《 #奧本海默 》這個故事是羅伯·派汀森推薦給諾蘭導演，如果你了解多一些羅伯·派汀森；而不是印象只停留在《 #暮光之城 》時期的他，就會覺得這樣的“催生”是多么的理所當然，畢竟羅伯·派汀森也是怪人一個，但是是有才華的怪。

這部電影的主角“奧本海默＂本來就是有著沖突性的人設，他沒打算對情感忠誠、和共產黨走的很近卻不是共產黨員、在下屬的眼中也不是多好親近的人、也或許迷失在掌聲中、真實世界的他有思覺失調的問題…這些將他形塑成瑕疵英雄。

在那場就要讓他入罪的私下審判中，也看到他對發(fā)明核彈這般的殺人武器是否會內疚？也有著十分人性化的詮釋，會發(fā)現(xiàn)…

「內疚有層次、有分別、有搞不清楚、有可能只是自憐的一廂情愿、有框架。內疚不只是內疚的如此單純，也不一定永恒。」

另外…

這些科學家才是真實世界中的“超級英雄”，會更像《 #黑袍糾察隊 》的超級英雄的那個樣子，只不過更像人許多。

?

電影看到決定要投下核彈在日本時，我自動腦補了 #宮崎駿 的《 #螢火蟲之墓 》覺得可悲到不行，只是一直來到這個世代，各國間的戰(zhàn)略盤算不也仍在重復著這樣的路數？

也只好安慰大家不要成為人類中的“分母”，盡量成為一個有用的人、能接近核心的人、成為分子的人。

?

我一直沒想到這個作品中也會有“反派”，畢竟這是部史實為依據而改編的作品。

電影把這位反派藏的很好，但細心的觀眾在他被羞辱時會心中有個底。

這個壞心眼也是伴隨著權勢而能得逞，它不只是“小心眼愛記仇”那樣的簡單，畢竟…

「在權勢圈里反而是“形象、名聲”往往比金錢還來的重要。」

反派不也是想從分母爬到分子的努力著？

又怎能不妒嫉有著才華而“生來就是分子”的奧本海默？

?

電影沒說的是奧本海默他本來就是富裕猶太裔的孩子，本來就贏在起跑點，電影中的毒害教授的事件，也是他家里的人花錢去擺平的。

?

所以如果你是導演或是制片方，略知道奧本海默他的人生事跡和世界歷史，也會知道這是好賣的題材、一個好的故事。

?

諾蘭導演在這次也是用了一個電影一半的時長、很滿的對白鋪陳用來迭架最終的故事高潮。

嚴格上來說電影如果去掉了前面的一個半小時而直攻核心故事，也會是部有著不錯分數的好電影！但這種執(zhí)著也才造就了Christopher Nolan，我質疑這份執(zhí)著的必要性。

就好比堅持膠片拍攝（這點我能理解，這是和審美的敏銳、視覺的細節(jié)計算有關）但堅持到自行研發(fā)、制造出一臺專門拍黑白電影的70mm膠片攝影機，這種執(zhí)著也只有類似Nolan這個強大的IP/知名的導演辦得到了。

但我不認為數字攝影設備辦不到膠片拍攝所能做的事，或許這就是我的“窮人思維”吧。

?

總之

《奧本海默》是近期好看的電影，沖著話題是可以去看看這部電影，它沒有大到一定要進電影院看，所以不追話題的觀眾或許也可以等等串流平臺的上架再看也不遲。

?

?

"Oppenheimer" was recommended to director Christopher Nolan by Robert Pattinson. If you know more about Robert Pattinson beyond his "Twilight" days, you would find such a collaboration quite natural, as he is not just the actor from "Twilight" but also a talented and eccentric individual.

?

The protagonist, "Oppenheimer," in this film was intentionally crafted as a conflicted character. He is not inclined to be emotionally loyal, keeps a distance from the Communist Party without being a member, isn't particularly close to his subordinates, and may even be lost amidst the applause. In the real world, he struggles with issues of schizophrenia, which humanizes him as a flawed hero.

?

In the private trial that could lead to his conviction, we witness his internal conflict regarding the invention of the deadly nuclear bomb. Will he feel guilt? The portrayal offers a nuanced perspective, showing that guilt is multi-layered, subjective, and sometimes even self-pitying. It can be complex and not necessarily eternal.

?

Moreover, these scientists are the real-life "superheroes" in the world, akin to the characters in "The Boys," but much more human. They exemplify the complex and imperfect nature of real-life heroes.

When the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was depicted in the film, it automatically brought to mind Miyazaki's "Grave of the Fireflies," a heart-wrenching portrayal. Unfortunately, throughout history, strategic calculations between nations seem to repeat such devastating paths. All we can do is console ourselves by striving not to be just a denominator in humanity's equation but to be useful individuals, getting closer to the core, and becoming a part of the solution.

?

It was unexpected to find an antagonist in this historical adaptation. The film cleverly conceals this character, but attentive viewers sense it when he is humiliated. His malevolence is not merely about holding grudges but also about the pursuit of power. In such circles of influence, image and reputation often carry more weight than money itself. The antagonist too seeks to climb from the denominator to the numerator. How can he not be envious of Oppenheimer, who was born with talent and was already a part of the "molecule"?

?

In the end, the movie delves into the complexities of human nature, ambition, and the choices that shape history.

The movie doesn't reveal that Oppenheimer originally came from a wealthy Jewish family, giving him an advantage from the start. The incident with the toxic professor in the film was handled by his family's money.

?

As a director or producer with some knowledge of Oppenheimer's life and world history, one would recognize this as a compelling and marketable subject, a story worth telling.

?

Christopher Nolan, the director, dedicates a significant portion of the film to elaborate dialogues and setup, which build up to the climax. Strictly speaking, if the movie focused solely on the core story and omitted the first hour and a half, it could still be a good film with a decent score. However, Nolan's persistence and attention to detail have shaped his unique style, making him the director he is. For example, he insists on using film shooting, which I understand, as it's related to aesthetic sensitivity and visual precision. But his unwavering dedication to developing a 70mm film camera specifically for black-and-white films seems excessive and only achievable by a prominent director like Nolan. However, I don't believe that digital cameras can't achieve what film shooting can. Perhaps, that's just my "limited budget" way of thinking.

?

In conclusion, "Oppenheimer" is a compelling movie worth watching, especially for its topic. While it's not a must-see in theaters, it's a film that can be enjoyed on streaming platforms at a later date for those who aren't driven by the current buzz.

?

※ 圖片擷自thedailybeast