Tags Posts tagged with "‘Oppenheimer’"

‘Oppenheimer’

Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach’s Barbie is most deserving for Best Adapted Screenplay.

By Tim Haggerty and Jeffrey Sanzel

The 96th Academy Awards will be held on March 10 at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood. Oppenheimer leads with thirteen nominations, followed by Poor Things with eleven and Killers of the Flower Moon with ten. Even the most basic speculation is subjective, but here are some thoughts on the contenders.

The primary artist is the writer. If the writing is poor, nothing follows. So, to begin: 

Best Original Screenplay. For pure storytelling, Anatomy of a Fall dealt powerfully with a woman accused of pushing her husband off a balcony. Played out almost entirely at the trial, the script succeeds on the level of Twelve Angry Men. Possible spoilers could be The Holdovers or Past Lives, with screenplays providing poignant performance opportunities. An honorary mention goes to May December, which offered a brutal look at Hollywood’s nearly perverse obsession with biopics.

Best Adapted Screenplay. While a reflection of another’s work, these screenplays allow one to envision a story through a fresh prism. This year, the category is highly competitive. Zone of Interest is intense and visceral, but its success derives more from the visuals and not necessarily the script. Poor Things takes the book’s absurdity to eleven, elevating the original novel. American Fiction is strong when representation turns character into characterization. 

The frontrunner—Oppenheimer—is an extraordinary achievement of making the technical both accessible and thrilling. However, Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach’s Barbie is most deserving. After decades of failed attempts to bring Barbie to the screen, they triumphed far beyond expectations: “We mothers stand still so our daughters can see how far they’ve come.” 

Best Actress in a Supporting Role. Da’Vine Joy Randolph’s stellar performance in The Holdovers has swept this category in every major award. Her performance is the heart of an amazing film.

Best Actress in a Leading Role. Perhaps the hardest pick of the year, with frontrunners Emma Stone (Poor Things) and Lily Gladstone (Killers of the Flower Moon) running head-to-head (much like last season’s Michelle Yeoh and Cate Blanchett). While both are deserving, it will come down to maximalist versus minimalist: Poor Thing’s exclamation points or Flower Moon’s full stops. Regardless, the winner will lead to months of debate and discussion. Two major snubs in this category are Margot Robbie’s brilliant Barbie and Greta Lee for Past Lives.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role. Yes, Ryan Gosling was fun as Barbie’s Ken, but it is unlikely to garner him his first Oscar. Plain and simple, Robert Downey Jr. will take home the trophy for Oppenheimer. 

Best Actor in a Leading Role. While not as close as Leading Actress, the two major considerations are Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer) and Paul Giamatti (The Holdovers). Giamatti would be victorious in another year, but Murphy’s monumental Oppenheimer carried a film that required a flawless performance at its helm. Not nominating Zac Efron’s moving portrayal in The Iron Claw, which highlighted the dangers of toxic masculinity, was an egregious slight.

Best Director. As seen in other categories, all the nominees would win years when they were not competing against each other. This is especially true of Yorgos Lanthimos’s work on Poor Things. But there is no question that Christopher Nolan will take home the trophy for Oppenheimer. A master of the craft, Paul Thomas Anderson’s praise for Nolan’s Dunkirk applies here: “It’s great to still be able to see someone’s film and think ‘How the —- did he do that?” And that statement is the same for Oppenheimer. The most brutal snub of the year is unquestionably Greta Gerwig’s absence from a directorial nomination for Barbie. Her exceptional vision deserves accolades and highlights the industry’s systemic problems.

Best Picture. This year in film has been the best since before the COVID-19 pandemic. Once again, every film deserves an award for its own elements. But ultimately, Oppenheimer was the biggest artistic (if not financial) success. A work unlike any other, the film checks every box.

So, on Sunday night, settle in with your popcorn and see how the drama unfolds!

Bonus Quick Picks:

Documentary Short Film. While ABC’s of Book Burning will win, Nai Nai & Wai Po is a beautiful, gentle story.

Documentary Feature. 20 Days in Mariupol 

International Film. The Zone of Interest. (Honorable Mention: Perfect Days)

Live Action Short Film. Wes Anderson will get his first Oscar for his adaptation of Roald Dahl’s The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar.

