#Oppenheimer was stunning obviously

[dudedearest]

man: “hey girl. you’re a biologist right?”

woman: “yes……. but I don’t understand physics. you must be so smart.”

man: “yes, physics is very complicated. but I can explain it to you.”

woman: “wow. forget being scientist in my own right, can I be your housewife?”

[thesublemon]

best picture

For the first time in a long time, I watched all of the movies nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars this year. Partly on a whim, partly for a piece I’ve been working on for a while about what is going wrong in contemporary artmarking. I cannot say that the experience made me feel any better or worse about contemporary movies than I already felt, which was pretty bad. But sometimes to write about a hot stove, you gotta put your hand on one. So. The nominees for coldest stove are:

Poor Things. Did not like enough to finish. I always want to like something that is making an effort at originality, strangeness, or style. Unfortunately, the execution of those things in this movie felt somehow dull and thin. Hard to explain how. Maybe the movie’s motif of things mashed together (baby-woman, duck-dog, etc) is representative. People have been mashing things together since griffins, medleys, Avatar the Last Airbender’s animals, Nickelodeon’s Catdog, etc. Thing + thing is elementary-level weird. And while there’s nothing wrong with a simple, or well-worn premise, there is a greater burden on an artist to do something interesting with it, if they go that route. And Poor Things does not. Its themes are obvious and belabored (the difficulty of self-actualization in a world that violently infantilizes you) and do not elevate the premise. There’s a fine line between the archetypal and the hackish, and this movie falls on the wrong side of it. It made me miss Crimes of the Future (2022), a recent Cronenberg that was authentically original and strange, with the execution to match.

Anatomy of a Fall. Solid, but not stunning. The baseline level of what a ‘good’ movie should be. It was written coherently and economically, despite its length. It told a story that drew you along. I wanted to know what happened, which is the least you can ask from storytelling. It had some compelling scenes that required a command of character and drama to write—particularly the big argument scene. The cinematography was not interesting, but it was not annoying either. It did its job. This was not, however, a transcendent movie.

Oppenheimer. Did not like enough to finish. But later forced myself to, just so no one could accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about when I said I disliked it. I felt like I was being pranked. The Marvel idea of what a prestige biopic should be. Like Poor Things, it telegraphed its artsiness and themes and has raked in accolades for its trouble. But obviousness is not the same as goodness and this movie is not good. The imagery is painfully literal. A character mentions something? Cut to a shot of it! No irony or nuance added by such images—just the artistry of a book report. The dialogue pathologically tells instead of shows. It constantly, cutely references things you might have heard of, the kind of desperate audience fellation you see in soulless franchise movies. Which is a particularly jarring choice given the movie’s subject matter. ‘Why didn’t you get Einstein for the Manhattan project’ Strauss asks, as if he’s saying ‘Why didn’t you get Superman for the Avengers?’ If any of this referentiality was an attempt to say something about mythologization, it failed—badly. The movie is stuffed with famous and talented actors, but it might as well not have been, given how fake every word out of their mouths sounded. Every scene felt like it had been written to sound good in a trailer, rather than to tell a damn story. All climax and no cattle.

Barbie. Did not like enough to finish. It had slightly more solidity in its execution than I was afraid it would have, so I will give it that. If people want this to be their entertainment I will let them have it. But if they want this to be their high cinema I will have to kill myself. Barbie being on this list reminds me of the midcentury decades of annual movie musical nominations for Best Picture. Sometimes deservingly. Other times, less so. The Music Man is great, but it’s not better than 8 1/2  or The Great Escape, neither of which were nominated in 1963. Musicals tend to appeal to more popular emotions, which ticket-buyers and award-givers tend to like, and critics tend to dislike. I remember how much Pauline Kael and Joan Didion hated The Sound of Music (which won in 1966), and have to ask myself if in twenty years I’ll think of my reaction to Barbie the same way that I think of those reviews: justified, but perhaps beside the point of other merits. Thing is. Say what you want about musicals, but that genre was alive back then. It was vital. Bursting with creativity. For all Kael’s bile, even she acknowledged that The Sound of Music was “well done for what it is.” [1] Contemporary cinema lacks such vitality, and Barbie is laden with symptoms of the malaise. It repeatedly falls back on references to past aesthetic successes (2001: A Space Odyssey, Singin’ in the Rain, etc) in order to have aesthetic heft. It has a car commercial in the middle. It’s about a toy from 60 years ago and politics from 10 years ago. It tries to wring some energy and meaning from all of that but not enough to cover the stench of death. I’d prefer an old musical any day.

American Fiction. Was okay. It tried to be clever about politics, but ended up being clomping about politics. At the end of the day, it just wasn’t any more interesting than any other ‘intellectual has a mid-life crisis’ story, even with the ‘twist’ of it being from a black American perspective. Even with it being somewhat self-aware of this. But it could have been a worse mid-life crisis story. The cinematography was terrible. It was shot like a sitcom. Much of the dialogue was sitcom-y too. I liked the soundtrack, what I could hear of it. The attempts at style and meta (the characters coming to life, the multiple endings) felt underdeveloped. Mostly because they were only used a couple times. In all, it felt like a first draft of a potentially more interesting movie. 

The Zone of Interest.Wanted to like it more than I did. Unfortunately, you get the point within about five minutes. If you’ve seen the promotional image of the people in the garden, backgrounded by the walls of Auschwitz, then you’ve already seen the movie. Which means that all the rest of the movie ends up feeling like pretentious excess instead of moving elaboration. It seemed very aware of itself as an Important Movie and rested on those laurels, cinematically speaking, in a frustrating way. It reminded me of video art. I felt like I had stepped through a black velvet drape into the side room of a gallery, wondering at what point the video started over. And video art has its place, but it is a different medium. Moreover video art at its best, like a movie at its best, takes only the time it needs to say what it needs to say. 

