry when I am not convinced that the "something" I find won't just be my own submission to the film's aggrandized understanding of itself.
The real history, documents and documentaries are vastly more interesting than any dramatization.
"Every frame a painting". You made me nostalgic for that channel.
he's back, believe it or not
they're back
@@dmacmcmanus95 Wow. You`re right, first post in about 8 years.
@@vik.1903 I just found out. Amazing.
You've convinced me to try again. But my main issue is with the pacing. It feels like a 3 hour montage. Cheers
This is a brilliantly wrought examination of this film.
Very well done.
Seen it multiple times. Adore it. I'm versed in the basic physics involved, the Greek mythology symbolism used, the whole Los Alamos history, and trained in the language of cinema. I have no doubt these have helped me to understand it to a degree. It's why it repays multiple viewings. A very complex work of cinematic art. ❤❤
To me the movie was about the tragedy of man’s ability to create, not just examining ambition on a personal level, but as an entire society, always barreling forward with new discoveries, good or bad, and everyone is powerless to stop it, even when they can see the writing on the wall, compartmentalizing evil they’re taking part in. So yeah basically what’s goin on right now with AI
It was also a bittersweet look at the amazing abilities of mankind, our ability to work together and get shit done, but reflexively a tragedy because that kind of cooperation just couldn’t extend between warring countries.
Personally I found the film pretty lackluster though. Some tasteful moment to moment editing and performances, but poor overall editing and story. The drama felt unfocused.
I agree with your thematic analysis for sure, but the subtlely added layer to the themes that made the experience great to me is that his growing dilemma resonated with me on a personal level... Similar to what you speak of on a societal level, individually us nerds are oftentimes motivated by being sorta self-wowed by making novel scientific advancements for the pure sake of it. Like getting drunk on crafting a beautiful painting well enough that much thought of what comes next is mostly drowned out. And even worse is how someone may then take your work and practically pervert it in ways you may not agree with.
Oppenheimer had whispers of growing concern for the consequences of his work, but he didn't truly wake up to it until his creation was being wheeled off with nothing left for him to do, and awakened even further with hearing the reports of each use of it.
Oppenheimer does both the rise and fall of the man from his subjective perspective, and the buildup/fallout of one of the most pivotal moments in history, like watching cinematic lore. I can only imagine writing a screenplay which is constantly jumping through points in time simply to paint character motivations.
In terms of rewatchability, for me it is on the same par as The Revenant. Good movies. and the first time I watched these two movies, I liked them. But I don't feel any desire to watch them again. And I don't think I ever will. The difference with Tenet is that Tenet is not a good movie. And so it's obvious why I wouldn't watch it again. Oppenheimer, like The Revenant, does not have an emotional pull. Sure, it's pretty to look at. But that's not enough to draw me in and make me want more.
For me, it’s the opposite. Mushroom clouds have always had an emotional pull for me…but this story is much more than just a dramatization of how humans created the bomb. The need for human beings to be “recognized” by their peers even when creating such evil and destructive weapons is one of the most disturbing and controversial aspect of the film. That part near the end where Strauss is having a meltdown before being denied was the best part of the movie. He was a vindictive piece of shit but he was saying the quiet part out loud. Most of the people that partook in the creation of the bomb (including Oppenheimer) were narcissistic political animals who might have felt some guilt after the fact, but the need to be recognized for “owning” the atomic bomb was the most important thing to them. This is obviously an over simplification. But the movie ultimately doesn’t answer whether Oppenheimer would have rather not been the father of the bomb…
It definitely had an emotional pull on me. The (self-inflicted) tragic story of the man, the immense destructive power unleashed on the world. How can you not be affected by that? The film was long and slow, but with an uneasy emotion running through it as an undercurrent.
Thank you for putting words to how my subconscious experienced this movie. I have struggled to do so myself. Herzog's "ecstatic truth" vs "the accountant's truth" comes to mind. The picture Nolan painted of Oppenheimer is so much more truthful than the typical biopic that strives to be historically accurate. That's what great art is capable of, to say what can't be stated plainly.
