Oppenheimer

Combined Rating: 8.9 (Peter 8.7, Dad 9.1)
Combined Best Picture Ranking: #4 (Peter #5, Dad #2)

Peter: There were two winners of the Barbenheimer phenomenon: Barbie, which made more money (and demanded itself to be taken seriously by demographics who would have otherwise ignored it), and Oppenheimer, which is preparing to sweep the Oscars on Sunday (I’m predicting it to win somewhere between 7-9 awards including Best Picture) and is, to put it frankly, the better movie by far. It’s the kind of movie that would win Best Picture in just about any year — an undeniable achievement (yes, it is only my #5… we’ll get to that) that has united audiences, critics, and the Hollywood industry in their overwhelming love for it (an increasingly rare occurrence these days). 

Joe: I ranked this one higher than Peter — it was my second-favorite movie of the year (and also my second-favorite movie whose runtime starts with the number 3. We were lucky to see it in an iMAX theater (after having watched Barbie in the morning). Apart from the movie itself, the next most impressive achievement was the older dude one row in front of us who somehow slept through 80% of the movie. Nuclear fission is happening at 10 million decibels and the old fella, amazingly, did not wake up.  

Peter: Now, I think some people are lying to themselves in believing that Oppenheimer’s success proves audiences want riskier, original cinema. I’m not so sure it proves any such thing for any filmmaker whose name is not Christopher Nolan. I hope they’re right, though.

Joe: This is an interesting question. Peter — when do you think was the last time that “riskier, original cinema” was happening with more noticeable frequency? 

Peter: Every year nowadays when the Oscar nominations come out, there’s this crowd saying “why can’t the Oscars nominate movies everyone saw?” My simple answer would be: a time when they didn’t do that, so I’ll bring Christopher Nolan back into the conversation and say pre-2008. That was the year of The Dark Knight snub, which is probably the most consequential snub in Oscars history for several reasons (the line-up being extended has only complicated the issue). Why weren’t they complaining about the Synecdoche, New York snub instead? I know it’s odd to frame this conversation about original cinema around the Oscars, but I think they’ve always acted as the most mainstream and accessible force of encouragement for people to step outside of their comfort zone. Even they’ve been rejected, which shows no hope for audiences being open to bolder recommendations. So yes, it’s all Christopher Nolan’s fault and he’s not going to save us from this mess. And Marvel’s fault. Also Spielberg’s fault because he made Jaws almost 50 years ago and “set off a chain reaction that would destroy the world”, but even his movies are bombing these days. If only we could have lived in the New Hollywood Era forever. 

Joe: Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I also love two other things about your answer. One, that it provided you with an off-ramp to talk about Synecdoche, New York. And two, that your chosen Time Machine era is basically a direct overlap of the Nixon presidency, so you must really love New Hollywood. Okay, back to Oppenheimer. 

Peter: My relationship with Nolan has been… rocky. Can’t deny the guy has a vision but, man, is he flawed. Oppenheimer isn’t even free from many of the Nolan-isms I least appreciate. Yes, the female characters are underdeveloped. Yes, it reaches unhealthy levels of self-seriousness. Yes, there are snippets of dialogue that wouldn’t be out of place in a Marvel movie (the “some young senator from Massachusetts” line echoes a similar energy as when we hear “It’s the End of the World as We Know It” in Maestro). Yes, the sound mixing goes “BRRRRRR” and drowns out the dialogue (of the many awards that Oppenheimer is favored to win, the only one that would downright upset me is Best Sound. This isn’t to say the Sound work is horrible. The overpowering vibrations certainly work to create disorientation in this one, whereas it’s just annoying in other Nolan films, but there’s one other nominee that NEEDS to be recognized for its sound work). Yes, there are so many narrative gimmicks that aren’t any more original this time. 

Joe: I’m neither a fanboy nor a critic of the Nolan oeuvre. I often end up linking him in my mind with James Cameron — perhaps in large part due to the self-seriousness phenomenon Peter mentions above. I have seen 7 Nolan movies and I like them all. I would rate them thusly: 1) Oppenheimer, 2) Dunkirk, 3) The Dark Knight, 4) Batman Begins, 5) The Prestige, 6) Inception, 7) The Dark Knight Rises. I don’t know I haven’t seen Memento yet — feels like it would be up my alley. Lastly, I’ve tried 3 different times to watch Tenet and each time I have thrown up the white flag 20 minutes in. 