Past Lives. I’m a human being, and I respond to romance. I appreciate the pathos of sweet yearning and missed chances. And I understand how the romance in this movie is a synecdoche for ambivalent feelings about many kinds of life choices, particularly the choice to be an immigrant and choose one culture over another. The immigrant experience framing literalizes the way any choice can make one foreign to a past version of oneself, or the people one used to know, even if in another sense one is still the same person. So, I appreciate the emotional core of what (I believe) this movie was going for, and do think it succeeded in some respects. And yet…I was very irritated by most of its artistic choices. I found the three principal characters bland and therefore difficult to care about, sketched with only basic traits besides things like Striving and Being In Love. Why care who they’d be in another life if they have no personalities in this one? It’s fine to make characters symbols instead of humans if the symbolic tapestry of a movie is interesting and rich, but the symbolic tapestry of this movie was quite simple and straightforward. Not that that last sentence even matters much, since the movie clearly wanted you to feel for the characters as human beings, not just symbols. Visually, the cinematography was dull and diffuse, with composition that was either boring or as subtle as a hammer to the head.

Maestro. Did not like enough to finish. Something strange and wrong about this movie. It attempts to perform aesthetic mimicry with impressive precision—age makeup, accents, period cinematography—but this does not make the movie a better movie. At most it creates spectacle, at worst it creates uncanny valleys. It puts one on the lookout for irregularities, instead of allowing one to disappear into whatever the movie is doing. Something amateurishly pretentious in the execution. And not in the fun, respectable way, like a good student film. (My go-to example for a movie that has an art-school vibe in a pleasant way is The Reflecting Skin). There’s something desperate about it instead. It has the same disease as Oppenheimer, of attempting to do a biopic in a ‘stylish’ way without working on the basics first. Fat Man and Little Boy is a less overtly stylish rendition of the same subject as Oppenheimer, but far more cinematically successful to me, because it understands those basics. I would prefer to see the Fat Man and Little Boy of Leonard Bernstein’s life unless a filmmaker proves that they can do something with style beyond mimicry and flash.

The Holdovers. Did not like enough to finish. It tries to be vintage, but outside of a few moments, it does not succeed either at capturing what was good about the aesthetic it references, or at using the aesthetic in some other interesting way. The cinematography apes the tropes of movies and TV from the story’s time period, but doesn't have interesting composition in its own right. It lacks the solidity that comes from original seeing. (Contrast with something like Planet Terror, in which joyous pastiche complements the original elements.) The acting is badly directed. Too much actorliness is permitted. Much fakeness in general between the acting, writing, and visual language. If a movie with this same premise was made in the UK in the 60’s or 70's it would probably be good. As-is the movie just serves to make me sad that the ability to make such movies is apparently lost and can only be hollowly gestured at. That said, the woman who won best supporting actress did a good job. She was the only one who seemed to be actually acting.

Killers of the Flower Moon. The only possible winner. It is not my favorite of Scorsese’s movies, but compared to the rest of the lineup it wins simply by virtue of being a movie at all. How to define ‘being a movie’? Lots of things I could say that Killers of the Flower Moon has and does would also be superficially true of other movies in this cohort. Things like: it tells a story, with developed characters who drive that story. Or: it uses its medium (visuals, sound) to support its story and its themes. The difference comes down to richness, specificity, control, and a je ne sais quois that is beyond me to describe at the moment. Compare the way Killers of the Flower Moon uses a bygone cinematic style (the silent movie) to the way that Maestro and The Holdovers do. Killers of the Flower Moon uses a newsreel in its opening briefly and specifically. The sequence sets the scene historically, and gives you the necessary background with the added panache of confident cuts and music. It’s useful to the story and it’s satisfying to watch. Basics. But the movie doesn’t limit itself to that, because it’s a good movie. The sequence also sets up ideas that will be continuously developed over the course of the movie.* And here’s the kicker—the movie doesn’t linger on this sequence. You get the idea, and it moves on to even more ideas. Also compare this kind of ideating to American Fiction’s. When I said that American Fiction’s moments of style felt underdeveloped, I was thinking of movies like Killers of the Flower Moon, which weave and evolve their stylistic ideas throughout the entire runtime.

*(Visually, it places the Osage within a historical medium that the audience probably does not associate with Native Americans, or the Osage in particular. Which has a couple of different effects. First, it acts as a continuation of the gushing oil from the previous scene. It’s an interruption. A false promise. Seeming belonging and power, but framed all the while by a foreign culture. Meanwhile potentially from the perspective of that culture, it’s an intrusion on ‘their’ medium. And of course, this promise quickly decays into tragedy and death. The energy of the sequence isn’t just for its own sake—it sets up a contrast. But on a second, meta level it establishes the movie’s complicated relationship to media and storytelling. Newsreels, photos, myths, histories, police interviews, and a radio play all occur over the course of the movie. And there’s the movie Killers of the Flower Moon itself. Other people’s frames are contrasted with Mollie’s narration. There’s a repeated tension between communication as a method of knowing others and a method of controlling them—or the narrative of them—which plays out in both history and personal relationships.)

Or here’s another example: When Mollie and Ernest meet and he drives her home for the first time, we see their conversation via the car’s rearview mirrors. This is a bit of cinematic language that has its origins in mystery and paranoia. You see it in things like Hitchcock or The X-Files or film noir. By framing the scene with this convention, the movie turns what is superficially a romantic meet-cute (to quote a friend) into something bubbling with uneasiness and dread. This is not nostalgia—this is just using visuals to create effects. It doesn’t matter if you’ve seen anything that uses the convention before, although knowing the pedigree might add to your enjoyment. The watchfulness suggested by the mirrors and Ernest’s cut-off face will still add an ominous effect. It works for the same reason it works in those other things. Like the newsreel, it is a specific and concise stylistic choice, and it results in a scene that is doing more than just one thing.