Animated Feature Film. The Boy and the Heron

Original Song. A no-brainer: Billie Eilish’s Barbie tune: “What Was I Made for?”

Score. Oppenheimer will win over Poor Things, more avant-garde sound.

Visual Effects. Godzilla Minus One burns the competition. 

Sound. Oppenheimer will win, but Zone of Interest is most deserving.

Production Design. A tight race between Barbie and Poor Things—bringing back the forgotten artform of sound stage sets, both “authentically artificial.” The latter probably has the edge.

Makeup and Hairstyling. Poor Things

Costume. Barbie or Poor Things

Film Editing. Oppenheimer, but Killers of the Flower Moon could steal it.

Cinematography. Oppenheimer

 

A scene from 'Oppenheimer'

By Daniel Dunaief

Researchers at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and Stony Brook University joined the chorus of moviegoers who enjoyed and appreciated the Universal film Oppenheimer.

“I thought the movie was excellent,” said Leemor Joshua-Tor, Professor and HHMI Investigator at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. “It made me think, which is always a good sign.”

Yusuf Hannun, Vice Dean for Cancer Medicine at Stony Brook University, thought the movie was “terrific” and had anticipated the film would be a “simpler” movie.

Jeff Keister, leader of the Detector and Research Equipment Pool at NSLS-II at Brookhaven National Laboratory, described the movie as “interesting” and “well acted.”

Joshua-Tor indicated she didn’t know anything about Robert Oppenheimer, the title character and leader of the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb. She “learned lots of new things” about him, she wrote. “I knew he was targeted by McCarthy-ism, but didn’t realize how that came about and the details.”

Keister also didn’t know much about Oppenheimer, who was played by actor Cillian Murphy in the film. “Oppenheimer seemed to quietly struggle with finding his role in the story of the development of the atomic bomb,” Keister said. “At times, he wore the uniform, then later seemed to express regret.”

Like other researchers, particularly those involved in large projects that bring together people with different skills and from various cultural backgrounds, Oppenheimer led a diverse team of scientists amid the heightened tension of World War II.

Oppenheimer was “shown to have been granted an extremely powerful position and was able to form a relatively diverse team, although he was not able to win over all the brightest minds,” Keister wrote.

Joshua-Tor suggested Oppenheimer “charmed” the other scientists, who were so driven by the science and the goal that they “accepted him. The leader of the team should be a great scientist, but doesn’t necessarily have to be the biggest genius. There is a genius in being able to herd the cats in the right way.”

Joel Hurowitz, Associate Professor in the Department of Geosciences at Stony Brook University, “loved” the movie. Hurowitz has worked with large projects with NASA teams as a part of his research effort.

Hurowitz suggested that the work that goes into coordinating these large projects is “huge” and it requires “a well laid out organizational structure, effective leadership, and a team that is happy working hard towards a common goal.”

‘Stunning’ first bomb test

Keister described the first nuclear bomb test as “stunning” in the movie. “I have to wonder how the environmental and health impacts of such a test came to be judged as inconsequential.”

Some local scientists would have appreciated and enjoyed the opportunity to see more of the science that led to the creation of the bomb.

Science is the “only place the movie fell short,” Hannun said. “They could have spent a bit more time to indicate the basic science behind the project and maybe a bit more about the scientific accomplishments of the various participants.”

Given the focus of the movie on Oppenheimer and his leadership and ultimate ambivalence about the creation of the atomic bomb, Keister suggested that scientists “could be better encouraged to understand the impacts of applied uses of new discoveries. Scientists can learn to broaden their view to include means of mitigating potential negative impacts.”

Research sponsors, including taxpayers and their representatives, have an “ethical responsibility to incorporate scientists’ views of the full impacts into their decisions regarding applications and deployment of new technology,” Keister said.

Joshua-Tor thinks there “always has to be an ongoing conversation between scientists and the citizenry” which has to be an “informed, somewhat dispassionate conversation.”

Recommended movies about scientists

Local researchers also shared some of their film recommendations about scientists.

Hurowitz wrote that his favorite these days is Arrival, a science fiction film starring Amy Adams. If Hurowitz is looking for more lighthearted fare, he writes that “you can’t go wrong with Ghostbusters,” although he’s not sure the main characters Egon, Ray and Peter could be called scientists.

