One of the most fascinating aspects of the of the current cinematic cultural moment that is "Barbenheimer" is how both films have both surprised and disappointed in unexpected ways which has led to some interesting discourse within the film community. Despite both films being vastly different in nature, the pairing would have inevitably resulted in comparison which has led to critique that I think would have been less prominent if they where released separately. Despite both films being flawed epics they are none the less remarkable achievements for both the studios and cinema as a whole.
Whilst Barbie has had a greater success due to its populist appeal, Oppenheimer is definitely the better of the two films. Everything from the performances, to the cinematography, to the sound, to the visual effects are produced to an insane level of quality. Cillian Murphy is completely captivating as J. Robert Oppenheimer and has an amazing ability to convey a sense of existential despair. Hoyt van Hoytema proves yet again why he is referred to as the master of IMAX with his remarkable skill to balance the spectacle with the most intimate. Composer Ludwig Göransson's score is both epic in scale and haunting in nature which is further imbued with a dangerous radioactive energy as he combines traditional orchestra music with geiger-counter-esque synthesisers.
The film centres around several key moments in Oppenheimers life, from from his time studying and teaching Quantum Mechanics, his work on the Manhattan Project and his later life as a victim of McCarthyism. Whilst technically a biopic it is much more radical the usual fair with a non linear narrative and a bold combination of colour with black and white photography. Its structure is not experimental for experimentation sake but serves a purpose of contextualising quantum theory with practical research and more generally the actions with consequences. It's a film that doesn't progress but unravels and does so with remarkable skill and surprising complexity. You could have a scene thats constantly jumping back and forth from three different time periods but it never feels confusing only sometimes overwhelming. But it's the point of the film to overwhelm. Oppenheimer is a film that is equally about the experience as it is about the plot. It marks a return to an older form of the big motion picture epic that was less cynical as it is now, and was more concerned about an artistic vision than box office profit. Films like 2001 - A Space Odyssey, The Red Shoes and Abel Gance's Napoleon come to mind. More specifically I also find myself reflect on a quote from Stanley Kubrick.
"A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."
This is perfectly sums up the film. It feels more like a symphony or an opera than something more rigid like the usual narrative films. Its also worth noting that I was rather oddly reminded of the David Bowie documentary Moonage Daydream which also has a similar non-linear narrative progression.
The film is also very much reminiscent of Greek tragedy and Shakespeare in its melodrama. Throughout the film we see Oppenheimer rise to become "the most important man on earth" and then fall from grace. A running theme is the story of Prometheus who famously gave man fire and was punished by the gods for this sin. This deification is further reiterated also see a reference to Oppenheimers interest to Hindu scriptures and of course the famous line "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds". As a film it is in fact quite critical of the Great Man theory as it also deals with the irony on how Oppenheimer became forgotten and was in reality simply a part of a cog of a wider machine.
Despite this this it is very much a flawed film. Combination of all of this subject matter results in a rather dense film that doesn't fit cohesively, with some elements that should have had more prominence neglected to the sidelines. This mixed with deification of Oppenheimer is especially problematic from the perspective of the female characters when paired with the feminist themed Barbie. Florence Pugh's character only appears in a sex scene and Emily Blunt only has one scene where she has any real agency. The lack of acknowledgment of what the civilians went through in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has been another point of contention. The problems in the film is in my opinion largely a technical one. The secondary male characters also get relegated to one or two scenes. The problem is in fact IMAX. IMAX is the highest quality picture format ever devised for the cinema screen but with that quality comes limitations. IMAX cameras have a reputation of being cumbersome and insanely expensive. These limitation transfer to the projection as an IMAX film reel can become so heavy that that it cannot be carried by the projector equipment. This results in a limit on how long an IMAX film can be. Traditionally this limit is around 2 Hours 30 Minutes but Interstellar managed to extend it by another 10 minutes. For Oppenheimer IMAX has been able to extend the film to 3 Hours. Despite this impressive feat its definitely not enough. It doesn't need to be too long, it just needs more time to flesh out its secondary characters and societal issues (particularly the antisemitism in which Oppenheimer faced). The issues with the time limit can be further seen with the recent controversy where it was revealed that the credits for its visual effects artists had been trimmed down, leaving over 80 percent being uncredited. Whilst the time limit issue was probably the rationale behind it, it's a decision that should not be defended. The motion picture epics of the past, in which this film so obviously draws from solved this issue with an intermission. This would not work for a non-linear film like Oppenheimer but if the Hollywood epic is to make a comeback, this should be a solution worth considering.
