Oppenheimer: Was Christopher Nolan's Movie Too Complex?

Did Oppenheimer pack too big of a punch? Or was there the perfect amount of ingredients thrown in the pot?

SPOILER ALERT: Spoilers for Oppenheimer Below!What makes Christopher Nolan the master of the modern blockbuster is his ability to get the audience talking about his films long after they debut in theaters. With Memento, fans discussed its complex narrative structure, unpacking the tiny details that often get missed during early viewings. Inception took the world by storm by becoming the cream of the crop of mind-bending, large-scale cinema. Did the totem topple at the end? Interstellar turned casual fans into theoretical physicists, channeling their inner Kip Thorne. And of course, who can forget when Nolan broke the COVID barrier with the time-twisting espionage film Tenet, leaving fans perplexed as to what the heck they just watched, doing their best to interpret the two timelines of forward action and reversed action.

Oppenheimer takes a little bit from every Nolan film and packs it into one long, three-hour adrenaline rush. From an onslaught of incredible performances, to some of Hoyte Van Hoytema's best cinematography, to a pulse-pounding score by composer Ludwig Göransson, Oppenheimer is a technical masterclass that has been leaving audiences strapped in their seats long after the credits have rolled. Fans have become interested in the science behind the atomic bomb, as well as the moral question of its use in 1945. American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the biography that Nolan's adaptation is based on, has seen a drastic increase in sales.

Fans have been discussing the overwhelming weight of the final scene where we see Oppenheimer stare straight into the camera lens, seemingly in existential dread, as Pandora's box has now been opened. Or how about Nolan's use of practical effects as opposed to CGI, making for one of the most epic cinematic explosions ever created for the screen, mimicking the real-life Trinity test as best as they can? No matter what it is about the film, fans are discussing it. But it begs the question... was it too complex?

Related: Christopher Nolan Movies, Ranked From Good To Best

One of the beautiful things about filmmaking is making technical decisions to skew perspectives. A simple camera placement can take the audience inside the mind of a character, or simply keep them far away as an eavesdropper. An open aperture can separate a subject from the background, creating a potential disassociation from reality. Nolan uses forced perspective by splitting Oppenheimer into two clear, different segments. One, called fission, is shown in colored film, primarily showing the individual story of the man J. Robert Oppenheimer (masterfully portrayed by Irish actor Cillian Murphy), himself and his subjective experiences of the world. The other, called fusion, is shows in black and white sequences and tells the story surrounding Oppenheimer with a more objective point-of-view.

When you're at the top of the game, you can break conventional screenwriting techniques to tell the story, and executives, actors, etc. won't bat an eye. Christopher Nolan has reached this level of freedom as a creator and exercised that freedom when writing the screenplay. Changing the name to Oppenheimer, rather than keeping the haunting, Greek mythology-inspired title of the book American Prometheus, was a conscious decision, as Nolan saw it vital to tell Oppenheimer's story through the eyes of Oppenheimer himself. To illustrate this, he wrote the fission sequences of the screenplay in first-person, rather than the conventional third-person screenwriting format. "I walk through the door," as opposed to "Oppenheimer walks through the door."

Not only do the color and black-and-white sequences separate the perspectives of the film, it also splits the film up into two timelines. The color sequences (fission) tell the early story of Oppenheimer, how he was appointed as leader of The Manhattan Project, the buildup to the Trinity test, the immediate fallout of the atomic bomb test, and a future hearing that questions his loyalty to the United States and his potential role with the Communist Party.

The black-and-white sequences (fusion) begin in 1947 when Oppenheimer first meets Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) and primarily focuses on Strauss' confirmation hearing for a cabinet position, while also revealing that Strauss was the person responsible for the suspicion of Oppenheimer working with the Communist party, and therefore the Russians, to win the newly-formed Hydrogen-bomb arms race.

It may be difficult to follow at first, but thankfully, Nolan helps us out a little bit by pairing the discussions happening in the black-and-white sequences with events that happened in either its previous or forthcoming color sequences. As it pertains to Oppenheimer, we need both perspectives to tell the full story of the father of the atomic bomb. In Oppenheimer, Nolan practically created three mini films in one, combining all three to tell the full story of Oppenheimer's rise, success, and downfall.