It's worth noting about Nolan's blocking that he could have been intentionally trying to capture a naturalistic representation, the kind of semi-composition you would see when looking at an archival photograph of historical events. Cinéma vérité by way of IMAX?
im glad you also thought the actual explosion itself was somewhat lacking. It wasnt just that it looked like a gasoline explosion, the scale felt off.
when watching footage of real nuclear detonations you can see they are taken from miles away and have some sense of scale as its always a giant explosion in the middle of an even more giant empty wasteland. The explosion in Oppenheimer is too zoomed in, you cant get a sense of how big it actually is
Yeah, while I don't agree with his other criticisms, or they didn't affect my experience of the film, the power of the Bomb felt underwhelming. They needed to show it from further away, but they couldn't do that, because it would have been revealed as a very large ordinary explosion. Real distance shots of the Trinity Test show its true size. Of course, it was nothing compared to the H-bomb tests that came later, but the one in the film certainly didn't feel like it could wipe out a city.
You are quite right. This is the one point where I felt CGI would have done a better job. On the other hand, the story was not about the bomb as such, but the effect it had on the people making it and the aftermath, so I didn't think it detracted too much from the film. But yeah, it _would_ be nice with a larger looking blast.
You should get an award for that ad read at the end. Idk how they do compensation, but at minimum you exceeded any expectations they could have had. Great video btw, fwiw.
Probably the best video on Oppenheimer I’ve seen to date
Was absolutely consumed by this movie last year. Saw it in 70mm IMAX film 4 times before it was out of theaters
You hit the nail on the head of “feeling the music” and this being a direct response to conforming to our brain rot templates for movies
One thing I hadn’t considered that you made me aware of is Nolan’s choice of not including real footage of events in *his* universe
Amazing work brother. Brilliantly thought out as always
The reference to Prometehus or American Prometheus is the title of a biography which the film was based on American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. To add another layer it's more of a reference to Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley as he regrets the failture to stop the Arms Race, the rejection of the Acheson-Lilienthal plan and nuclear regulation which he was very outspoken about, and how close we have come to annihilate ourselves several times. “Oppenheimer’s warnings were ignored-and ultimately, he was silenced. Like that rebellious Greek god Prometheus-who stole fire from Zeus and bestowed it upon humankind, Oppenheimer gave us atomic fire. But then, when he tried to control it, when he sought to make us aware of its terrible dangers, the powers-that-be, like Zeus, rose up in anger to punish him.”
I feel it’s held back too much and most viewers are impressed by hearing a bunch of science talk they can’t understand. Imagine with me for a second how much more impactful the movie would be if it showed the morning the bombs were dropped in Japan with all the carnage and told that part of the story as well. I can think of plenty of nerdy scenes that could’ve been cropped out to make room for that. Idk I don’t think it has much replay value. I’m probably super in the minority but it was boring. I liked Killers of the flower moon far more for movie of the year.
I actually _did_ understand the science talk. I read a book about the Manhattan Project as a teenager, and remembered enough details to understand what they were actually talking about and roughly who the scientists were. The science talk still impressed me.
Beautiful video, well written thought out and executed, i have a deeper appreciation for Nolan than i already did ... you're a gem!
Dont take this the wrong way. I do like some of Nolans movies.
But expeting the audience to invest 3h of their lifetime, several times, for multiple watches, just so that the movie can be enjoyed is imho not a mark of quality but a lack of screenwriting.
Oppenheimer is a decent movie with solid social commentary on the matter.
But whats the use of movies if i in the same time can read a biography or two about him and have more enjoyment while doing so?
You can read an entire biography on Oppenheimer in 3 hours? Impressive.
He does say 'multiple watches'.
@huntardhc2286 it's just his style, he makes movies -like Memento, The Prestige, Tenet - where his creative choice is that there's enough density that the audience will most likely pick up on different details upon multiple viewings. It's literally just a creative choice, and his movies tend to do well with audiences so it seems to be working.
@@anthonymartensen3164 idk about that.
Placing eastereggs, layered shots, out of focus details etc. is a tool that many filmmakers use. And yes: it is a sign of quality. And i would never debate that Nolan isnt a great artist in that regard.
But that is not what i am talking about.
Pacing, building and releasing tension, coherence - these are the fields where there are imho problems every now and then in his movies.
Usually they dont matter but in Oppenheimer i did notice them very clearly.
The movie feelt quite disjointed and about the last third of it felt tacked on without adding much substance.
As i said its a decent movie overall. I thoroughly enjoyed about half of the scenes. But the other half felt like unecessary padding.
I might be wrong, but i dont think that will go away on repeated watches.
