Oppenheimer (Christopher Nolan)

Is she any more thinly written than many of the other satellite characters in the film though?

Are women any better at writing male characters?

she wasn’t a satellite character though. She has significantly more screen time than most. Probably in the top 4 for screen time.

She's a satellite character to the main character. It's a biopic and that's generally what happens.

Ok… well if we’re calling everyone beyond Oppenheimer himself a satellite character then it seems a bit of a pointless classification.

she’s an important character, with a lot of screen time, and is the one emotional outlet to play off the lead, so as such should be far more fleshed out and developed than she is. Emily Blunt was absolutely pulling up trees with her performance to find some depth there.

Perhaps. But, again, if he's going to flesh out characters other than the main character in his, already long running biopic, we end up with an even more bloated running time.

As I said a few pages back, this subject is probably more suited to a mini series than a movie. Because, inevitably, you're going to get cuts here and there, and that will include character. For instance, I think the likes of Leo Szilard is an infinitely more interesting and important character in the story of Robert Oppenheimer than his Mrs. and he's reduced to a come and go figure in the movie of relatively little consequence.

She has lots of screen time - she doesn’t need more time to be fleshed out, she just needed to be written better in the time she’s already on screen.

It doesn't matter what screen time she has. What do want from her here? Blunt does a good job in the film, but she's still, very much, a secondary character in a biopic about a particular person and a singular pursuit of his. Which is always going to be the case in a movie of such a nature. And, as said, if we go down too far on the road of every Tom, Dick and Harry in a biopic, it'll lose focus and end up being bloated.

As it stands, 'Oppenheimer' isn't even that clear about its central figure. Most people will leave the cinema none the wiser about him than before they went in.

There's probably and entire movie that could be made about Kitty herself.. Her descent into alcoholism alone would make for an interesting character study. But you're not going to get that in a movie about her husband.

Oppenheimer's domestic life was rather limp and his Mrs. was side lined in many ways due to her alcoholism. She struggled for years with it and Robert became increasingly more distant. Choosing to focus more on work than the difficulties Kitty was going through. I don't think he did this in a deliberate way, mind you. It was more out of an inability to deal with an addict, which is often the way.

As for her speech at Oppenheimer's inquest, it came from nowhere in real life too. At the time, Kitty Oppenheimer was very much in the shadow of Robert and was well known for her drinking. Her questioners believed that provoking her about her Communist past would put a dent in Oppenheimer's case, but she was able to stand her ground and close off that avenue and, in fact, I thought that that scene was extremely well written and acted, even if there's, more than likely, a bit of artistic licence going on with it.

Again, I don't know what people want from the Oppenheimer's domestic life. He went deeper into his work and she tended to get pissed during the day and night. They had grown apart to a very large degree and were mostly just occupying the same space. Kitty was so isolated at Los Alamos that she ended up leaving and Oppenheimer wasn't too bothered. After the war he became more obsessed with his media image and she became more inward and turned to the bottle in a big way. Now, there may be a movie in that alone, but you can't go too deep into that in an already 3 hour epic.

As for her questioning at the AEC's inquest, Kitty was able to riposte her examiners merely because she answered truthfully. There wasn't any kind of 4D chess going on. Her questioners believed that they could find a red under the bed, as it were, such were the times in America at that period. But she just answered their probes by telling the truth. A truth which stymied their angle.

I'm biased after seeing it in BFI the second night of release but if you have the interest, it's well worth the effort, 70mm IMAX is amazing there.

Was in Manchester myself for a few days and got to see it in 70mm IMAX Tuesday morning in the Printworks. Never been in a proper Imax before and honestly was blown away. Really loved the film and the sense of immersion and sound is amazing. Murphy and Downey are definitely Oscar front runners but there were a lot of very good supporting performances.

Can't remember the last time I was in such a well behaved crowd at the cinema. Probably Hamlet 70mm in the IFI! Didn't see one person get up in 3 hours and I'd say it was nearly 75% full at 9am and all wedged towards the middle seats and back rows. Sat in the very back row in the middle, I'd be okay in second last but I'd think I'd be uncomfortable any closer. I'll be tempted to fit in another trip over to see Dune Part 2 but might try London this time.

I'd make the effort to at least see it in 70mm if you're a cinemaphile. Cinema showing it are going to stay doing it for a while yet such is demand. I was originally planning to see it in the IFI but getting decent seats at time I could make was impossible at least last week. Checking now though it does seem to have calmed down though most of the best seats are still gone. I might try see it again if I can get up to Dublin.

Map of all 35mm, 70mm prints & IMAX showings worldwide!

I agree with you (except for the stupid part..unless I'm stupid too 😉) but jesus, 3 hours. Unfortunately, things weren't helped due to the insane temperature of the Maxx theatre, it was uncomfortably hot.

Murphy was brilliant though, I hope he gets an Oscar.