Peter: Yes, I’m probably too hard on the guy. But somehow, beyond my wildest belief, he made it all work. During a scene like the Trinity Test, where my heart was beating out of my chest, you’ve just got to give it up to Chris. 

Joe: I think I’d have to call it the best scene of this movie year. Fassbender fighting the Brute in Fincher’s The Killer is a distant second.

Peter: My biggest criticism of most modern biopics (like Maestro) is that they fail to convince me that their subject is important. They fail to tell me WHY this story needs to be told. Oppenheimer is such an intense inversion of this, and it’s why Nolan’s self-importance serves him well. He’s convinced that Oppenheimer is the most important man who’s ever lived, and that’s why the movie works. The movie sells us this idea and the final moments (“I think we did”) wraps it up in a fine looking package. An odd criticism that I have is with the title. Oppenheimer isn’t your regular bland biopic, and it shouldn’t have to pretend like it is, but the blandest possible approach to the title is not doing it any justice. The book it’s adapted from is called American Prometheus. That’s about a billion times cooler and better, though it might not have sold as well. 

Joe: I agree with most of Peter’s points here. The one point I’d quibble with is the effectiveness of Nolan’s self-importance. Ultimately, it’s not the directing or the acting that prevents Oppenheimer from rising to my Mt. Olympus level of movies. It’s Nolan’s stodgy writing. I’d contrast it with a biographically-driven ’80s movie that does sit on my Mt. Olympus: The Right Stuff. Probably because it was derived from a book by Tom Wolfe — who was allergic to stodgy — the movie just crackles from start to finish. Sometimes, it feels like Oppenheimer just…trudges. 

Peter: This cast is wild. Cillian Murphy is magnificent. I recently read he will be the first Irish-born actor to win the Oscar for Best Actor when that inevitably happens and I think that’s pretty cool (though it should’ve been Colin Farrell in the exceptional Banshees of Inisherin last year).

Joe: I second the Farrell shout-out. My brain picks Murphy for Best Actor. My heart picks Paul Giamatti. 

Peter: I also have no problem with Robert Downey Jr.’s inevitable win. Out of all the performances *nominated* in Supporting Actor, his feels the most complex. I find the Mozart-Salieri dynamic between Oppenheimer and Strauss fascinating. The women in the movie aren’t given much to do. Oh wow, Emily Blunt is… crossing her arms and frowning again. It’s Nolan. Some things never change. 

Joe: Downey’s likely win is well deserved. He anchors what is actually my favorite part of the movie — the prolonged attack on Oppenheimer’s reputation after the Trinity test. Most people I’ve heard or read think less highly of that aspect of the movie. I totally disagree — I love that DC backroom shit. Regarding Blunt’s nomination, I think she’s America Ferrara on steroids. A mostly background, shoulder-shrugging role for most of the movie turns transcendent during an electric scene when she brings serious heat combatting the Atomic Energy Commission interrogators. 

Peter: No, but what really makes this cast wild is not even the fact that it includes names like Josh Peck and Devon Bostick (shaping up to be the Olivier and Brando of their generation, I think) but the fact that every other day I hear someone praise some supporting performance from an actor I’ve never heard of and a character I don’t even vaguely recall. “John Shigelbom’s legendary character acting work has gone unrecognized for DECADES, and it’s about time we gave him his flowers for his explosive performance as Scientist 14. He’s the one who should’ve gotten the Supporting Actor nod”. Sure. Maybe it’s just me who’s seeing these comments everywhere. I’m not in the “3 hours is too long for a movie” camp – I love 3 hour movies – but I do believe that 3 hour movies are bound to have unspectacular moments and that’s okay. Most of these random suit-wearing scientist characters were unspectacular to me, but I love that so many people feel differently. Plenty of spectacular moments to make up for it.

Joe: This rant by Peter shows why he takes the lead role in these reviews. Also, I did feel compelled to Google “John Shigelbom” just in case.