Oppenheimer as an even more modern Frankenstein can apply to many biographies. That is one of the reasons the original Frankenstein became such an iconic warning of the danger of scientific change and discovery. I think Nolan is force fitting this trope into the history of the event. Christopher Nolan does what many modern film makers do; they try to emulate the successes of the past with cheap imitation than risk an original vision. In Oppenheimer he does this at the expense of history and ignores important historical questions. These questions are not merely for academics but have earth shattering implications for humans everywhere. It is sad that Nolan chose to sidestep these questions and give us this tired trope. It reminds me of James Cameron who had the opportunity to tell the story of the Titanic, one filled with real dramatic stories of sacrifice and survival, and instead turn it into boilerplate romance.
Excellent video essay! Probably the most profound discussion of the movie so far.
One thing I respect about Oppenheimer (and Nolan's films in general) is he does not shy away from the complexity and contradictions of the character. Nolan refuses to take a side, lecture, turn the movie into an agenda piece, excuse Oppenheimer or condemn him. He depicts the man as he was, with all his science, ego, ramifications and guilt.
Watched it in cinema didn’t think it was anything special, watched it at home where I could pause it and come back and absolutely loved it
I was the opposite, I was blown away in the cinema, especially with the gym scene, but was underwhelmed when I watched it as home.
makes no sense to me at all.
watched it at home and loved every second of it
So you gave in to peer pressure to like this movie. Now you believe you like it. Trust your instincts.
I think it's easier to get fully immersed in a movie at home
@@lalolanda8458 opinions change all the time, it doesn't mean he was peer pressured. I don't know what even made you assume that
I was disappointed in the movie because of bad writing. This kind of movie lives or dies by the quality of its dialogues.... and those were not well written, like at all. To contrast, take a listen to the interviews with the real Oppenheimer - there is so much thought and nuance in his turns of phrase, all of that subtlety was erased in the movie, in favor of soulless expository dialogues.
And it's obvious why that's the case. After Interstellar, Jonathan Nolan stopped co-writing scripts with his brother, all the dialogues took a hive dip in quality. Dunkirk barely had any dialogues at all, and then Tenet and Oppenheimer have characters who keep talking and talking without saying anything of value, and feel like quest-givers in an RPG. Meanwhile the actual RPG characters in Jonathan Nolan's Fallout show are more believable and relatable that real people in Oppenheimer.
What a wonderful perspective you have. Thank you.
I still haven't seen it but I feel like I would spend the whole movie comparing it to the HBO mini-series Hiroshima from the 90s. That film was very personal and lacked any bombasidy. Shot on the cheap too with lots of stock footage and interviews with veterans. I recommend it if you want more context.
They should have concentrated more on his life as a young grad student and even as a young boy growing up.
That was much more influential on his life and decision-making process as an adult man.
There’s just something about the way that Nolan’s films are edited that really puts me off. There’s no ebb and flow between scenes or conversations. It just all goes at a breakneck pace and as a result, I really struggle to connect with the characters.
For example, Oppenheimer and Kitty’s relationship goes from them meeting for the first time to them professing their love within the space of a couple of minutes. Everything on screen is telling me that they’re in love, but I just didn’t feel it. And considering how important their relationship is to the story, that’s a flaw.
And for contrast, I vividly remember really liking the scene when Oppenheimer meets Groves for the first time because it actually slowed down for a second and let the conversation breathe. It actually felt like two people talking, rather than two robots doing exposition. Sadly, those moments were few and far between.
Absolutely understandable critique, but to be devils advocate, I’d argue that very few biopics that cover any significant length of period in a persons life - and especially if there are many supporting figures moving in and out - ever manage to achieve the time of “ebb and flow” you’re seeking..
@@ManSeekingMeaning
I get that it had a lot to fit in and if it didn’t go at the pace it did, we’d have a 5 hour movie. But it’s just not something I could look past for this movie, or indeed any of Nolan’s films since Dark Knight Rises. I just can’t connect with them.
Yep, i thought the editing of Oppenheimer was an absolute mess and felt like they tried to fit 6 hours into 3. There was hardly any time to absorb any of the dialogue. I personally couldn't enjoy it at all.
Nolan is a poor director of actors. There's scarcely one dialogue scene in his entire filmography that is notably well acted and directed. Many of his films are like watching an expensively photographed, sub-standard 1970s TV show.
