•
Rating: Is it legitimate to atrociously sacrifice the lives of 200,000 people with the certainty that such an act will put an end to a war?
This is not a theoretical question, as is well known: it is the greatest ethical dilemma humanity has ever faced (August 1945: Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
And it is the first trace of the innumerable ones scattered in the film “OPPENHEIMER” by Christopher Nolan. It was necessary to pre-empt the Nazis (initially leading in the construction of the atomic bomb), and this is the path the American physicist embarks on – supported by a team of skilled scientists, even from Europe – initially not entirely aware of the possible implications of his success. As the race for the weapon of mass destruction progresses – at the Los Alamos base, raised from nothing solely for this purpose – progress goes hand in hand with the apocalyptic visions that plague Oppenheimer, until the moment when Nazi Germany surrenders. Japan is not working on any atomic weapon but, while its surrender is not forthcoming, the bomb is ready.
In one of the most dramatic moments of the film, the highest levels of U.S. politics – with the lucid cynicism that distinguishes the governments of superpowers – explain why two bombs are necessary: the first will show the world that the USA has “the weapon,” the second that it can be used as many times as needed to achieve final surrender. Needless to say, the prediction proves dramatically accurate: after Nagasaki, Japan will surrender unconditionally.
And what about Robert Oppenheimer's pangs of conscience? Dismissed by President Truman (played by Gary Oldman, amazing as usual despite appearing in the film for just a few minutes): reclaiming the scene at the crucial moment, he will remind the scientist that he is only the one who created the bomb, but it is the President who decides where and when to drop it, to make it truly exist (and this before dismissing the scientist and ordering the Secretary of State not to let him see that “crybaby” again).
As expected, politics is the second (inevitable) trace of the film: not surprisingly, regarding the unfolding of the plot, the main thread of the film revolves around the inquiry that, after the war, will be conducted on Oppenheimer's communist sympathies and the possible responsibilities of those who appointed him head of the project, in an internal clash within American politics (in reality, while fighting the Nazis, the U.S. government was already aware that the real danger in the coming years would come from the Soviet Union). The ethical dilemma on the atomic bomb, Nolan seems to say, in terms of complexity is nothing compared to the dilemmas the high levels of politics can flounder in, sometimes like pigs in mud.
As anticipated, countless are the traces suggested by “Oppenheimer” (those familiar with Nolan – from “Memento” to “Inception,” from “The Dark Knight” to “Interstellar” – know it is his distinctive way of making films): I do not intend to go beyond the two already identified, which in my opinion constitute the substantial backbone of the film. In any case, there are moments when science also becomes pragmatic: “razor-sharp” is the scene where Oppenheimer conveys to his friend Albert Einstein all the doubts related to triggering a chain reaction that could destroy the planet; if the calculations demonstrate this conclusion, replies the now-elderly scientist, it will suffice to share it with the Nazis and no one will have the courage to drop anything. Farsighted, one might say: the fact that the atomic bomb (now much more destructive) is a deterrent before being a weapon – as noted at a certain point in the film – is testified by the fact that after Nagasaki no one has intended to use it except as a threat.
Ultimately, if you are looking for a reason to see the film, I cannot say if it is entirely convincing from a cinematic point of view, but I have very few doubts about its value in historical-political reconstruction.
P.S.: decades have passed since Sting asked "How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer’s deadly toy" (Come posso salvare il mio bambino dal giocattolo mortale di Oppenheimer). La canzone è "Russian". But Nolan suggests that perhaps this is not the real problem.
(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100086109001337&locale=it_IT)
Loading comments slowly
Other reviews
By Anatoly
Oppenheimer is indeed a political film that Nolan skillfully stages, wisely alternating timelines in line with his typical non-linear narrative.
The eternal repetition is that of the logic of power and the human propensity for destruction and death.
By JackBeauregard
A film to see and, probably, even to see again to fully enjoy some passages that the relentless pace of the film might sometimes risk losing.
There are never real moments of reflective pause; even the dialogues between scientists, the family situations, or even the brief erotic scenes are always on the edge, always suggesting an impalpable tension.
By scuffia
The film is stunning, pure Nolan, who finally gives his fetish actor, Cillian Murphy, the leading role.
Three hours? I didn’t notice, and I finally understood what black holes are.
By The Punisher
Excellent performance by the actors. The story is beautiful. The dialogues are beautiful, profound, and witty.
In the end, I left exhausted and worn out. Perhaps that was the sensation one was supposed to leave the cinema with?
