organicsocial

I'm fully aware that critiquing the work of an auteur like Christopher Nolan could be perceived as snobbish. Hence, I'd try to be objective in this review.

Firstly, it's a biopic. There's nothing quite unique about a biopic as the imaginative works of Nolan like the Inception or Interstellar. Hence, there is only so much he can do to be creative in directing Oppenheimer. It's just history, and there is nothing much to spoil there. This movie is a take on the personal predicaments and political persecution of scientist Dr. J Robert Oppenheimer who headed the Manhattan Project which resulted in the creation of the atomic bomb and as a consequence millions of innocent people lost their lives in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Secondly, there is a known pattern of human behavior which always targets the best of us when their job is done. Meaning, eminent scientists being harassed by the system once they have achieved great success is a recurring theme. We find that in the story of Alan Turing in the Imitation Game, in the story of Nambi Narayanan in Rocketry and so many others. It is common to find scientists working on technologies of strategic importance being framed for treason or similar cases and then being questioned for their loyalty to their nation. It's simply an occupational hazard. What can I say? Never build things for the government!

Thirdly, movies about American supremacy growing out of the Second World War and the subsequent cold war are stereotypical. We are quite over them. We just see them in different light now. President Truman's two bit rebuff of Oppenheimer is as asinine as it can get. It's cartoonishly evil. Perhaps it serves as the explanation of why no one ever committed suicide for being part of the decision to drop those bombs. Instead everyone just kept bickering over bruised egos for not being amply credited for the wonderful devastation which brought an end to the war.

Also it feels like Nolan is showing off by bringing on-board every brilliant actor out there for minor roles and cameos. Additionally, it could be a nerd's wet dream to see the glimpse of every founding genius of particle physics being name called and paraded as part of the plot but as a student of physics myself, I'm cringing.

Furthermore, the use of Bhagwat Gita reference was not given justice. The reason why Oppenheimer quoted those famous lines about becoming "destroyer of worlds" could have been treated better and not in a clichéd scene which could just be dismissed as some orientalist's curiosity with foreign religion. The movie didn't soak in the actual philosophy of which Oppenheimer was a keen student in real life.

The idea of a scientist who created the ultimate weapon of mass destruction growing a conscience and getting punished for that is a bit of a routine drag. I think this is where Oppenheimer contrasts with Heisenberg. While Oppenheimer set aside all his personal doubts to create the atom bomb for US government knowing well that he won't have any say in its use (In-fact he was highly enthusiastic about it initially) Heisenberg and his team of scientists working on the same project for the Nazis did not show that same motivation. I believe that's where Heisenberg's character far exceeds Oppenheimer's. Let's not delve in assessing such historical giants with our current worldview.

You can watch a movie called 'The Catcher was a Spy' on how USA deployed a baseball star to spy on Heisenberg to know if he's close to creating the atom bomb and if so, assassinate him. Critics didn't like the movie much. However I like it better than this.

Comparing with the body of work of Nolan, Oppenheimer does not feel like his best. It's an over emphasized effort to dazzle the world with the scale of production. We are sitting on the verge of a world war III with very real threat of a nuclear annihilation and we still don't care if the world will come to an end.

Americans have always been enterprising. Sometimes to their own detriment. If anyone ever made a movie about the origin story of the "American Dream" then this is it. Its about the hustle in the new world for creating something truly original. Yes there is a bit of a scheme involved. The "First Cow" in its whole serene presence and bovine grace represents the vastness of opportunities and the inherent urge of those in power to limit its access to those who may be more skilled, more persevering, more aspiring and perhaps more deserving.

The First Cow is a movie set in a time which is often depicted in the confined cinematic universe of gun toting cowboys and the audience is usually never exposed to this side of the wild west which tends to focus on the people who really survived the time preserving their sanity. I think people like Cookie and King were the kind of people who truly built America. Btw, there's a nice ring to the name "Cookie King"! A restaurant and a bakery by that name may actually work.

On a different note, being a Hindu born in India, I'm naturally inclined to call this movie an evidence on how important a single "Cow" could be for the community. Divine maternal nature of the Cow which the Hindus have come to worship over thousands of years isn't the least bit irrational.

Well, in terms of the acting, the two lead men have done a splendid job. This is the first time I watched a Kelly Reichardt movie and I find it astonishingly rich and character driven despite its slow pace and sparse dialogue. It reminded me of Satyajit Ray movies such as Pather Panchali. It is that visual storytelling and stillness which just pulls you into the story. First Cow is all about chewing the cud on good cinema.

I give a solid 8 to Jon Stewart's directorial debut. Well its a reviewer's rating because I feel that anyone giving it their first shot should get some encouragement. From the perspective of a regular movie goer who want's something fun to watch, this movie is not Irresistible. Its a comedy but the humor is for the drab intellectuals who won't get a date easily. Surely I love it but then I loved "Our Brand is Crisis" too which was almost universally panned.

Speaking of "Our Brand is Crisis", Irresistible has many parallels with that movie. Of course the chemistry of Steve Carell and Rose Byrne is way better than between Sandra Bullock and Billy Bob Thornton and this has to do with more of the political divide in USA than in some far off country. Truly, this movie is a testament to the issues of Democracy and the people who are both the victims and the benefactors of the dysfunction which comes from the apathy of those who win elections and the way the electoral system works now in America.

This movie comes at a time that USA prepares to go into elections while the world grapples with Covid-19. The despise for Trump among the liberals is out in the open and the Republican Vs Democrat debate is raging. I would say this is the perfect time for this movie to come out but would people want to watch it? I would say you should. In essence its a classic heist movie and viewers only realise it at the end. This is about as much I would give out to the reader who hasn't watched the movie.

One thing I would point out though is that Jon Stewart's keen observation of politics in America and his bipartisan view translates well on screen with this movie. He is right about the state of Democrats in America. Surely, not everything can be blamed on Republicans. There has been some inherent flaw in the way liberal ecosystem has depended on media management and outright lies to control the system for years. Being from the PR background myself, I see the truth about the unsavory tactics and the kind of toxic people in the industry serving those in the power. Irresistible is just a funny anecdotal evidence of the cesspool which really exists.

Watch out for the mid credit scenes.