@@badinfluence3814 Well, the acting in Oppenheimer was probably the best part of it, but I didn't care about any of the characters which is a common thing for me when watching Nolan films. Just very mechanical directing with not much heart.
The problem with the Oppenheimer is that it's not about Oppenheimer. It's about... I don't really understand what. Or don't care - I wanted/expected to see a movie about the genius behind one of the greatest feats of modern science. A genius who managed to put together a team of other geniuses and made them work together.
As Tarkovsky's Solaris was, as Lem himself said, a 'Crime and Punishment' in space, the Nolan's Oppenheimer is reflections on the personal morals in relationship and a moral choices of society and its leaders.
You are very, very generous about this movie. It was a reasonably good film but largely unfocused and indifferently shot.
And yes, the Trinity explosion was poorly executed.
cant believe you ripped this video from the Oppenheimer bluray special features section and just uploaded it to youtube as if we wouldn't notice!
all that to say, great video! think you have perfectly captured the essence of the film and Nolan's work in general. truly the new standard for media analysis videos.
I really didn't like this movie. The historical and personal narration is rushed, shallow and feels like an adaptation of a Wikipedia article. The metaphysical visions are kitsch. The only part that was captivating was the trial because it was focused and with some depth to it.
The question is why make historical biopics at all? They're never great movies and are mostly an excuse for people not to read about history and just get a snippet from a grandiose flick. Great movies need to be more focused or much longer like lotr, but even then it's better to just read the damn book:)
I'm glad Moviewise is getting the recognition of bigger channels. He definitely has things to say and his every is a treat, just like yours.
What a beautiful, coherent, passionate, and insightful review. Really loved this and your content in general.
As a historian who started working on film production a few years ago, my problem with the script is that it fell into traps biopics often do: too much context. A biographer will already add more detail than necessary to build a better picture of the person, and the screenplay writer will often get lost in all that detail and not make enough cuts. Biopics are already very hard to edit, so we're almost always left with a lengthy film that often feels pretentious. Oppenheimer is very interesting but it does feel like it takes itself too seriously to work as just a movie.
Ive only watched oppenhiemer once, in IMAX. I completely agree with the analysis, i also believe that the characters, the themes, the story structure, etc. completely embody the characteristics of the collective conscious/unconscious. Its like the collective efforts of humanity in all aspects of what we intend to achieve are apart of one giant enveloping wave, that with each contribution from an individual, strengthens this wave we all are swept up in. Thats why on an individual scale, when given proper attention, we feel this existential dread but are not sure where it started or how it will end because it is all apart of the cyclical nature of our being. Hopefully i worded this correctly.
As always - great video.
I view Trinity test differently - for me it's a moment when we can hear Oppenheimer's music, music which despite remarks you've mentioned Oppenheimer directed. We see Trinity from his point of view - as beautiful, powerful force that's seen for the first time created by skill and knowledge and discovery. You can see glimpses of it in earlier scenes when you see the visualizations and hear the music for a brief periods when he describes issues in physics for example or when he hears an idea from someone else. But those are only glimpses, parts of Magnum Opus that he is working on
There are so many people that relate to Oppenheimer and live through him, but will never conclude to a magnitude of his impact. But with that being said, the 2023 story of him is inspiring for people that are exceptional at what they do and those who want more
"They're doomed, you know."
"Yes. But... a thing isn't beautiful because it lasts."
24:38 “The guy with the Bongo’s” = Richard Feynman as an unnamed support character was a nice Easter Egg
ua-cam.com/video/yRcOEnIOzII/v-deo.htmlsi=6VF0jFhMTp6lypbd
Edit: On a side note: There is another theory why Oppenheimer lost his security clearance - he was involved in a UFO crash retrieval, and they no longer trusted him afterwards. Here’s a talk / presentation about it.
ua-cam.com/video/LC__df-S3QM/v-deo.htmlsi=S89BIWaYkYRihCa4&t=2162
Surely you're joking
Quantum Electrodynamics!
@@smaakjeks
It's always funny to be reminded, that these people exist xD
"Mr. President there has been a UFO crash."
"GET ME J ROBERT OPPENHEIMER!"
One of the guys to have create the real theory of inversion, which Nolan took on in tenet. Impressive
What We need Is a special edition where the only thing they do Is edit out the sex scene where Oppenheimer gets the idea for the "I have become death" quote from his girlfriend reading it to him in bed, before the Manhattan project as well.. I had difficulty enjoying the movie after that with my eyes rolled fully back. I was just glad I was able to hold back letting out an audible groan.
