OPPENHEIMER (2023)
Christopher Nolan's latest venture into science and history is a heady mixture. A disturbing blend in which the retelling of real life events collides with a character study of a complicated man. It's also a self indulgent three hour biopic that covers perhaps more court room drama than world changing physics experiments and atomic weapons. The sometimes relentless music, the occasionally stilted dialogue, and the perhaps misjudged time shifting narrative are all hallmarks of the director at this stage. But does it succeed in reaching emotional criticality or is it a non-starter? Is it more like the mechanical precision of Dunkirk or more of the confused ramblings of Tenet? It's a tough one to digest to say the least, with some extreme highs and a few low points along the way.
It's a tale of two duelling narratives as the rather brief opening title cards inform the audience. One is in colour to reflect the perspective and memory of scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy). The other is the potentially historical or documented side of things led by Atomic Energy Commission head Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr). Perhaps one sees the bigger picture in a wider spectrum, or perhaps one is simply more objective. Then again perhaps they're both skewed just for different reasons. Beyond the dramatisation of the first nuclear weapons test and elements of the Red Scare it's a character study of how these different egos operate. Both take the events of the story personally but in radically different ways. But as the title suggests this is really only about one man.
Still, this overarching dichotomy extends to the problems in the film as a whole. One half is visually creative, chilling, and occasionally stomach churning. The other is awkward, overly long, and denoted by the occasional odd line delivery. The shifting colour and visual style of the drama sometimes recalls Oliver Stone's JFK, perhaps intentionally, but a direct name drop recalls Back to the Future, perhaps unintentionally. Oppenheimer's famous quote from Hindu scripture is included via an incredibly odd and contrived moment. Nolan's use of sound design and miniature photography is incredible, but his insistence practical effects in some cases reduces the horror and scale of the White Sands detonation.
Of course it's clear that this isn't a spectacle in the usual sense, it's a story about the horrors that these events would culminate in. Besides, nobody involved would want to replicate images from the disturbing high point of Twin Peaks: The Return or the disastrous fourth Indiana Jones movie. The nuclear implosion device is given a hypnotic quality in flashes of Oppenheimer's imagination early on, something which also showcases flashes of electrons and visions of astronomy. It's these visual parts of the narrative that have the biggest impact, where the story is shown and not told. The beauty and potential of the scientific world soon falls away as the same mind focuses on a single project. The real high points of the story are the unbearable tension as weapons tests loom; and when the subsequent mental fallout begins.
In terms of the build up Ludwig Goransson does a great job replicating the kind of never ending pulsing and ticking build ups you'd expect from Hans Zimmer. This kind of score, blending synthesized tones and classical strings, is nothing new at this stage but it's very good nonetheless. The sound mix does occasionally drown out voices but it at least feels purposeful this time around. Eardrums will be shocked by the way it's used in tandem with some surprising jump scare type detonations. When all of these elements are in sync this is a horror story after all, one about scientists in black goggles creating unstoppable monsters. Nothing is shown of the Second World War here, but feeling the impact of how the campaign in the Pacific ended is unavoidable.
The rest of the story meanwhile shows far too much of hearings and committees. Oppenheimer's affairs and social circles have consequences, just as his work on nuclear fission did. But it's often an unbalanced affair that leads the narrative into a tiny room where counsel Robert Robb (Jason Clarke) grills a series of government employees. Make no mistake the ensemble who are brought in are all excellent. The cast is massive and it's impossible to name all the stand out faces playing real life people. But that tiny room and others like it are still very small, perhaps too small for even the IMAX cameras to fit inside at times. Which again points to the paradox of the way the story is told and the way it was shot.
Are the results a mixed bag or do they have some eventual stability? Overall it's undeniable that there are too many peaks in the drama to call this a let down. Even the smallest roles, in the scope of this version of events, are often memorable thanks to great performances and character complexity. Some actors have just a single scene to deliver something with a large impact, and they all get their opportunity. There's sometimes a sense, like with lunar biopic First Man, that the big events everyone knows about from recordings and archival material are being downplayed so that the human drama can take centre stage. But in a story about technology and mathematics are so many party scenes necessary? Perhaps not in some cases.
In the end it's a very flawed experience that needed a tighter focus. But as a story that reflects the irresistible nature of ambition and the thirst for knowledge, followed by the nightmare of a new world after opening Pandora's Box, it's all very well realised. Whether it's one man's monumental guilt or the dilemma faced by scientific minds working for higher powers, or when they're discarded, the major threads do eventually coalesce after some meandering. When it really comes together the results are shattering. Some parts are like disparate particles that can feel disconnected, but there are many others that fuel a chain reaction which is impossible to look away from. With more discipline it could be far greater than the sum of these parts, or perhaps Nolan's greatest work, but as it stand it's a good addition to the director's catalogue.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
THE SUPER MARIO BROS MOVIE (2023)
As for a film without a hint of depth here's the latest iteration of Super Mario Bros. There are no moral dilemmas or intricately delineated personalties here. Of course it was never going to have them, and not every animated movie around will reach the heights of Ratatouille and Up. But this barely meets the level of more recent Pixar fare which is odd to say the least. Why not try at least and give audience members of all ages something to enjoy? Even more odd is the way this is written like the 1993 Mario film starring Bob Hoskins, in which real world Manhattan is the starting point. Considering the number of Easter eggs hidden in each scene it feels like they were too lazy to play some videogames and work out the details in a more faithful way.
It's crammed with ideas from Mario Kart and Donkey Kong but everything is just slightly off. Maybe it's the way that a perfectly good score by Brian Tyler and Koji Kondo was canned so they could shoe-horn in the likes of A-ha. Beyond the lack of real plot and the lack of character the music was swapped out to remind everyone that this is a product first and foremost. Side-lining this kind of creative passion and using a string of saleable jukebox tunes is indicative of the whole problem. If they wanted to appeal to long time fans it needed a better story in line with the numerous RPG titles in the franchise. If they wanted to appeal to everyone then should have been constructed properly to have things like simple character arcs and basic human drama.
It's not all bad but it falls short of mediocrity thanks to all these odd decisions. When things are moving at full speed it's a fun action adventure with colourful worlds and likeable voice acting. It's just strange that Mario and Luigi (Chris Pratt and Charlie Day) aren't together much during what could have been a very straightforward heroes journey. It's not a pseudo-Blade Runner nightmare like the one from thirty years ago. Then again it's easy to avoid a headache inducing feature in which every single choice is a mystery thanks to endless behind the scenes drama. But it's all so flimsy in ways that are often mind boggling. Re-inserting the original score might salvage some of its charm but it would still end up being strangely weightless.
2/5
