My thoughts on Oppenheimer

This weekend, like many audiences around the world, I went to see Christopher Nolan's latest film called Oppenheimer. The decision to go was fun. For the first time in a while I had to strategize. It made me realize that my "movie going skills" were a little rusty, having atrophied quite a bit as the theaters have been noticeably emptier than I ever remember them being. But for Oppenheimer I had a suspicion that this might be a more popular movie. So, I decided to try and buy tickets early, which put me on a path of narrowing choices.

The first thing I wanted to do was see it in IMAX. We have several theaters in my town that offer IMAX, but as I've gotten bigger around the middle (and older) and my friends that were going with me have (for the most part) done the same, I wanted to try for luxury seating in the IMAX. Luxury seating is where one row has been dedicated to reclining seats. Personally, I think all seats should be recliners. And the Cinemarks in my area have all done this. But they don't have an IMAX theater. So, I tried looking at all showtimes for Oppenheimer within the next week to see if that row of special "luxury seats" had all been filled. And...unfortunately...it had. Like literally sold out for as far ahead as they schedule events, and in every IMAX in the Salt Lake valley.

So then I started to question my own decision on seeing it in IMAX. There are only 17 theaters nationwide in IMAX that offer Oppenheimer in 70mm format, and none of those are in my state. The rest are just a bigger screen. But the sound system in the other theaters that I usually go to (Cinemark) is always good. And from what I understand, all 70mm does is make the film look hyper-realistic with its resolution, adding to the film immersion. I don't know if that necessarily would have made the viewing of Oppenheimer any better. That's when I decided that I'd just give up on the IMAX experience and go to the Cinemark and watch it there. And that's what myself and two of my friends ended up doing. In the following paragraphs, I'm going to talk about my takes from Oppenheimer which (as far as I can tell) are all parts of history. So I don't think there are any spoilers, unless you think that history is a spoiler. If that is you, then this is your "spoiler warning."

I think (for me) J. Robert Oppenheimer was the only historical figure in this movie that I actually liked. I've never been a fan of the era in which this man lived. And all of the things you would expect about the telling of this story happen within the background to all of these important men doing whatever they needed to do in order to win a war that had consumed the world. Yes, we need to remember that hundreds of thousands of people were going to die and were dying. War is awful. But the movie Oppenheimer is here to firmly validate that not only is war awful, but that war is human, and humans are awful to each other all of the time.

War then is just the escalation of hatred of the other to the most violent circumstances. And what one nation says is peace can in many ways be defined by another as "tyranny." But that's just how the chips fall with our species. All of us have never been united, and barring that utopia of a one world government, there is always a winner and a loser. When you think of nation states deciding the outcomes of civilization, you realize that there are always power brokers and arms races within the borders of any single nation that you pick. It's always a "game of thrones," and J. Robert Oppenheimer, the historical figure and scientist, was smack dab in the middle of a toxic mix of people who were patriots (yes...of that there is no doubt), but they were also men feeding off vast narcissistic supply in the pursuit of their legacy and their greatness.

That they were really smart boys (in men's bodies) being mothered by their wives while they went about the important task of ending the war and bringing other boys home is never lost on me. At one point, Matt Damon's character (a general in charge of building the entire town of Los Alamos) says to a scientist that "this is the most important work in the history of mankind" or something like that. The point in me quoting that is that clearly...it is very important. But then...of course it is...because men rule everything and everything that the men participated in was in fact important. That importance is everywhere. And history shows it probably was the most important thing in the history of mankind. But the irony of that statement isn't lost on me because of the blatant sexism of that time period. But all of that is just historical fact.

The importance of developing the bomb was left to men while women just needed to focus on the laundry and provide sex when needed and definitely keep the houses cleaned so that important meetings could take place. Oh...and child rearing too. Men didn't rear children. If your wife was overwhelmed you drove your crying brat to another house and imposed on another man's wife. That's just how things were done. It makes me wonder why our species is so awful, and why I'm not excited or nostalgic for those times. As a man, I clearly stood to benefit, right? So why wouldn't I want to return to the forties and fifties in America? Only it's clear to me I wouldn't have been smart enough in this particular time period to warrant a level of importance that excused abusing others for the sake of getting something done and ending a huge war. So, maybe it would have been left to me to do the cleaning and the serving of drinks while important men sat around discussing ideas. I'll pass on that, thanks. And we see a lot of that today, right? Everyone saying "no thanks" to that kind of undignified work, which is why we have a labor shortage in America right now. I can't say that I blame anyone making that choice, because "being important" is a small group and it is most definitely not inclusive.

The movie Oppenheimer is a remarkable film. But it is less about the development of the bombs that were dropped on the Japanese, and it is more about this historical figure that the author (that is the movie's source material) likened to a "Prometheus." This is a Titan that stole fire from the gods and gave it to man to do with as he pleased. That then is the metaphor used to describe the man J. Robert Oppenheimer who was punished by his own government, because they feared his power to sway public opinion regarding toxic capitalism. In other words, this incredibly intelligent man spoke of restraint.

He wanted to limit those who had placed their hands upon something that they sensed would give them the unlimited means to bulldoze a path wherever they wanted to go. He foresaw that this would just start an arms race (which it did). There have always been those men who have no restraint and look at you with a puzzled look when you say, "You need to keep your pig in check. Stop being a glutton." To them their desire is just absolute freedom. It is the freedom to do anything to anyone and anywhere at anytime and you can't stop them because they are more powerful. Others might view that as tyranny, but these terms are just two sides of the same coin. In their eyes, if you limit someone, then you are the bad guy. But the thing is (and we are still learning this today), when there are no limits, it leaves very little for the rest of us. A healthy society has to have limits and personal responsibilities and accountabilities. J. Robert Oppenheimer knew this, and it made everyone else who was in his orbit (who believed the opposite) really angry. That's just unfortunate.

This movie is definitely a thumbs up. It is filled with A-Listers jostling for scraps in a script that is thankfully crowded with lots of words for them to memorize and perform in front of the camera. There were easily three to four Oscar winners taking bit parts in this movie. Rami Malek and Casey Affleck are two that I spotted. Matt Damon's part was much larger (another Oscar winner). It shows how much power Nolan has as a Director that these people probably fought hard to get into this movie to help solidify their status as the best actors in the world. This is also a film for men. The women are there, yes, but their roles are not really memorable at all. I don't blame Nolan. That's just how history was, and I trust that he's telling it like it is (at least to the best of our knowledge). I'm just glad I didn't have to grow up in these times, and that I was able to find friends who are not consumed with their own legacy and greatness. Being around those kinds of people would have taken a mental toll on me (I'd probably have developed all kinds of mental illnesses and personality disorders). It also would have been exhausting, because there would have been sparingly few emotional connections one could make. At the end of the day, the work everyone was doing was too important for anything but the work itself.

I like to end these reviews by asking myself if I would watch this movie again. It was an excellent movie, and I definitely think everyone should see it. But I don't think I'd watch it again. It's thick subject matter, and it affects my mood in a way that I wouldn't classify as entertainment. But for what it's worth, a single viewing of it was time well spent. It's also a reminder that nothing was ever as important as the Manhattan Project was, but there is never a shortage of self-important people walking the Earth who would argue that point with you while seeking to use you as their own personal doormat. If we are all smart, we'll keep that from happening, and by doing so build a better future for our shared civilization.