I greatly enjoyed the BBC seven part TV series about Oppenheimer, with Sam Waterston. Decades later i remembered the scene with the "I am become Death..." quote. That series was a conventional narrative ending with the 1954 hearing where he lost his security clearance. It did not highlight his relationship with Strauss.
Having that perspective helped me get the Nolan movie first time through.
you said everything I've wanted to say for the past year and you said it better than I ever could, THANK YOU
Oppenheimer is one of the best movies I’ve seen. Fantastic film
What a brilliant essay ! You were able to grasp some layers which have escapes me and I have to say that it changed my perception of the movie in its favour. Thank you!
Cal me over-dramatic, but I cried the first time I watched the movie. As someone who's constantly keeping up with the news at that time, my tears just rushed because I thought it was Nolan's way of telling us that we are inching closer to what Oppenheimer was thinking about "setting the world on fire"
It was tears of fear.
Thank you again for wonderful analysis… I’m learning so much🌞
Nolan's dedication to realness and practical effects has also led to some criticism of Dunkirk. Nolan chose to use the actual location of Dunkirk to shoot those scenes. However, it looks quite different today than it did 80 years ago. Another location could have been used and dressed up or portions of the village could have been built on studio lots. You can see that is some of shots near where the modern monument memorializing the events there. Plus there were no CGI effects used in the evacuation scenes. The scenes depicted in movie failed to capture the huge numbers of people that were actually there in 1940 waiting to be rescued. There were tens of thousands of soldiers clustered on the beaches. The movie showed lots of empty beach with maybe several hundred or so people in total. The extra soldiers needed could have been filled in with CGI ones at least in the wide angle shots of the beaches.
Kitty: “You think because you let them tar and feather you that the world will forgive you? They won't.”
Robert: “We’ll see.”
This is probably the most cheeky fourth wall break in Nolan’s catalogue. It is also played so splendidly straight by Murphy that it doesn’t result in an over the top wink.
I'm so glad you came back to Oppenheimer a year later, Tom, as I have been thinking about it still since last July and I rewatched it about a week ago to see how I felt about it. On the latest rewatch, I felt haunted, moved, and terrified with some of its parts, but found it to be clumsy, difficult, obtuse, and requiring alot of patience (perhaps much the same as Nolan presents Oppenheimer himself). And yet, I am forgiving of its (many) flaws, because it's made by a director whose ideas and feelings I love and resonate with. Interstellar is another difficult, obtuse, and clumsy movies in many ways, and yet it left me moved long after watching it. I think Nolan can get away with alot in my book at least, because I see what he is aiming for as his end goals: the huge ideas about humanity, the nature of existence, of good and evil. So, it was a slog to rewatch Oppenheimer. But, I will rewatch sometime again in the future, and again after that, and it will still leave me haunted and upset as it did after the first watching. Because I appreciate that through its difficult 3 hour runtime, it's a metamorphosis from being unable to escape from the extraordinary awe and beauty of the universe in all the myriad ways that it exists to being unable to escape the extraordinary weight and horror of having unleashed unimaginable death and suffering onto the human race. This metamorphosis is like being human in a crystallized sense: we're curious, we awe, we wonder, we want to understand. And in our pursuit of understanding, we are horrified by what what we learn (and cannot unlearn).
So I wanted to address 19:10 in the video. It’s not that Nolan doesn’t want to use historical records to portray the movie accurately, but rather recreates the scenes based from actual recordings and photos. In fact we see nearly every other scene in Oppenheimer as a recreation of a certain photo or video of either the Manhattan Project, or Oppenheimer’s life. It’s his way of assuring us this is real, while still sticking to his methods.
For me personally, all the characters reacting to the A Bomb detonation were at the heart of the effect.
Thank you, Tom. Especially for your points on composite characters which I’ve become more conscious of in this century.
I'm so sick of people complaining about the lack of the Japanese perspective. The film is about OPPENHEIMER, not about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan! it's an intrinsically subjective film, chronicling the Oppenheimer's journey. He did not see the bombs used, so neither should we.
This was such a great video !😭🩷
Loved it on first watch a year ago in theaters. It only gets better on rewatches because you can better understand the interconnected pieces and names thrown around.
Man, I'm just glad I watched this movie in the theater. ❤
This is an excellent essay.
