What exactly does it entail to carry the blood of over 22,000 people with only two hands (without knowing of the possible radiation sequels)? What event draws the line between an academic dream turned into a fascination for how the matter of the Universe works (A), and a historical, worldwide tragedy (B)? Should the original dreams be cancelled? If the trajectory between A and B is not a straight line, what function does it obey, and what are the variables that cause stochastic behavior, hence deeming human behavior as not entirely forecastable?

The blockbuster auteur’s latest rendition is a triptych-like manifesto which combines the best of both worlds concerning his writing and directing talents: the literal and figurative black-and-white approach to the grim depiction of political interests and fabrication of media consumption (reminiscent of Following [1998] and its yet unsurpassed concoction of an intoxicating neo-noir aura of imminent danger and uncertainty), and the visual shenanigans engulfed, not this time in a plot that depends more on the brutally elongated exposition of a fantastical sci-fi gimmick, but in a psychological dissection of a scientist that dreamed wonders, hypothesized about the unknown, and saw both materialize into death.

Murphy is undeniably committed: a man, once again literally and figuratively, stripped down to private and public humiliation due to him not acknowledging the magnitude of the potential consequences of his contributions to science when government interest was already present. From the daydreaming student, to the elitist teacher, to a man that was too naïve to understand man’s ambition during wartimes, Oppenheimer’s character arc is the most complete in Nolan’s entire filmography, with the most chilling aspect how the transcription of the Bhagavad-gītā materialized on his persona.

Nevertheless, it is Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Lewis Strauss, the president of the AEC, the best performance of the entire film. Relentless, invaded by inner demons and unforgivingly paranoid, Strauss is the center point of psychological, media and political clashes and how these affect not only a sense of personal security, but also the relevance of a public image.

Gary Oldman is one of the greatest modern actors of our time still active and all he needed were some minutes to obliterate the screen with his overwhelming presence in a flawless portrayal of dehumanization, sarcasm, destructive capitalism and the corruption of leaders sitting in almost any throne, be it monarchic, democratic or simply lawless.

Ludwig Göransson has only one flaw in his sense-assaulting composition: like Zimmer, Nolan seems to instruct the composers that work with him to make a soundtrack necessarily loud, so it is difficult to figure out what the characters are saying; however, it has the talent to convert any daydream, bomb testing, inner thought or interrogation into a figurative action scene. Editing and sound editing play a magnificent collective role, and Nolan plays with the expectations in this department: the loudest bang we expect to hear doesn’t come at the time it is suggested (intentionally with buildup), nor has the effect a blockbuster cinema watcher could predict. In two key instances, Oppenheimer's world begins to tremble with a stark white tone as an effect of passing out, yet making an effort to stay conscious. What a way to depict an internal emotional atomic bomb against the backdrop of the physical one. We witness the significant major test from Oppenheimer’s eyes and cathartic fascination and doubt at the same time, where the matter exploding in front of him comes full circle with his envisioning of the death of stars and their energy behavior when younger. That night, Los Álamos became a small laboratory room humbly mimicking greater events in the physical universe.

All of this happens for what? The government gives instructions and supports a project “using scientists until they don’t need to” just to legally condemn you with a sense of moral they certainly don’t possess, discrediting his contribution to science with the governmental decisions taken once his creation was not of his property anymore. To whom should the finger be pointed at? It is easier to condemn and judge than to evaluate the character of a person. Everything we do has a root, but humans are also fallible. Now imagine labelling him as a Communist (and creating theoretically differentiated branches of Communism in the process) based on his factual promiscuity and marital infidelity. Oppenheimer is not a bullet-proof character, but every sarcastic laugh and pointed finger in that private, small jury is an invitation to reflect on who are the puppets and who are the puppet masters.

I had to wait 13 years to see this level of quality again, and out of all things, it was a biopic, which is a first for the blockbuster sensation guy, who might be as divisive as they come (not really if we bring Refn, Noé or von Trier to the party, to state minor examples), but always has the media going with hype.

For this time, rest assured, the hype is reached, and when you see sequences like him feeling literally naked out of shame in front of his wife (who had a tremendous display of character and neutral objectiveness when questioned about nonsense), the first post-Hiroshima conference he gives while envisioning his audience as ghastly atomic victims (there’s plenty of haunting imagery in there), or the private jury reaching its peak of intensity, one realizes this is more a dissected psychological testament about a troubled and guilt-ridden soul that suffered through the greatest ingratitude from the government that instructed him to do what he did and how these inner demons increase in amount with each passing decade, than about the excitement of watching a huge explosion. We have the Transformers franchise for that.

The Best Picture winner at the Oscars is obvious now, but that doesn’t mean a thing. What truly concerns me is: what lies ahead of Nolan boy now?

84/100