In general, the common thread I noticed as I watched these nominees, was the tendency to have the ‘idea’ of theme or style, and then stop there. It’s not that the movies had nothing in them. There were ideas, there was use of the medium, there was meaning to extract. There were lots of individually good moments. But they tended to feel singular, or repetitive, or tacked on. Meanwhile contemporary viewers are apparently so impressed by the mere existence of theme or style, that being able to identify it in a movie is enough to convince many that the movie is also good at those things. The problem with this tendency—in both artists and audiences—is that theme and style are not actually some extra, remarkable, inherently rarifying property of art. Theme emerges naturally from a story with any kind of coherence or perspective. And style emerges naturally from any kind of artistic attitude. They are as native as script, or narrative, or character. A movie’s theme and style might not be interesting, just like its story or dialogue might not be interesting, but if the movie is at all decent, they should exist. What makes a movie good or bad, then, is how it executes its component parts—including theme and style—in service of the whole. When theme is well-executed it is well-developed. Contemporary movies, unfortunately, seem to have confused ‘well-developed’ with ‘screamingly obvious.’ A theme does not become well-developed by repetition. It becomes well-developed by iterationand integration. Theme is like a melody. Simply repeating a single melody over and over does not result in the song becoming more interesting or entertaining. It becomes tedious. However, if you modify the melody each time you play it, or diverge from the melody and then return to it, that can get exciting. It results in different angles on the same idea, such that the idea becomes more complex over time, instead of simply louder.

Oppenheimer wasprobably the worst offender in this regard. Just repeat your water drops, crescendoing noise, or a line about ‘destroying the world’, and that’s the same as nuance, right? Split scenes into color and black and white and that’s the same as structure, right? That’s the same as actually conveying a difference between objectivity and interiority (or another dichotomy) via the drama or visual composition contained in the scenes, right? When I watched many of these movies, I kept thinking of a behind-the-scenes story from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The story goes that Joss Whedon was directing Sarah Michelle Gellar in some scene, and when the take was over he told her how great she was, and that he could see right where the music would come in. And Gellar replied that if he was thinking about the music, he clearly wasn’t getting enough from her acting alone. This conversation then supposedly informed Whedon’s approach to “The Body,” a depiction of the immediate aftermath of death that is considered one of the best episodes of television ever made, and which has no non-diegetic music whatsoever. Not to imply that music is necessarily a crutch, or to pretend that “The Body” is lacking in other forms of stylization (it is a very style-ish episode). But more to illustrate the way that it is easy to forget to make the most of all aspects of a medium, particularly the most fundamental ones, once one has gotten used to what a final product is supposed to feel like. 

And that’s why most of these movies don’t feel like movies. They create the gestalt of a movie or a ‘cinematic’ moment—often literally through direct vintage imitation—without a sense of the first principles. Or demonstrating a sense of them, anyway. Who needs AI when the supposedly highest level of human filmmakers are already cannibalistically cargo-culting the medium just fine.

[1] “The Sound of Money (The Sound of Music and The Singing Nun).” The Pauline Kael Reader. (This book contains the full text of the original review, rather than the abbreviated review that I linked earlier.) 

[moorheadthanyoucanhandle]

GONE FISSION

Opening in theaters this weekend:

Oppenheimer--This biopic splits time the way its hero splits the atom. Narrative is fissionable to writer-director Christopher Nolan; he skips back and forth between episodes of Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) as a bumbling student, then as a philandering rising star in the new field of quantum physics, then as the determined yet haunted lord of Los Alamos, then as a post-bomb martyr to '50s era red-baiting. It glides along smoothly through its fractured scheme, beautifully shot by Hoyt van Hoytema in black and white and varyingly muted shades of color depending on period and point of view, and pushed along by a solemn Philip Glass-esque score by Ludwig Göransson.

Often crowned by a horizontal wide-brimmed preacher-style hat that makes him look like Brad Dourif in Wise Blood, Murphy uncannily captures the bursting, wide-eyed, near-ecstatic face that we see in photos of Oppenheimer. But he manages to give the performance a human dimension, with everyday foibles and touches of humor. He's not a pageant figure.

Murphy carries a star presence. But he's very ably supported by a huge, colorful gallery of star character players: Robert Downey Jr. as AEC Chairmen Lewis Strauss and Josh Hartnett as Ernest Lawrence and Benny Safdie as Edward Teller and Tom Conti as Albert Einstein and David Krumholtz as Isidore Rabi, Oppenheimer's menschy colleague who makes sure he eats and nudges his conscience, and Matthew Modine and Casey Affleck and Kenneth Branagh and Rami Malek and Alden Ehrenreich, to name only a few.

They're all entertaining, but two in particular jolt the movie to life: Florence Pugh as Oppenheimer's joyless lover Jean Tatlock and Matt Damon as the practical-minded, professionally unimpressed Leslie Groves, representing us laypeople in his deadpan, flummoxed scenes with Murphy. For a while it seems like Emily Blunt is underserved as Kitty Oppenheimer, but near the end she gets a juicy, angry scene opposite AEC lawyer Roger Robb (Jason Clarke), who has underestimated her.

Other than maybe a few too many scenes of the young "Oppie" having visions that look like the psychedelic mindtrip at the end of 2001, there was no point where I found Oppenheimer less than absorbing. Few would suggest that this ambitious, superbly acted, superbly crafted film isn't a major, compelling work, a vast expansion on Roland Joffé's watchable but modest Fat Man and Little Boy from 1989. If Nolan's film isn't quite completely satisfying, there could be two reasons.

One is that trying to arrive at a moral conclusion about this movie's hero seems impossible. Put (too) simply: on the one hand, Oppenheimer won World War II for the good guys and checked fascism (not checkmated it, alas) for more than half a century. On the other hand, his invention has the potential to ruin the world for everybody. Both can be true, and the ambiguity is unresolvable.

Another problem with the film, however, is a matter of simple showmanship. Back in 1994, James Cameron brought his silly action picture True Lies to a point where Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis kiss while, far in the distance, we see a mushroom cloud erupt on the horizon. Triumphant, but then Cameron pushed his luck, piling on one last struggle with the villain in a Harrier jet. I remember thinking (and writing) at the time that when your hero and heroine kiss in front of a mushroom cloud, the movie is over.

Oppenheimer, obviously a very different movie, is uneasily structured in the same way. The scenes leading up to the Trinity Test at White Sands in 1945 are riveting, pulse pounding. The explosion and the immediate aftermath, ending the war in Japan, is a stunning dramatic climax.