I like the fact that Nolan uses a ton of characters like happened in real life, this helps to understand the dimensions of the Manhattan project.
As always, your videos are incredibly articulated and engaging. But I think the torture of the main character of the film is not related to his decisions, but to his intelligence. Regardless of what he would have ended doing, life would have been hell for him. He saw the world, both in the small and the very large, the beginning of the universe and the end of time, the rational, physical, sexual, metaphysical, cultural and spiritual of the world around him. Throughout the movie you see an amazing fully rounded intellect struggling to find meaning in a world of normal people. Now that's pain, right there...
My third viewing was my favorite as well. The first viewing was needed to reset my expectations. The second viewing was to work through the machinations of the story structure, and to sort out the characters and some of the themes. The third viewing was to experience it.
I prefer when biographies are factual and let you create your own opinion instead of a creative reinterpretation, to me Ophenheimer is the movie equivalent to the musical Hamilton, a Fictional story loosely based in the life of an historical person.
I stopped the video at 22 minutes. I think the best questions is "Can you hear the music?" It's not only Oppenheimer's question to answer from a contemporary he greatly admired and saw as the future of the study but also the question to us as the audience. His question to us is two fold - 1) do we believe Oppenheimer could hear the music and 2) do we understand what "the music" is? Do we understand? I do - it's the ability for Oppenheimer for himself for us through Noland to witness and gain cursory understanding about what Oppenheimer and his contemporaries were envisioning. The first question is "Can you hear the music?" The second question is for Oppenheimer and through his experience to us - what does it mean to be a modern prometheus?
Do we hear the music and what does it mean to be the one who brought man fire? The music is amazing and enticing. The chase for the study, understanding and producing a working model of this which has near unlimited power but cannot be seen is romantic and intriguing. For us (not me) to release what Truman refers to as 'the power of the universe' is a high point in quantum physics (from an outsider perspective). To be along on this journey of intellectual discover and witness the reward of a success - is both exciting and horrifying. We live with this question of science and technology everyday - from self driving cars to Ai - but do we want to return to an age where we didn't have airplanes or the Internet? All progress comes with questions of how we will use it and then the practical aspect of how it is actually used. These questions could be for former English Majors or historians or ethicists drinking wine and discussing the film after a viewing. Yes, I do hear the music - and in the 1980's - as we went from build more missiles to nuclear arms reduction - it was scary. How we lived through the 1980's until now is nothing more than a miracle delivered not by those following protocol but by those hitting the pause button as our world stood at the brink and decided to step back from the abyss.
What is a modern prometheus and what are the consequences? This is the second question and deals more with Oppenheimer's experience than history. We see the intellectual wonder of a student gradually turn to dread. It needed to be made and he was the man to make it but at what cost? "You know how I said it might destroy the world - I believe we did." We witness 1% of what he really felt for it's impossible - or at least very difficult - to attach what he might have felt to a film.
Composition: The film was made for a huge screen. The compositions were made for multiple future formats with primary focus on a 2 story screen where Nolan wanted the audience's focus to be in the middle of the frame with visual context added outside of the center. The IMAX screen is said to be almost too big - an audience could get lost trying to follow the action across it. Many modern action films - including Mad Max Fury Road - are shot with this consideration. An IMAX film with great composition would epic in scope but would also require a slower pacing. Imagine a slower version of Oppenheimer - leaning on the picture over the story pacing. This "composition cut" would be 3.5 - 5 hrs? Instead we are given a breezy flow which carries a cerebral and emotional story while sacrificing the Directory of Photography's "grand scope" shots. I would argue the Nolan's vision carried out by his band of merry men ("Robin Hood" - modern would be "people") was more than successful. We were given story over picture and were left with the dread Nolan wanted us to leave with.
Setting: In today's age of "how can we wow the audience with a brain chemical high more than the last person did" we were given a return to the 1940's world as practical as Nolan gave us - which is exceedingly practical. Olive drab green, 1920's wood trains, austere classrooms with chalkboard technology - one wonders how all of this was even possible. In this modern age where many cannot navigate their own metro area without the aid of GPS - one could argue this 1940's world - recreated - is as exotic and exhilarating as the best CGI and virtual camera we have today. While the bomb explosion might have not been as grand as a CFI - virtual camera - one could argue it was as described by those who witnessed it.
