Oppenheimer (2023) is a film written and directed by Christopher Nolan. It tells the story of physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the project to build the atomic bomb, and was later questioned about his loyalty. The film does not shy away from the scientific victory but instead explores the implications of science for political power. It is a story about responsibility, about what happens when you build a weapon you cannot control. Sometimes the plot is hard to follow, but strong acting performances, disturbing music, and a well-reasoned ending make Oppenheimer a thought-provoking look at science’s obligation.
Cillian Murphy’s performance makes that responsibility feel personal rather than abstract. At his meeting with President Truman, Oppenheimer confesses to having “blood on my hands” (Oppenheimer 02:11:29–02:11:33). Murphy’s confession is tentative; his personal guilt remains despite his public acknowledgment. Truman’s quick response then reveals the gulf between science and politics. Oppenheimer participated in the development of the weapon, but according to the president, the responsibility for its use is his. The quiet delivery also precludes an easy, emotional release from a confession, giving the viewer the chance to make the judgment about how much sympathy one deserves after being a partner to such destructive power. Murphy’s subtle facial expressions reinforce the idea that the movie’s greatest draw is its faces (Seitz, par. 1). His performance manages to keep these competing emotions in balance without making Oppenheimer an innocent victim or the easy-to-hate hero.
The sound design also ensures the audience does not treat the bomb as an exciting technological success. When the Trinity test was conducted, the light of the explosion was first seen before the shock wave was heard, which made breathing and near silence prolong the time before the thunder (Oppenheimer 01:55:50–01:57:50; Seitz, par. 3). This delay allows the audience to wait for the outcome, instead of experiencing a great effect right away. The final roar is terrifying because it is a release from an extended period of restraint. Nolan thus employs sound to challenge the seemingly successful image. What makes the scene memorable is that it is beautiful and it is violent, so it gets people’s attention, but it doesn’t want to be in their face.
Editorial illustration · not in the original review
How the Trinity scene builds tension
Scene cited in the review: Oppenheimer 01:55:50–01:57:50
The order in which the film lets the viewer see and hear the Trinity test, as the review describes it. It shows how the scene is built for the audience, not the physics of a nuclear explosion.
Flash
- What happens
- The light of the explosion is seen first.
- What the viewer hears
- No blast yet
- What it does
- The image looks like a success.
Waiting
- What happens
- Time stretches before the shock wave arrives.
- What the viewer hears
- Breathing, near silence
- What it does
- The audience waits for the outcome instead of getting the effect at once.
Shock wave
- What happens
- The sound of the explosion finally arrives.
- What the viewer hears
- The roar
- What it does
- The roar terrifies because it releases a long restraint.
Although the film requires focus, it reinforces its argument due to its changing timeline. The shifts from scientific work to political hearings make it possible to constantly see the success of scientific work in the context of its later implications. The hearings continue to challenge Oppenheimer’s judgment and influence, and success at Los Alamos is not an answer that can be the end of the story. His answer, “I believe we did,” broadens the threat beyond the initial reckoning to the arms race that ensued (Oppenheimer 02:53:01–02:53:24). This conclusion lends meaning to the previous changes: the viewer is required to rethink the concept of the success of science.
Editorial illustration · not in the original review
Achievement and accountability
How the review reads the film’s shifts between two storylines: each scientific success is set against the hearings and the consequences that follow it. It is not a timeline of the film’s scenes.
Scientific work and the test: Scientific work at Los Alamos
set against
Political hearings and the consequences: Hearings that challenge his judgment and influence
Scientific work and the test: The Trinity test looks like a success
set against
Political hearings and the consequences: “I believe we did”: the threat widens to the arms race that followed
Success at Los Alamos is not the end of the story: the viewer has to rethink what the success of science means.
Illustration by Writers Per Hour, added to explain the review; it is not part of the original paper. Based on the review’s paragraph on the film’s changing timeline in Oppenheimer. No frame from the film is reproduced.However, the action changes so quickly from one period to another, and there is too much to make it feel particularly poignant. Viewers may be tempted to watch for hours, trying to determine who is right or who lost and the meaning of the proceedings rather than the impact of what was decided. Compared to the scientists and politicians, the conscience of Oppenheimer is emphasized, and the people affected by the bombings have less of a voice of their own. The celebration speech expresses horror through his disturbed experience, not by the development of Japanese characters (Oppenheimer 02:06:17–02:08:07). This decision makes his guilt more palpable, but restricts whose hardships the viewer witnesses firsthand.
Oppenheimer can be recommended to viewers who will take the plunge into a story that is somewhat action-heavy, even given these drawbacks. The best parts are when personal blame gets tied to bigger power issues. Murphy’s acting, the tight control of the sound, and the disturbing ending make a scientific achievement indistinguishable from its human consequences.
