So at long last, with the film making its first theatrical rerun, I watched
Oppenheimer for the first time in San Francisco last week.
The film is technically brilliant and emotionally well-constructed. Visually and sonically brilliant - seeing this in IMAX 70mm did wonders, it really is breathtaking. Christopher Nolan's tendency to play with chronology in his screenplays comes out in its very best here - the timeline of events is perfectly clear and you essentially know what's coming in each of the timeframes presented, but the plot is so well-structured that this does nothing to lower the dramatic tension. The performances are also excellent. Cillian Murphy gives a stellar performance in the lead, surrounded by an ensemble full of big names who all fall into their roles quite well.
In terms of awards, this would (among films I've seen so far) easily top my list for cinematography, sound, score, and best ensemble. Possibly editing as well, though
Killers of the Flower Moon is quite close for me. I would give
KOTFM the edge in picture, direction, and lead acting, but I wouldn't be remotely unhappy with Oppenheimer taking home all these awards (which it seems it has a decent chance at doing).
There is one award category, however, in which the film seems to be on pace to win everywhere that I take issue with: Robert Downey Jr.'s supporting role as Lewis Strauss. Quite honestly, I felt that it was nothing special. It was alright, sure, but nothing more than that. He's just an actor that everyone loves because he was Iron Man and now that he's returned to more serious films - and is still a quite capable actor - everyone seems to be rushing to give him awards. The thing is, despite a lot of talk about how different this role was - it really didn't feel that way to me? He essentially plays Strauss as Iron Man if he had a little more political acumen and was a little more reserved and patient. At least Mark Ruffalo's role in Poor Things (which I believe is getting brownie points for the same reason) is genuinely very different than the stuff he was doing in his Marvel years. The only time Downey really gets to shine is...
spoilers follow for Oppenheimer (C. Nolan, 2023)Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.
...in the ending, when Strauss has a gradual emotional breakdown as his confirmation process crashes. The problem is that to reach these dramatic "Oscar-y" acting moments, Nolan sets up this incredibly hamfisted dialogue with this congressional staffer (of Nolan's own creation) played by Alden Ehrenreich. The character basically ends up continually repeating and stating the obvious, things that the audience will have, for the most part, already figured out, just to allow Strauss the opportunity to make his various deranged responses. By the end, Ehrenreich is basically narrating the moral of the story and scolding Strauss for his actions, like some kind of self-insert of Nolan's. I don't know if this was done because he thought the audience wouldn't be able to figure out his intended message, or if he simply wanted the audience to get the visceral satisfaction of seeing the bad guy getting a stern talking-to. Either way, it is cheap and bad; we don't need Nolan to literally state "what if Oppenheimer and Einstein were talking about something more important", we can just let Strauss say his paranoid bit and then end the film revisiting the conversation and everyone would get it. Really, this ending feels like an incredibly stark departure from the rest of the movie - not to mention some basic principles of filmmaking, show not tell, etc. (Quite honestly I was fully ready to say this movie was also my preferred choice for best screenplay until this portion completely ruined that for me). I left the theater half suspecting that the ending was deliberately constructed the way it was in order to get Downey awards. But the sleight-of-hand, if one can call it that, used to reach that point are so clunky that it significantly undercut the performance for me.
Even accepting all of his work in the ending, his performance is not in the same stratosphere as De Niro's, nor the next two best male supporting performances of last year (Dominic Sessa in The Holdovers and Charles Melton in May December). Honestly, I wouldn't even consider it the strongest male supporting performance in this film - arguably Matt Damon was more solid and more convincing in the role he was given. But I guess we've come to expect that sort of thing from him.