Keister also enjoys science fiction, as it “often challenges us with ethical dilemmas which need to be addressed.” While he isn’t sure he has a favorite, he recommended the sci-fi thriller Ex Machina starring Alicia Vikander as a humanoid robot with artificial intelligence,.

Joshua-Tor recalls liking the film A Beautiful Mind starring Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly as John and Alicia Nash. She also loved the film Hidden Figures, starring Taraji P Henson, Octavia Spencer and Janelle Monáe.

A scene from 'Oppenheimer'

By Daniel Dunaief

Daniel Dunaief

My wife and I are wildly out of practice at an activity we used to do on dates.

Hey, I’m talking about going to movies. What did you think I meant? Never mind.

Anyway, after three and a half years, we finally ventured out to see a movie. No streaming at home, not taking a long walk through the neighborhood to see all the usual other walkers, and no hanging out in the backyard to look up at stars whose light was sent to us years ago.

I don’t think the light we can see was sent to us when dinosaurs were roaming the Earth.

We had purchased tickets online, with the customary and annoying convenience fee surcharge for something that couldn’t possibly be easier for the movie theater, and were excited to see a movie on the big screen.

Previews have always appealed to us, as has the satisfaction of seeing the entire movie from the start. When both of us were young, we found ourselves in movie theaters after the film began.

We’d sit in our seats and wait for the next showing, when we’d catch up to the point when we entered and, often with our respective families, head to the exits to piece together the narrative.

On a recent Sunday night, we drove through a packed parking lot. Clearly, the Barbenheimer phenomenon – the combination of hits “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” – has brought the crowds back to the theaters that somehow survived the pandemic.

With almost no line, we breezed through the entrance and got on the short line for popcorn. Ah, movie popcorn. Yes, it’s much more expensive than it needs to be, and yet, we splurged for it many times as we prepared to suspend disbelief and enter the altered and captivating reality of a movie.

The concession didn’t sell bottled water, which we could fill with any beverage of our choice. We reluctantly agreed to buy the expensive cup and added ice cold water to our movie-time meal.

The days of waiting in line for the free-for-all of finding the best middle seats are long gone. We walked up to our wide, comfortable seats. When we didn’t immediately find the recliner button, the woman to my wife’s right showed us where it was.

Back in the early days of our children’s lives, when we were incredibly sleep deprived, those seats would have been a welcome opportunity for a solid nap.

Not this time. We were locked in and ready for the film. As is our wont, we quickly finished the first bucket of popcorn before the previews. I raced back for a refill and returned just in time for the start of several coming attractions.

Most of those previews looked somewhere between awful and horrific. If those were the best scenes from coming films, it may be a while before we feel the urge to return to the world of overpriced popcorn and comfortable chairs.

So, after all this time, are you wondering what we saw?

Well, we got sucked into the Barbenheimer vortex, opting for the World War II film instead of the late 50’s iconic toy.

With gripping subject matter and extraordinary acting from a cast ready to personify critically important figures from a turbulent time in 20th century history, the movie was compelling.

I can see why it received rave reviews. As a film watcher – okay, well, as a former passionate devotee of the silver screen – I wasn’t completely moved by the broad story telling.

As a science writer, which is the other hat I wear with privilege regularly for these papers, I was hoping there had been a greater description about the discoveries Oppenheimer and his collaborators had to make to complete the Manhattan Project.

At one point during the movie, I realized that we were watching the film on the 78th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. The eery overlap brought home the complicated legacy of a talented scientist and effective leader.

Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer in a scene from the film. Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

Reviewed by Jeffrey Sanzel

J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967) is considered a founding father of the American school of theoretical physics. His work included the exploration of astrophysics, nuclear physics, spectroscopy, and quantum field theory. In the 1930s, he wrote papers suggesting the existence of what are now labeled black holes.

At the dawn of World War II, Oppenheimer was instrumental in developing the atomic bomb (often referred to as its “father”). In June 1942, he was appointed scientific director of the Manhattan Project and supervised the construction of the Los Alamos laboratories.

Following the War, Oppenheimer assumed the chairmanship of the General Advisory Committee to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). In this role, he voiced opposition to the development of the hydrogen bomb. In 1953, at the height of the Cold War and Red Scare, Oppenheimer was accused of communist sympathies, and the AEC canceled his security clearance.