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate your thoughts and words on Nolan and this film - but sometimes - it's the song in our head - it's the haunting last look into Oppenheimer's eyes that leaves us with the question of the fire he gave us. To quote Gladiator, "Are you not entertained?!" Instead of cheering at the fight of the gladiators - maybe we are left with a deep understanding of what war actually looks like. In Oppenheimer - we are left with the haunting vision of the fire - the world ending weapon or the threat of this - that continues to haunt our world.
Thank you. I believe I'll give this film a try now.
Adore this film, have seen it numerous times now in the theaters and incorporated the soundtrack into my weekly playlist. Nolan just brings so much to the table with this one and the cast is able to capitalize on it in such authentic ways. Perfectly paced, intense, but genuine. I think the vision for the work is quite clear too.
awesome video. I think it's worth noting that Nolan intentionally left out everything "outside" of Oppy's field of view, because this movie is explicitly from his perspective and Strauss's. Hence why they didn't show the bomb dropping in Japan... Oppy didn't see it he only heard about it and that's what happens in the movie. I think it is a great creative choice. Scares the audience with what we don't see.
I've now seen it a score of times and I love it. My favorite storyline in the entire movie, though, has to be Kitty and Robert--such a profoundly human relationship for someone as deified as Oppenheimer.
I finally watched the movie and found that it succeeded in one respect very well. It managed to keep me interested in the main Character and wanting to know how things were going to work out in the end. The story is a highly complex one that involved thousands of people and yet they managed to narrow it down to a highly personal story that encapsulated the high stakes involved at the time. The use of the atom bomb on the people of Japan to bring an early end to the war has to be analyzed in context with the war as a whole. Although I share the horror of unleashing this bomb on a civilian population, the cities involved did have vital war manufacturing facilities within them which are downplayed somewhat in the movie. The fact that Tokyo was deliberately not targeted and the reasoning for that are omitted from the film. To truly grasp the viciousness of the Empire of Japan you need to study their occupation of Korea and China. In America for some reason not much is taught in our history classes about the Empire of Japan's occupation which started in 1931. Once you discover the truly horrific things that happened during this occupation you will better understand the reasoning that went into using the bomb to end the war. War is hell on earth and it always tries men's souls let us hope and pray we never endure another world war!
The story of Oppenheimer and the development of the atomic bomb has been well documented and I had the advantage of reading many books about the subject since the mid 70's. Nolan's film is very well done and is sufficiently deep and accurate, leaving many viewers a bit confused, I get that. I say to those folks to do some research first about this incredibly important time in history and maybe they will "get" what it's about.
My take on Oppenheimer is that below all the effects and the plots, it's an inquiry of the american mind to try to validate if socialism and european values is good or not. This is why the film goes on for 30 minutes after the bomb climax, and why so much emphasis is put on politics, and communist idealists plotting around pre-ww2.
Would you choose to live it again, knowing what you know. That’s a tough one, without pre cognition or ability to change fate
Feynman did a talk entitled "Los Alamos From Below" in which he describes what it was like to be a minor but not minor cog in the project. It's easy to find. Recommended.
Nolan is a showman at end of the day. He has mastered taking any subjects and cater to satisfy his taste with saucy ingredients of music/sound and serves to audience. He naturally falls somewhere in between an arthouse and mainstream which mostly works in his favor.
Just to hear the question “..is causality a human construct…” 31:49, makes this film a winner.
As I sat in the Theater, I couldn't help but wonder
If like, Thors & Thorfinn, in "Vinland Saga"
That Oppenheimer, after realizing what he had help Create, if he started down the Path of Becoming a "True Warrior".
It's Too Much to Articulate Here, but
I Imagine that you'd be able to Ascertain what I'm trying to Convey
As Always, Excellent Work 🙏🏾
Personally, while watching the movie, I was constantly reminded of exurb1a's video about nuclear bombs, their history and potential future. Those reminder's were the words, at the back of my mind saying either "We have discovered a 24th century technology in the 20th" and "The bulletin of the atomic scientists devised a doomsday clock where midnight symblozes complete nuclear apocalypse. Right now, we are 100 seconds to midnight". For me these thoughts were enforced by politicians and other people (both in the movie and real life) that were not interested in the science/non violent utilization of the bomb demonizing/abusing those that did not want to use the destructive potential of the bombs.
It was one year ago??? How time flies 😮
Oppenheimer, despite it's runtime, felt like it was always in such a hurry to tell a story that it forgot to actually tell a story.