Oppenheimer

10 Million In previews. The fifth biggest of the year.

With Barbie which did 22 million in previews. This is the first time 2 movies have done $10M+ in previews on the same day. This weird Friendly Fandoms thing has proven dividends.

Has anyone else commented on the length of this movie?To me three hours is an insane runtime.

Its typical "big epic biopic length", really.

Yep. Though, unlike most of the times I've watched movies of that length, I didn't feel the time too much. So the pacing felt good. I was surprised the degree to which I was sucked into it all.

Pacing was good I agree. It's only feels like a slog when the time isn't well spent, and this was time well spent.

So, this is an interesting point. I may have heard a chuckle in my theater at that point, but I couldn't honestly say, as I found that moment quite effecting, in an almost classical tragic sense. Oppenheimer has this one chance to salvage what he thinks is the good that can come out of this, an audience with the most critical player, and he, the great salesman, whiffs it entirely, due to the flaw in his character, the certainty that everything about this is his responsibility, even as he denies his power.

I didn't really particularly read it as Oppenheimer's flaw. I read it as a tragic beat, but not one of character flaw.

What I saw was a man of ethics and science desperate on the hope that, by meeting the man leading the country, he might find someone to whom would be a kindred spirit- or at least someone he might feel more comfortable holding the reigns on "a weapon that could destroy the world". Someone that, even if all the military types want to leverage bombs against any opposition like hammers to nails, the president might be in his corner.

And he's not. He's yet another man who speaks callously of the cities they bombed like it was nothing. It's not something thought critically of. It's a beat that send Oppenheimer into his spiral of character flaws because his pain and horror becomes his obsessive need for control and access and so on. I don't think the beat is his flaw in of itself?

But... I think he did find a kindred spirit; a mirror... but one who took that trait in the opposite direction. Where Oppenheimer's martyring was a matter of self-loathing and self-flagellation and destroying himself with self-appointed responsibility to be in control at all times, Truman took that martyring as "I am the one they'll say is responsible..." (i.e. I am the one who launched the bomb, they don't care who created it) "...and I am indifferent to that". Truman sees the blood on his hands and it's just a day of the week ending in 'y'; What am I responsible for? Sure. Fine. It's the job.

Or, at least, that was the impact I had and reeled from that scene. I'd have to watch again (something I'm unlikely to do as I tend to not watch movies with too heavy of subject matter more than once, especially long ones) to see if it's an interpretation that holds up to the text, but I felt like I saw Oppenheimer show his vulnerability; I think this is even the first time on screen he really vocally confesses his pain and horror at what happened... and to be then shut down completely and called a crybaby for it?

It's horrible.

My jaw actually dropped at that line.

The audience laughed at that line.

And, in that moment, I wanted to slap half the audience.

Edited by InkDagger on Jul 22nd 2023 at 3:02:33 AM

> The audience laughed at that line.

this sounds like a job for..the Usher!

Edited by Ultimatum on Jul 22nd 2023 at 12:58:24 PM

Not gonna lie, having Robert say the famous "Destroyer of Worlds" line after a sex scene is funniest shit to ever happen in a Christopher Nolan movie.

They had to get "..And now I have become death destroyer of worlds!" in there somewhere

But they played it in the proper context later, so this just looks goofy.

But since the actual meaning of the phrase is about carrying out your duty (https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/23/oppenheimer-gita/ ) a point which returns throughout his relationship with Jean, in many, many messed up ways, I actually thought it made sense, though only in retrospect.

x5 Whereas I would say that his complaint about having blood on his hands is in fact indicative of the arrogance and hubris which Oppenheimer carried himself throughout his life. He has this meeting to try to argue for arms control, which is at least arguably why he did stuff like push for targeting a city rather than a demonstration strike, to prove the weapons too terrible to use more broadly.

But meeting with the man who was responsible for the actions of his country and who was obliged to protect it, the argument he makes is 'I feel I have blood on my hands,' which is absolutely a legitimate feeling and the absolutely inevitable consequence of leading a country. You will, even if you do everything exactly 'right' which is impossible, have blood on your hands. And so, he instantly disqualifies himself from any influence on Truman's position.

Whether Oppenheimer reveals true vulnerability, or is simply attempting to manipulate, is impossible to know, but either way it didn't work. Now, I think his goal was probably doomed from the beginning, there was not going to be an enforceable and reliable arms control treaty between the US and the USSR, let alone the rest of the world. Which makes it a bit hard.

I can see why he wanted that, why he hoped it would do that, but...it didn't happen and I doubt it ever could have, which minorly undercuts the stakes.

On the 'crybaby' line, it can definitely be read as tension breaking after the total failure and harsh rebuke of Oppenheimer probably genuine (even if it comes from a place of massive arrogance) pain and doubt, but it's more effecting to for the rest of the line "don't let that crybaby in here again" (I think). It's a door closing, Oppenheimer burnt his credibility and influence with Truman on a pyre of his own arrogance.

I'd also disagree with your interpretation of Truman. It's not that "He's yet another man who speaks callously of the cities they bombed like it was nothing. It's not something thought critically of." He's a man who knows that he (or his predecessor) was responsible for killing a hell of a lot more Japanese than the those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and declines to let the fact that Oppenheimer believes he had a part in those deaths as opposed to the ones in Tokyo, or the rest of Japan, cause him to focus on them.

And he's definitely thinking critically about the consequences, that's the point of the meeting, which Oppenheimer blows completely.

Popping in out of my screening to agree that saying “I am become death” to Florence Pugh’s boobs is certainly A Choice.

I haven’t fully formed an opinion on the rest of the film (lunching before the Barbie showing haha). I think I could have done without the Robert Downey Jr bits?