Overall Oppenheimer is outstanding achievement and definitely worth your time. Despite its flaws its most certainly one the highlights of the year. I've given this film a 4 star rating but if you asked me in several months time I could see myself giving a 5 star.
Whilst Barbie has had a greater success due to its populist appeal, Oppenheimer is definitely the better of the two films. Everything from the performances, to the cinematography, to the sound, to the visual effects are produced to an insane level of quality. Cillian Murphy is completely captivating as J. Robert Oppenheimer and has an amazing ability to convey a sense of existential despair. Hoyt van Hoytema proves yet again why he is referred to as the master of IMAX with his remarkable skill to balance the spectacle with the most intimate. Composer Ludwig Göransson's score is both epic in scale and haunting in nature which is further imbued with a dangerous radioactive energy as he combines traditional orchestra music with geiger-counter-esque synthesisers.
The film centres around several key moments in Oppenheimers life, from from his time studying and teaching Quantum Mechanics, his work on the Manhattan Project and his later life as a victim of McCarthyism. Whilst technically a biopic it is much more radical the usual fair with a non linear narrative and a bold combination of colour with black and white photography. Its structure is not experimental for experimentation sake but serves a purpose of contextualising quantum theory with practical research and more generally the actions with consequences. It's a film that doesn't progress but unravels and does so with remarkable skill and surprising complexity. You could have a scene thats constantly jumping back and forth from three different time periods but it never feels confusing only sometimes overwhelming. But it's the point of the film to overwhelm. Oppenheimer is a film that is equally about the experience as it is about the plot. It marks a return to an older form of the big motion picture epic that was less cynical as it is now, and was more concerned about an artistic vision than box office profit. Films like 2001 - A Space Odyssey, The Red Shoes and Abel Gance's Napoleon come to mind. More specifically I also find myself reflect on a quote from Stanley Kubrick.
"A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."
This is perfectly sums up the film. It feels more like a symphony or an opera than something more rigid like the usual narrative films. Its also worth noting that I was rather oddly reminded of the David Bowie documentary Moonage Daydream which also has a similar non-linear narrative progression.
The film is also very much reminiscent of Greek tragedy and Shakespeare in its melodrama. Throughout the film we see Oppenheimer rise to become "the most important man on earth" and then fall from grace. A running theme is the story of Prometheus who famously gave man fire and was punished by the gods for this sin. This deification is further reiterated also see a reference to Oppenheimers interest to Hindu scriptures and of course the famous line "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds". As a film it is in fact quite critical of the Great Man theory as it also deals with the irony on how Oppenheimer became forgotten and was in reality simply a part of a cog of a wider machine.
Despite this this it is very much a flawed film. Combination of all of this subject matter results in a rather dense film that doesn't fit cohesively, with some elements that should have had more prominence neglected to the sidelines. This mixed with deification of Oppenheimer is especially problematic from the perspective of the female characters when paired with the feminist themed Barbie. Florence Pugh's character only appears in a sex scene and Emily Blunt only has one scene where she has any real agency. The lack of acknowledgment of what the civilians went through in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has been another point of contention. The problems in the film is in my opinion largely a technical one. The secondary male characters also get relegated to one or two scenes. The problem is in fact IMAX. IMAX is the highest quality picture format ever devised for the cinema screen but with that quality comes limitations. IMAX cameras have a reputation of being cumbersome and insanely expensive. These limitation transfer to the projection as an IMAX film reel can become so heavy that that it cannot be carried by the projector equipment. This results in a limit on how long an IMAX film can be. Traditionally this limit is around 2 Hours 30 Minutes but Interstellar managed to extend it by another 10 minutes. For Oppenheimer IMAX has been able to extend the film to 3 Hours. Despite this impressive feat its definitely not enough. It doesn't need to be too long, it just needs more time to flesh out its secondary characters and societal issues (particularly the antisemitism in which Oppenheimer faced). The issues with the time limit can be further seen with the recent controversy where it was revealed that the credits for its visual effects artists had been trimmed down, leaving over 80 percent being uncredited. Whilst the time limit issue was probably the rationale behind it, it's a decision that should not be defended. The motion picture epics of the past, in which this film so obviously draws from solved this issue with an intermission. This would not work for a non-linear film like Oppenheimer but if the Hollywood epic is to make a comeback, this should be a solution worth considering.
Overall Oppenheimer is outstanding achievement and definitely worth your time. Despite its flaws its most certainly one the highlights of the year. I've given this film a 4 star rating but if you asked me in several months time I could see myself giving a 5 star.
Tell Your Friends