But then the movie keeps going, for another hour or so, detailing the war of spite and will between Strauss and Oppenheimer, and the revocation of Oppenheimer's security clearance. It's interesting, provocative material in itself, but it seems a little petty and trivial after the "I am become death; destroyer of worlds" stuff. Given Nolan's supposed consummate skill at scrambling sequence, couldn't he have somehow structured the movie to end with a bang and not a whimper?

Barbie--Something is rotten in the state of Barbieland. As this, her first live-action feature begins, our titular heroine finds herself haunted, right in the middle of raging dance parties at her Dreamhouse, by thoughts of death. Still more alarming, when she steps out of her pumps, her feet go flat to the ground.

To be clear, the Barbie in question, played by Margot Robbie, is "Stereotypical Barbie," the blond, inhumanly thin and leggy iconic version of the Mattel doll. She shares the relentlessly cheery pink-plastic realm of Barbieland with countless other Barbies of every race and body shape and profession, all happy and accomplished and untroubled and mutually supportive. They're dimly aware of us in the "Real World"; they believe that their own harmony has created an example that has led to female empowerment and civil rights over here.

The Barbies also share Barbieland with Ken (Ryan Gosling) and countless variant Kens, as well as Ken's featureless friend Allan (a perfectly cast Michael Cera). But the guys exist entirely as accessories to the relatively uninterested Barbies. Ken's unrequited fascination with Barbie makes him subject, unlike the Barbies, to dissatisfaction.

Barbie goes for advice to "Weird Barbie" (Kate McKinnon), whose hair is frizzy and patchy and who's stuck in a permanent split. She's told that her troubles come from the dark feelings of somebody who's playing with her in our reality, so she sets out on a quest to the Real World, emerging in Venice Beach. Barbie connects with a mom and teenage daughter (America Ferrera and Ariana Greenblatt) whose relationship is strained; she's also pursued by the all-male board of Mattel, led by Will Ferrell. Ken, meanwhile, learns about our patriarchy, likes what he hears, and heads back to Barbieland alone to institute it, with himself at the top.

Mattel was founded in 1945, the same year as the Trinity Test, and there are probably feminist social critics who would argue that Barbie, invented in 1959 by Mattel co-founder Ruth Handler (well played by Rhea Perlman in the film), has wreaked only a little less havoc on the modern psyche than Oppenheimer's gadget. Even though I'm in exactly the right generational wheelhouse (I was born in 1962), my own childhood experience with Barbie was very limited, and thus so were my nostalgic associations with her.

Even so, this nutty fantasy, directed by Greta Gerwig from a brilliant script she wrote with Noah Baumbach, made me laugh from its inspired first scene to its Wings of Desire finish. Narrated in the droll, arch tones of Helen Mirren, it manages to come across as both an ingenious pop-culture lampoon/celebration and an unpretentious but surprisingly heartfelt deep dive into the implications of the Barbie archetype. I wasn't a big fan of Gerwig's 2019 version of Little Women, but here she builds her world with the freedom of, well, a kid playing with dolls, but also with the confidence and adult perspective of an artist.

Not everything in the movie works; in the second half the narrative gets a little lost at times in some very strange musical numbers/battle scenes, and the whole thing comes close to going on a bit too long. And it's hard to say just who this movie is for. It hardly seems intended for little girls; however smart, they're too young for the commentary about female identity to mean much to them yet. It seems more like it's meant for adult women with both a fondness for and an ambivalence toward Barbie.

No doubt there are those who would also complain that, however witty and self-effacing, the movie amounts to a feature-length commercial for the brand. But in the age of Marvel and other such franchises, it seems a little late to object to this.

The revelation in the film is Margot Robbie. It seems ridiculous that she's able, in the role of freaking Barbie, to give a performance of such subtlety and nuance and shading and quiet, unforced wistfulness, but she does. And she gets to deliver the best last line of the year.

Theater Camp--Joan, the founder of "AndirondACTS," a slightly gone-to-seed theater camp in upstate New York, has fallen into a coma. The job of keeping the struggling camp afloat falls to her decidedly non-theatrical "crypto bro" son Troy. Meanwhile the devoted instructors work with the exuberantly happy campers to mount the shows, including an original musical about the life of poor comatose Joan (Amy Sedaris). Needless to say, all does not go smoothly.

The creators of this Waiting for Guffman-esque "mockumentary" comedy, Molly Gordon, Nick Lieberman, Ben Platt and Noah Galvin, know the world they're depicting well; all of them have been doing theater since they were small children. Gordon and Lieberman co-directed, from a script by all four; Platt and Gordon play Amos and Rebecca-Diane, the utterly enmeshed, co-dependent acting instructors and Galvin plays the low-profile tech director.

They capture the camaraderie and the sense of belonging that theater can give kids, and their affection for that world is unmistakable, but they're careful not to get too sentimental. The envies and resentments and passive-aggressive denigrations among theater folk, especially at this often professionally frustrated level, are vividly represented.

Getting laughs from the self-important vanities of theater people is pretty low-hanging fruit, I suppose, but Theater Camp is nonetheless often hilarious. The film also manages to get a little deeper at times, touching on the irony that while theater can create a haven and a community for misfit kids, this can generate its own clannishness and exclusionary snobbery, as in Amos and Rebecca-Diane's coldness toward the imbecilic but well-intentioned Troy, charmingly played by a sort of poor-man's Channing Tatum named Jimmy Tatro.

The real joy in Theater Camp, of course, is the acting: Platt, Gordon, Tatro, plus a few vets like Sedaris, Caroline Aaron and David Rasche bring the material to life. But as Glenn, the long-suffering backstage drudge who really ought to be onstage, Noah Galvin, who replaced Platt on Broadway in Dear Evan Hansen, is the revelation among the adults in the cast. He's a knockout.

The revelation among the kids playing the campers is, well, pretty much all of the kids playing the campers. There are some real singing, dancing and acting prodigies in this company. If there was a real theater camp somewhere with this kind of talent, their shows would sell out.

[denimbex1986]

'The cast of Oppenheimer laughed and joked with one another at the UK premiere for the film – moments before walking out on strike.