Oppenheimer can easily be painted as the villain making victims out of many people, but it wasn’t until later I found out he was Jewish. Which could paint quite a different perspective once one realizes that, considering Nazi Germany being active during his lifetime.

Yeah,I had no idea Oppenheimer was Jewish until just now

The one thing I never knew about Oppenheimer until I saw this movie was that he was also placed under scrutiny after World War II as the Red Scare followed; Lewis Strauss not helping in that regard.

Edited by HallowHawk on Jul 22nd 2023 at 12:51:46 PM

There was also, of course, some scientists from Hungary and Germany who discovered and elaborated on nuclear fission (what I understand is the core essence of what makes nuclear bombs so deadly) before Oppenheimer ever came into the picture. But def one of the more interesting facts is how there was an attempt to warn the White House about how they should build nuclear bombs before Nazi Germany did, and that nobody would seriously listen until Albert Einstein vouched for the proposal in a latter, implicating Einstein into all of this along with Oppenheimer.

Just came back from viewing it. This was, and I do not use this word lightly, a masterpiece. Some of the most gripping cinema I've ever watched. A master class in how to make a biopic. The movie starts out strong and never lets go, even though it goes on for another hour after the money-shot. It weaves political drama, science history, and character study so expertly it kept me on the edge of my seat through.

It's amazing how it pulls you into the emotional state of the characters. For example, I was super excited when the Trinity test happened, I had the biggest banana of a grin. How I felt mirrored the excitement of the scientists. But it quickly gave way to the creeping realization that this is a weapon that will be used on people, and might destroy the world. And I mean, I knew all of that already, but again, the movie just pulls you in. Never a dull moment.

I had a weird amount of fun seeing all those famous scientist show up. It might sound weird, but it kinda felt like a Marvel movie in that respect. Like, "Oh shit, Einstein comes out of the shadows like Nick Furry!".

Even though the movie basically on two tracks, both of them felt integral. The conflict between Oppenheimer and Strauss might seem petty compared to the creation of the bomb, but I think that was the point. It shows how petty people can be, even when confronted with the awesome power that could doom us all. Even the people who are supposed to be in charge of it!

Really, I could say much, more, but it would probably turn into an incoherent rant. Suffice to say, 10/10. This was some prime cinema.

Hope this films major box office success. Means we get that Einstein biopic. Like a really good one would be fascitnaing to watch

There's also the Moving the Goalposts that Oppenheimer has Fridge Horror about.

"A nuclear bomb is so terrifying, it will end war."

"Hey, you know what would be awesome? A hydrogen bomb!"

"We can't use a plane for that."

"One word: ROCKETS!"

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 22nd 2023 at 3:07:32 AM

Might have to be an agree to disagree, but that's what I read off the portrayal. Oppenheimer had to correct him about the details and the man made jokes before Oppenheimer's serious demeanor became the focus. It established, for me, a characterization of callous disregard.

I guess saying he doesn't thing critically is the wrong way to put it. I suppose I could phrase it as, a man who has to think critically day in and day out that, for him, cities cannot be anything more than a name on a map with a number because that's what every day is about.

I read his rebuke as "No one cares who made the bombs because I dropped the bomb and I've dropped dozens upon dozens of others on a weekly basis". A 'You have blood on your hands? My body is coated in it so deep it doesn't compare'. That Truman thinks Oppenheimer is a 'crybaby' because Oppenheimer can't handle bloody hands while Truman's body is coated in the blood of his decisions? There's so much blood you can't care about it.

It's also kind of just how he was. Truman was known to be a sort of informal guy, perhaps to the point of being crude. He also had a bit of a temper and tended to speak off the cuff, and was definitely not an eloquent man.

There's definitely an Alternate Character Interpretation there.

Which is Truman being needlessly cruel to Oppenheimer or annoyed that he's engaged in Moral Myopia and a LOT more people died than just the bombs, including in the Invasion of Okinawa and firebombing of Tokyo?

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 22nd 2023 at 7:56:05 AM

I think Truman's position is simultaneously and somewhat contradictorily 'I'm swimming in blood and you're whinging at me about blood on your hands?' and 'There's no blood on your hands, it's all on me.'

But here's the thing, regardless, making the statement instantly burned his credibility, because whether he's claiming the right/responsibility to independent nuclear decisionmaking or making a moral statement that he has committed a sin/crime/mistake, either way he's telling Truman 'you can't trust me to make what you think (rightly or not) are the hard decisions.'

Which is an absolute disaster, since he's there to try to convince the man to work with him on arms control at a time when the US is the only party with the bomb. What he absolutely had to do was convince Truman that he was a realist who could get the job done. Which was a reputation he had walking into that room, as the man behind Los Alamos. And then he set it all on fire.

Indeed and the one place where the security commission had a point (besides the whole Chevalier incident and covering up for it) was that moral question. Oppenheimer remained convinced of the greatness and righteousness of his actions in inventing the atom bomb, then has a fit over the H bomb for reasons which are very ambiguous and leave him open to exactly the accusation of jealousy and unwillingness to move forward.

I think the film intends us to read that as him being unable/unwilling to admit the atom bomb was a mistake, but his scruples generally seem to have a tendency to...align with his interests. I mean, to be fair, this is also a movie which basically opens with him deciding to poison his tutor, then changing his mind belatedly.

Edited by ECD on Jul 22nd 2023 at 7:27:15 AM

Still, Truman was flat out wrong in his position that the Soviets wouldn't develop a bomb of their own.

In fact, they knew about atomic weapons before Truman thanks to spies like Fuchs, Morris Cohen and the legendary Perseus.