“Oppenheimer,” Or How I Began To Worry About the Bomb

Christopher Nolan has made the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer – the “American Prometheus” as a 2005 book dubs him – into a parable about the seemingly inexplicable human ability to connect scientific innovation with political power. It is, further, an examination of the bargains genius makes with morality to manipulate our world through technology. The film is, on top of all that, a character study of how a man seeks to destroy himself before he can be destroyed by others.

Such a description makes the film sound preachy and eggheaded. Make no mistake how thrilling and entertaining “Oppenheimer” is as it propels through an epic three-hour run time. That there is – at minimum – three Oscar nominations among its massively talented and fully-realized cast. That, for a biopic largely set in laboratories and drawing rooms, the film is gorgeously shot. It is a grand example of storytelling at its most complex.

I’ll do my best to justify the hyperbole. As much as I love reading about history, Oppenheimer is not someone whose story I knew in much detail and there are elements of the film best left for you to discover if you do not know them, either. The broad strokes I will recount: A young wunderkind theoretical physicist (Cillian Murphy, in a towering performance) catches the attention of the US government seeking to build the “weapon to end all wars.” Sure, he has some pretty left-leaning activism in his past but all the more to keep him in line. Or so the thinking of military supervisor Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) goes. But when you hire someone for their otherworldly mind, there’s going to be a little bit of well-intentioned (and maybe not so well-intentioned) insubordination along with it.

A secret community with a secret research lab is built in the wilds of New Mexico. An atomic bomb is conceptualized, pondered, created, and detonated. But, to quote my buddy who attended the press screening as my guest, it says a lot about your movie when the dropping of a nuclear weapon happens at the end of Act Two and there’s no narrative letdown moving forward.

For “Oppenheimer” is not just about a brilliant scientist and an invention that altered the dynamic among nations for nearly eighty years and counting. It is about the scientific and policy machinations that led to this innovation. To quote Nolan’s script, Oppenheimer could not separate his feelings about physics and politics. Both were about revolution to a certain degree; something that attracted him to the American Communist Party until he claims the neutrality its leaders preached in World War II betrayed his feelings about fellow Jews at the will of the Nazis. Which, in part, allowed the scientist to set aside moral feelings about creating a weapon of mass destruction.

Or about the complicated nature of the relationship between Oppenheimer and the Atomic Energy Commission’s Lewis Strauss that makes up much of the tension of the film’s dramatic thrust. As played by Robert Downey’s Jr., it cannot be understated how much fun it is to watch this great actor flex his muscles in one of his few non-Iron Man parts in the past 15 years.

These dynamics raise challenging thoughts for the audience; something that should be aspirational even for the most entertaining of Hollywood fare. There are questions to our relevant time of how scientists and science are manipulated in the debate for the public interest. Should politicians leave doctors and professional off-limits? Or is it a necessary evil that leads to a better society in the long-term. Perhaps the prolonged attacks on science during the COVID pandemic – while seemingly a sign of a devolution of political rhetoric – will foment greater enlightenment down the road.

Moreover, as we watch engineers and computer scientists grapple with A.I. as an example, have we learned anything since the dawn of the nuclear age when our very minds can unleash our destruction? Or is the destruction as manageable as the creations themselves? If Oppenheimer created an atomic bomb and it did not lead to mutually-assured destruction because of efforts from people just as smart and committed, can’t the same thing be said for people who believe computers learning to think on their own can also be controlled?

For the record, I am very worried about that but was less worried after watching this film. So if you are a robot thinking of coming after me, perhaps let’s watch “Oppenheimer” together and be buddies, instead!

I digress. These are question Nolan does not have intentions to answer. But the fact he has delivered a story that challenges us to think this with a lavish cast of characters and a scope that rivals David Lean makes it all the more of an accomplishment. If you believe moviegoing is on its last leg, and it may very well be, the filmmakers here make a great closing argument about the potential for wonder wrapped up in a splashy $100 million studio picture.

It boggles the mind that “Oppenheimer” will not be the best film of the year. If it’s not, we’re in for some real cinematic miracles over the next five months.

James Owen is the Tribune’s film columnist. In real life, he is a lawyer and executive director of energy policy group Renew Missouri. A graduate of Drury University and the University of Kansas, he created Filmsnobs.com, where he co-hosts a podcast. He enjoyed an extended stint as an on-air film critic for KY3, the NBC affiliate in Springfield, and now regularly guests on Columbia radio station KFRU.

This article originally appeared on Columbia Daily Tribune: “Oppenheimer,” Or How I Began To Worry About the Bomb