Emily Blunt, Cillian Murphy, Florence Pugh, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr and more hit central London on Thursday night for the star-studded European premiere of the eagerly-anticipated film.

However in a shock move, each of the stars left halfway through as the actors’ strike was officially confirmed, with talks breaking down after weeks.

Director Christopher Nolan told the cinema’s audience the actors had left after the red carpet, ‘to write their picket signs for what we believe to be an imminent strike by Sag, joining one of my guilds, the Writers Guild, in the struggle for fair wages for working members of the unions, and we support them.’

Fans had indeed seen the A-listers on the red carpet just moments before, with the cast looking absolutely stunning – and appearing in majorly high spirits – before joining the picket line.

Emily and Florence shared a cuddle and a laugh on the carpet, clinging on to each other in a fit of giggles, with Florence’s hands around Emily’s waist.

Emily was later snapped with leading man Cillian, looking mock-serious as he offered a smile to cameras, her arm over his shoulder and his hand on her waist.

The cast appeared relaxed and happy as they posed together, with the imminent strike seemingly far from their minds, as in one photo they were all caught mid-laugh.

RDJ in particular was seen messing around with fans and for the cameras, giving thumbs up, grinning and almost dancing around the red carpet.

Florence looked absolutely divine in a flowing red dress, eerily blending in with the poster of the film showing a devastating explosion, as striking as ever with her shorn blonde hair and dark eye makeup.

A Quiet Place star Emily oozed glamour in a black dress pointedly cut out to show off her body, her legs visible through black tassels from her thighs to her feet, and matched with open-toed heels.

Cillian donned a smart black suit, with the black shirt semi-sheer, while Matt too opted for a well-cut black suit and plain white t-shirt underneath.

Given the stars’ demeanour on the carpet, excited fans watching on would never have expected they were about to cut the night short in solidarity with other strikers.

However both Matt and Emily had confirmed during the walk on the carpet that they intended to do just that if it came to it.

Matt told Variety: ‘Look, if it’s called now, everyone’s going to walk obviously in solidarity.

‘Once the strike is officially called, [we’re walking].

Emily shared the sentiment to Deadline, saying: ‘‘I hope everyone makes a fair deal, and we are here to celebrate this movie. And if they call it, we’ll be leaving together as cast in unity with everyone.

‘We are gonna have to. We are gonna have to. We will see what happens. Right now it’s the joy to be together.’

Their exit comes as US union Sag-Aftra confirmed its first major members strike in more than 40 years.

The US union and Hollywood studios failed to reach an agreement after more than four weeks of negotiations, with actors wanting better pay and increased safeguarding around artificial intelligence (AI) rights among their demands.

The union directed all its members to immediately stop working on all scripted film and TV around the world.

It is now anticipated the strike will affect upcoming award shows, premieres, events, and film festivals around the world, including the Toronto and Venice film festivals, and the 75th Emmys.

The likes of Doctor Who, Emily in Paris, House of the Dragon, The White Lotus, and more huge 2023/2024 projects are also likely to be impacted.'

[will80sbyers]

So I just watched Oppenheimer and I've got opinions...

Visually? Absolutely stunning.

The shots are really beautiful and the acting was absolutely amazing obviously it had a great cast behind...

Now, the story was severely lacking, it wasn't interesting enough and I don't think the script was able to communicate emotion to the viewer, Nolan knows how to build tension and make you be tense but in this movie he was not capable of actually making me care about all of these characters or relate to them in any way even when they were facing very human emotion it felt sterile and empty.

Also there were too many men talking, the women were used as props for drama and not given enough space in the movie to actually focus on them and I don't think it even passes the Bechtel test that's literally the bare minimum

In general I can only give this movie a 6/10 and I would not rewatch it ever again on my own

I also think the last part of the story with the trial seemed to sort of undermine the actual effects on the victims of the bombs in a way because it tries to make you feel bad for all of these scientists and him that were wronged by the other guy when the movie is at the same time telling you that they were aware of what the consequences would be and even juggled with the possibility of a complete destruction of humanity when every scientist of any side should have stopped as soon as they realized the consequences... and I can understand that it's human to be moved by fear and act before the other side does in a war, but I think that if you want to show that you have to also really show the other side and the consequences of that action made in fear and what was in the movie was not enough, this movie wasn't able to really make me experience the dread and heartbreak I felt from knowing what happened to the innocent people involved in all of that- I do still cry watching documentaries on the war so it wasn't me being desensitized, it's the way it was focused off from that to put the focus on him and I know people will say "well, yeah, it was a movie about him!" but I think it's pointless to show his regret about the whole thing when you can't even make it feel the sadness of it all to the viewers of your movie, I can't relate to the man that was Oppenheimer.

I didn't even feel an ounce of emotion for him when his lover committed suicide because Nolan doesn't know how to write true emotion that gets inside you from the screen and it didn't make us involved in their "love story"... The whole movie felt pointless and two hours too long.

[mermaidsirennikita]

so i know the globes are no longer relevant (or at least they shouldn't be) but i will still be asking for your thoughts on the nominations.

Hahahaha thanks for your consideration!

Best Picture--Drama: I'm so glad to see Past Lives nominated! It was really gorgeous and made me cry and was touching in a way I didn't expect.

Oppenheimer obviously was going to get nominated. It's probably my favorite Nolan movie besides The Prestige (which SLAPS) so I'm fine with this. It is very impressive, even if it's a sausage fest per Nolan and it probably runs too long and has some issues (the depiction of women).

Kills of the Flower Moon... is one of my favorite movies this year. I will acknowledge critiques from Osage people noting that it is a white perspective, which I agree with; I also agree with the comments that it is the best possible perspective someone like Scorsese could offer. The acting is phenomenal across the board, the visuals are stunning, it actually EARNED its runtime, and the writing is really strong. Fantastic movie, should win this category in my opinion.

I haven't seen Maestro but based on the various issues I'm seeing surrounding it and Bradley Cooper doing... the most... for promo, I'm very turned off by it right now. I will see it in order to critique it honestly, but I'm not super thrilled to see it here.