Matt Damon and Cillian Murphy in a scene from ‘Oppenheimer’. Image courtesy of Universal Pictures

In the year’s best film so far, director Christopher Nolan’s epic Oppenheimer traces the controversial figure’s rise, fall, and redemption. Nolan’s screenplay, closely adapted from Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin’s 2005 Pulitzer Prize-winning biography American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, runs on three timelines: the buildup of the Manhattan Project, leading to the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the AEC’s rigged hearing that stripped Oppenheimer of both prestige and access; and Lewis Strauss’s senate confirmation hearing for Secretary of Commerce.

Many films tackle issues of scientists and scientific discovery: The Imitation Game (2014), A Beautiful Mind (2001), Hidden Figures (2016), and The Theory of Everything (2014) are examples of some of the stronger genre offerings. However, these films often stress the personal elements or water down the science. In the case of Oppenheimer, the epic but breathtakingly paced three hours manages to keep science in the forefront without losing interpersonal relationships.

The film begins with twenty-two-year-old Oppenheimer struggling with anxiety at Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory. After an aborted attempt to poison his professor, Oppenheimer meets Niels Bohr, who suggests he complete his education in Germany. Upon graduation, Oppenheimer begins teaching at the University of California, Berkley, and the California Institute of Technology. The film balances his day-to-day life, including his left-leaning politics, with an attempt to show his genius through strong, abstract imagery. 

Much of Oppenheimer plays in lectures and classrooms, as well as offices and laboratories. Nolan keeps the action moving and the stakes perpetually high. The rise of Hitler deeply affects the scientific community, many of whose members were Jewish. In 1942, General Leslie Groves recruits Oppenheimer to lead the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer gathers an extraordinary team to secretly develop the atomic bomb in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Throughout, the scientists debate the issues of the long-term and far-reaching effects of their actions. In addition, the constant specter of espionage hovers over the project. 

The film builds to the first of several milestones with the Trinity, the test of the atomic bomb on July 16, 1945. Simultaneously, it highlights the perpetually shifting collaborations, suspicions, setbacks, and infighting throughout the three years of development. 

Marking his sixth collaboration with Nolan, Cillian Murphy delivers a flawless performance as the gifted, complex Oppenheimer. He brings a range of shades, from the self-important to the self-doubting. Following the dropping of the atom bomb, his simple, devastated, “And now I am the condemned. Destroyer of worlds,” is of Hamlet proportions. He manifests the struggle between the intense scientist and the man drawn to the power given to him as leader of the Manhattan Project. A womanizer who loves his wife, a father who shows little interest in his family, and a man later plagued by his choices, Murphy delivers a truly Oscar-worthy performance. 

Equal to Murphy is Robert Downey, Jr., as the seemingly mild, almost benign, but ultimately vindictive Lewis Strauss, who offered Oppenheimer the directorship of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study. Downey, Jr. gives one of his finest, most dimensional performances as Strauss’s real and imagined slights drive him to take down the scientist. As with Murphy, Downey, Jr., will most likely receive an Academy Award nomination (if not a win). 

Emily Blunt makes alcoholic and volatile wife, Katherine, a frustrating and noble figure. Matt Damon’s General Groves is the company man who sees the bigger picture. Florence Pugh’s independent communist Jean Tatlock brings both sensual and tragic qualities to Oppenheimer’s sometimes lover. David Krumholtz is powerfully understated as Isidor Rabi, a voice of wisdom and conscience, as is Tom Conti as the knowing Albert Einstein. 

In the Senate confirmation hearing, Rami Malek’s David Hill smartly projects shades of Joseph Welch taking down Joseph McCarthy. Kenneth Branagh makes a strong cameo as Niels Bohr, and Gary Oldman, one of the greatest actors of his generation, is indelible as President Truman. Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, Jason Clarke, Matthew Modine, and Tony Goldwyn are among the dozens of supporting performers who comprise this exceptional ensemble. 

Hoyte van Hoytema’s astonishing cinematography enhances and highlights the shift in time and place, perfectly complementing the work of production designer Ruth De Jong. Every element is in perfect synchronicity, from costumes to soundtrack. But Nolan, as Oppenheimer’s creator, manifested this exceptional undertaking. He skillfully blended science, politics, and morality into a cinematic gem that will be honored now and remembered as a work as complicated and brilliant as its subject. 

Rated R, the film is now playing in local theaters.