Withholding the hearing of his suspicions of providing intelligence to the Communist party and Lewis Strauss' role in attempting to exploit Oppenheimer, the success of winning the atomic bomb race would feel like nothing more than American propaganda. The man who created the atomic bomb, succeeded at the Trinity Test, and living happily ever after as a winner doesn't sound very interesting, does it? We need both timelines to show that the atomic bomb not only caused destruction to the world, but to Oppenheimer specifically.

Throwing multiple timelines and perspectives at his audience isn't enough for Nolan, he also needs to unleash a waterfall of science and theoretical physics to keep us as engaged as possible. To start, the difference between fission and fusion is paramount to the structural narrative of the film. According to a Duke Energy article, "Fission is the splitting of a heavy, unstable nucleus into two lighter nuclei, and fusion is the process where two light nuclei combine together, releasing vast amounts of energy."

The Manhattan Project, the atomic bomb program that Oppenheimer led, uses the principles of nuclear fission to build the atomic bomb, while the hydrogen bomb is created off the principles of nuclear fusion. The colored sequences of the film show the development of the atomic bomb, thus fission. An important part of the black and white sequences is the hunt of a Communist spy within Los Alamos in the heat of a race to create the even more powerful hydrogen bomb, hence fusion.

Before it was even revealed that splitting an atom was even possible, Oppenheimer gained his reputation by bringing quantum physics to the United States. He focuses his teachings on what happens to a star when it dies. In the film, he even goes into brief detail about how, if a star is massive enough, its death creates a gravitational force so strong that it pulls everything towards it and consumes it, including light. It isn't particularly said in this film, but this is the theoretical process of how a black hole is formed.

His teachings turn quickly to studies, as his team at Berkeley learns that some physicists successfully split an atom. This baffles Oppenheimer, standing strong on his belief that his calculations deem that to be impossible. What creates an even stronger revelation in him is that immediately after, the Berkeley team put it to the test and succeeded. This is the discovery that led to the race of the atomic bomb.

Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. For this he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity.

This opening title card is as devastating as it is poetic. Comparing Oppenheimer to a Greek God is a pretty bold claim, but one that feels appropriate as we reach the conclusion of the film. In Greek mythology, Prometheus is a God of fire, and most commonly described as deceptive and a rogue. He is most infamously portrayed in Greek scriptures for stealing fire from the Olympian gods and giving that power to mortal humans. For this, Zeus condemned him for all eternity. He was chained to a rock, and an eagle, one of Zeus' emblems, would swoop in, rip Prometheus' liver from his body, and devour it. The liver would then grow back, and the cycle would repeat every day for as long as time will last.

The story of Prometheus acts as a hyperbole for Oppenheimer's work in creating the atomic bomb, which was quickly used as a destructive weapon on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima during WWII. Not only was this the last major act of the Second World War, but it also spawned a new arms race: the creation of the hydrogen bomb. Oppenheimer was simply doing the job that was assigned to him. He accepted it, yes, but there simply wasn't any other choice for him. "I don’t know if we can be trusted with such a weapon. But I know the Nazis can’t." Oppenheimer may have or may have not realized early on the domino effect this would have on the world. This creation may not destroy the world today, but maybe tomorrow. Or the next day. Or in a year. 10 years. 100.

The title card at the beginning of the film ties in perfectly with the end conversation between Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein. Einstein foreshadows a dark future for the father of the atomic bomb. He believes the two physicists to be very similar in that both of their works caused ostracization from their peers, the country, and the world. Together, they discuss how the atomic bomb, while ending the deadliest war in humanity's history, can also have long-term devastating effects. Pandora's box has now opened, and they both know it. Did they create something that will change the world for the worse? "I believe we did," says Oppenheimer as the film concludes with intercut scenes of hundreds of nuclear missiles striking Earth's surface, creating a Godly wall of fire.

Related: How Oppenheimer Differs From Christopher Nolan's Previous Movies

So, was Oppenheimer too complex of a movie? No. It needed all of it to tell the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer properly. It needed the science, the timelines, and the forced perspective. All of this was needed to create a remorseful black hole that sucked Oppenheimer in. While yes, it may be true that a second viewing could be required to fully grasp the story, it can also be said that if you feel the weight transfer from Oppenheimer's shoulders to your own as the film's final frame clicks to black, then Christopher Nolan and everyone involved have done their job successfully.