Haven't seen the other two. This will be a battle between Oppy and KOTFM imo.

Best Picture--Musical/Comedy: I don't see a world where Barbie doesn't win this. I thought Barbie was a lot of fun, and Ryan Gosling was fab. But I don't really fully subscribe to the hype.

I'm excited for Poor Things but haven't seen it; I love Yorgos's eye and I think he and Emma do make a great team, even if I'm meh on her in general.

The Holdovers I haven't seen and don't super want to see but my brother says he's forcing me to see it so I guess I will.

May December is a great movie. It's not a comedy in any way, shape, or form. But this category usually does that so I'm not surprised. This is a dark, intense, heartbreaking, tragic movie. It's deeply disturbing. I love it, but it's not a comedy.

Haven't seen the other two.

Best Director: Again, BCoops is being insufferable and I generally dislike everything I'm hearing about this. Sorry you didn't get an Oscar nom for ASIB my guy, get over it.

I knew Greta would be nominated and I will say that I love the visuals of that movie, but I think the visual greatness of Barbie is super dependent on the production and costume design, so... I'm not saying it isn't deserved, but I'm not in love with it.

Again, haven't seen Poor Things by Yorgos is fab.

Nolan was a foregone conclusion, I think the movie does look great and is very interesting.

Scorsese should win, sorry, he put his heart and soul into that movie and you could tell with every bit of it. Listen, people can dog this man out all they want, but he is THAT GUY and I consider him one of the last Truly Legend Status directors working right now, so. I think this will go to Oppenheimer, but. Meh.

And again, I'm happy to see Celine Song nominated! Past Lives had a really unique vibe to it and I think she offered a film that we don't see as much of anymore.

Screenplay--Based on what I've seen on this list, should be KOTFM, I can see it going to Barbie. Oppy being written in the first person might woo some people, though.

Best Actor--Drama: Should absolutely be Cillian, he carried that movie and it wouldn't have worked without him. Just a fabulous performance. I can see Leo maaaaybe edging him out? He was really good in KOTFM. It is truly wild to me that Barry was nominated, lol, I haven't seen a rush of buzz for him in Saltburn though he is the best part of the movie. I don't think it was his best work, compared to Banshees.

Best Actress--Drama: If this isn't Lily Gladstone I'll screech. Incredibly moving, and another movie where this thing would not have worked if anyone else had played that role. I don't see this category being super competitive against her.

Best Actress--Comedy/Musical: I can see them giving it to Margot for the press. I think Emma has had the strongest buzz of this category, but Fantasia could totally dark horse it.

Best Actor/Comedy Musical--I have no opinion on this, but I'm going for Jeffrey Wright because he's generally so good.

Best Supporting Actor--Charles Melton DESERVES this, people. He's amazing in May December. Heart crushing. An absolute breakout revelation performance.

One person I could see him giving him a run for his money is De Niro, because he was also amazing in KOTFM. Absolutely loathsome. I can also see them giving it to RDJ, because he is entertaining in Oppy, and I'm getting "it's time" vibes, which I hate... but Charles has also been cleaning up with smaller critics' awards.

Best Supporting Actress--Da'Vine is getting some great reviews, I feel like she's got a really good shot. Julianne is very good in May December, but she's also a very decorated actress. Um, sorry, Emily Blunt was not anything special in Oppy and if she gets this I'll be so baffled.

Best TV Series--Drama: I can see this going to Succession or possibly The Last of Us. Succession has the final season going for it, and it was actually amazing. TLOUS has fandom hype going for it, which the Globes likes. The Diplomat won't win, but fwiw I liked that show a lot.

Best TV Series--Comedy: Abbott Elementary better win is all I'll say. The Bear and Barry shouldn't even be in this category lol.

Best TV Actor--Drama: I feel like this will be a duke it out between Jeremy and Kieran. I'd be thrilled with either winning, but Jeremy's already won and Kieran has an "it's his time" vibe, his last shot to win with what may end up being the defining performance of his career. Brian Cox is such a dick for submitting in this category and the awards shows are such dicks for nominating him, lol.

Best Actress--TV Drama: If Sarah Snook doesn't win I'm burning this city to the ground. Why is Emma even nominated lmao. I do love a Keri Russell, but nah man, nobody here compares to Snook.

Best Actress--TV Comedy: Tbh I think Elle gave the best performance in this category.... easily.... but Quinta is great and I'd love to see her win, too.

Best Actor--TV Comedy: I don't care for any of these nominees. Nicholas Hoult outsold everyone here, bummer that he doesn't have a nom.

Best Supporting Actor-TV: I'd love for Alan Ruck to pick something up, but Matty Mac did once again obliterate lol. Askars was amazing but I don't think he had enough PUNCHY moments.

Best Support Actress--TV: Elizabeth Debicki was great but didn't have the material, imo. Christina Ricci would be my pick here, but I feel like it's gonna go to Hannah Waddingham because last season and all that.

Best Limited Series--Beef is easily the best one here, but the horrible way that the casting controversy was handled may have ruined their shot. In that sense, I think Steven gave the best performance but it could go to Matt Bomer or Jon Hamm. For actress, I would've picked Ali Wong but.... Also, I will say, nobody saw Dead Rings but me apparently but I'm so glad Rachel Weisz got nominated here because she was INCREDIBLE. Will probably go to Brie Larson knowing my luck, though I don't think Lessons in Chemistry made the impact they thought it would.

Best Supporting Actress--Limited: Glad to see Carla here, she was great. I have no idea who this will go to but it probably won't be here lmao. Also, The Fall of the House of Usher should've gotten a nom for best Limited, but c'est la vie the awards shows hate horror. Also, I don't know if this is controversial but brave... I would've nominated Bruce for Best Actor. That could be my weird attraction to him in that role speaking, though.

[smokeybrandreviews]

Speed Run V: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

I actually participated in Barbenheimer when it originally happened but found that i had way to much to say and the entire energy surrounding that event just kind of drowned out my analysis. I wanted to give that phenomena room to breathe because it absolutely deserved it. Barbenheimer will go down as a legit cultural flash point and it deserves every bit of that adulation. It's rare something so weirdly attractive, brings all form of society together in an effort to just enjoy. Barbie is set to hit streaming on September 5th so i figure now is as good a time as any to dig into what turned out to be two of the best films i have seen in years.

Barbie

If you would have told me that the Barbie movie would be the one to deal with existential dead, i would have laughed in your face. Yet, here we are, talking about a film that has done more for the feminine experience than any third wave feminist podcast to date. When i was watching Ben Shapiro burning Barbies in protest to this excellent film, i just couldn't help but laugh because that type of sh*t was the point. As a film, Barbie is easily one of the best. It has great direction, a brisk pace, fantastic performances, and a clear vision. It's messaging is never bogged down by shallow identity politics, as much as terms like "patriarchy" are thrown around but, let's be honest, of course a film about Barbie is going to focus on the female perspective. It's Barbie. What else would this film be about? Whether you like to hear about the realities of our world or not, the messaging in Barbie has rang true to the tune of a billion dollars at the box office and a number one spot for four weeks straight. Barbie clearly resonated with people across the gender spectrum and party lines so it's always odd to see people bash it for it's "feminist" messaging. Seriously, telling me you hate Barbie at this point is basically telling me you hate women without telling me you hate women. The weakest part of this film was Will Ferrell and his weird Mattel cabal of goons. You could have cut that sh*t right out of this film and nothing would have changed but whatever. Barbie is much, much, better than it has any right to be and it's weird people hate it for being exactly what Barbie has represented herself to be since the goddamn Sixties.

Oppenheimer

So the enheimer half of Barbenheimer was what got me into the theaters. Barbie had to grow on me but i was on board for Oppenheimer last year after that teaser. It was gorgeous and haunting and everything i never knew i wanted in a biopic of the man who created the Atomic Age. This film did not disappoint. Obviously, the cast as exceptional and weird that Best Supporting Actor can very legitimately come down to RDJ versus Ryan Gosling, but that speaks to the quality of both these films. That said, between Margot Robbie and Cillian Murphy for best lead performance of their respective films, I'd give the edge to Cillian. This man kills this performance, acting his ass off. You get a real sense of who Oppenheimer was during each phase of his life; A Stark contrast between before and after those bombs were dropped on Japan. Seriously, that ending was haunting. I've always subscribed to Oppenheimer knowing exactly what he had done. He knew exactly what it meant to drop that bomb. He saw what was coming and that exchange with Einstein at the end of the film was haunting. And he was right. I remember seeing the old footage of Oppy quoting the Mahabharata about how it felt to see his work succeed. The way his face dropped and his eyes glazed over, pulling that locked away memory forward. The say he very methodically spoke those words “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” J. Robert Oppenheimer believed that of himself and Cillian Murphy absolutely embodies that energy in the back end of this film. Absolutely stunning performance and i cannot wait to watch it again.

[smokeybrand]

Speed Run V: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

I actually participated in Barbenheimer when it originally happened but found that i had way to much to say and the entire energy surrounding that event just kind of drowned out my analysis. I wanted to give that phenomena room to breathe because it absolutely deserved it. Barbenheimer will go down as a legit cultural flash point and it deserves every bit of that adulation. It's rare something so weirdly attractive, brings all form of society together in an effort to just enjoy. Barbie is set to hit streaming on September 5th so i figure now is as good a time as any to dig into what turned out to be two of the best films i have seen in years.

Barbie

If you would have told me that the Barbie movie would be the one to deal with existential dead, i would have laughed in your face. Yet, here we are, talking about a film that has done more for the feminine experience than any third wave feminist podcast to date. When i was watching Ben Shapiro burning Barbies in protest to this excellent film, i just couldn't help but laugh because that type of sh*t was the point. As a film, Barbie is easily one of the best. It has great direction, a brisk pace, fantastic performances, and a clear vision. It's messaging is never bogged down by shallow identity politics, as much as terms like "patriarchy" are thrown around but, let's be honest, of course a film about Barbie is going to focus on the female perspective. It's Barbie. What else would this film be about? Whether you like to hear about the realities of our world or not, the messaging in Barbie has rang true to the tune of a billion dollars at the box office and a number one spot for four weeks straight. Barbie clearly resonated with people across the gender spectrum and party lines so it's always odd to see people bash it for it's "feminist" messaging. Seriously, telling me you hate Barbie at this point is basically telling me you hate women without telling me you hate women. The weakest part of this film was Will Ferrell and his weird Mattel cabal of goons. You could have cut that sh*t right out of this film and nothing would have changed but whatever. Barbie is much, much, better than it has any right to be and it's weird people hate it for being exactly what Barbie has represented herself to be since the goddamn Sixties.

Oppenheimer

So the enheimer half of Barbenheimer was what got me into the theaters. Barbie had to grow on me but i was on board for Oppenheimer last year after that teaser. It was gorgeous and haunting and everything i never knew i wanted in a biopic of the man who created the Atomic Age. This film did not disappoint. Obviously, the cast as exceptional and weird that Best Supporting Actor can very legitimately come down to RDJ versus Ryan Gosling, but that speaks to the quality of both these films. That said, between Margot Robbie and Cillian Murphy for best lead performance of their respective films, I'd give the edge to Cillian. This man kills this performance, acting his ass off. You get a real sense of who Oppenheimer was during each phase of his life; A Stark contrast between before and after those bombs were dropped on Japan. Seriously, that ending was haunting. I've always subscribed to Oppenheimer knowing exactly what he had done. He knew exactly what it meant to drop that bomb. He saw what was coming and that exchange with Einstein at the end of the film was haunting. And he was right. I remember seeing the old footage of Oppy quoting the Mahabharata about how it felt to see his work succeed. The way his face dropped and his eyes glazed over, pulling that locked away memory forward. The say he very methodically spoke those words “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” J. Robert Oppenheimer believed that of himself and Cillian Murphy absolutely embodies that energy in the back end of this film. Absolutely stunning performance and i cannot wait to watch it again.

[cloudyrica]

just a little heads up about Oppenheimer bc i haven't seen anybody talk about it

if you've got auditory issues/ear drum trauma/problems with noises - beware!

obviously there are the explosions which i did expect (tho one test explosion towards the middle got my ear seriously buzzing for a bit) but there is also just THE MUSIC. the music which is beautiful and stunning and ties the whole film together bc - and this is the heads up part - IT IS ALWAYS THERE. and it is not quiet. in fact, it is quite loud at times, which in turn makes it harder to hear the actual speaking. throughout the entire movie there is rather loud/strong background music, including ringing, buzzing and continues high pitches, all of which could make it difficult to watch this movie (especially in cinemas with surround sound) .

so do go see Oppenheimer, it is devastating in a very artistic way, but be aware and prepared for THE SOUNDS.

[soupboy9000]

Well I saw Oppenheimer and there were some good scenes in my opinion. Obviously it is not a feminist film, it is not an anti war film and it is not a documentary so it fails on all of those fronts.

There are, truly, some stunning moments and the sound design and score are really amazing. But like, the story was difficult to follow because the different threads of story were not well established and characters weren't introduced well. It's very very anti communist and also wishy washy on whether or not the people who made and wrote the movie thought the bombs were good or bad. Like, everyone in this movie spends the whole thing trying to get Oppenheimer to commit to something and then also refuses to commit.

Also there's no real mention of the Indigenous people displaced by Los Alamos and the damage to and theft of their land. Which is a huge fucking oversight, the movie was 3 hours long and already very complicated, there's no good reason to take that quandary away.

[softly-n-sweetly]

Fuck Marry Kill

Barbie Ken Oppenheimer

anon this is weirdly easy for me....

Fuck Barbie, because obviously she's stunning. Marry Ken because we'd be a himbo power couple. Kill Oppenheimer because honestly he'd probably wanna be taken out after all that mess🤷

[deuterosapiens]

I didn't finish American Prometheus, therefore I will not talk about Oppenheimer in its context as a historical drama film. Prior to watching it, I also didn't do too much research into the Man, or the history surrounding what he was doing, therefore I will not talk about it as a dramatization of actual historical events.

I admit these shortcomings and therefore can only talk about the film in the context of it as a movie. I find we'll have a better time discussing it with these facts established openly and early on. Another important factor in discussing this movie is that I did not watch it in isolation: I watched it immediately following Barbie, following a night where I slept for only four hours, and I left the theater about fort-five minutes before the start of a six hour shift. These factors might have affected me perception and understanding of the film, and I want them to be clear as well, in the event that in my discussion of it I erroneously remark upon something which the film was clear on which I by no fault of the film's incorrectly understood as a result of simple pre- and post- mature exhaustion.

First and foremost, this thing is incredibly well cast. There is so much raw talent in its ensemble that drawing any attention to any one person would be something of a mistake. But, like any reasonably respectful person, I'm going to praise the actual hell out of Cillian Murphy. This is a man whose acting ability I found pleasing in 28 Days Later, and in Sunshine, and in basically every other production I've seen him in. It's rare that he gets to lead, and in such a powerful role, so I will thank the Endless that Nolan chose him as his Robert Oppenheimer. In modern Hollywood, I'm sure you could theoretically find a more appropriate casting, but I'll leave theory to the physicists. Those eyes...

Special mention goes I think to Robert Downy Jr, who just disappeared so well into this role. We've seen good, nuanced performances out of him before, but I just loved him here. Emily Blunt is always a treat (though my theater companion found her an incredibly unlikable woman), and she demonstrates some impressive debate skills during the final act that I'm afraid I almost didn't notice at first, do to being so absorbed (and again, exhausted) by the conclusions drawing near.

I feel a bit weird calling Spoiler Warning on a film about actual, real-world, historical events.

Let's be honest, the film's presentation of chronological events is a bit perplexing, but thankfully this is clearly delineated for us. There was a very beautiful parallel between the lead up of the Manhattan Project and the ongoing investigation against Oppenheimer. The fact that the conclusion of that hearing is represented with a reproduction of the same atomic detonation we had just previously witnessed at the conclusion of the Manhattan Project is about as subtle as, well, a bomb going off is one I will happily overlook. It just works, thematically and visually.

And I stress visually, because this movie was quite beautiful to look at. I'm a sucker for the visual æsthetic of deserts and this movie wastes no time in showing some seriously gorgeous shots of Los Alamos (I'm not certain on how much on-location filming was done, but I'll disregard that).

Must I even bother to say it? The bomb is beautiful. The moment we witness its destructive capabilities is stunning visually, and for once I'm happy to note that Christopher Nolan really nailed the sound-design here. It's a moment of beautiful silence, forcing you to just feast on that inferno. Dammit, I'm starting to sound like Michael Bay.

Robert's discussion with Einstein is obviously a stand-out moment, as well. The visual of the sky burning and the world catching fire is quite a sobering one, when you realize that this was a very real fear these scientists had calculated.

I found this movie quite powerful, and so I must now gripe about it's length. It's like three hours long, which would by no means bother me except for the fact that even at three hours, it feels like there's so much more that could be said to enhance the film. For a movie-goer though, that is a serious time-commitment. I expect it was cut quite a bit to bring it to even that length, but I do envision a world where this exact same crew, this exact same cast, where the same studios, producers and visual effects artists had the time and money to present this as a mini-series, just to give them the time to tell it all properly. But the finale is something that really does work best, for me, on the big screen so even that I wouldn't change.

This movie is not for everyone. It was however, right for me.

[parachutingkitten]

Dancing Without You - Ch 3: Hello

A look into Cole's short time at the Marty Oppenheimer, the friendship he left behind when he ran from it, and what happens once he has to confront it.

Chapter 1 - Chapter 2

“We’re capping off our week by getting dance partners-”

A collective giddy laugh crossed across the room- mainly from the girls… including me. 

“These were assigned by height, so hopefully you’ll be able to work well together. Now, on one hand, you’re going to be dancing with this person for the rest of the semester, so get to know them, and try to get in a rhythm together. On the other hand, it’s only for a semester. So, if you don’t gel with your partner, you can always request a switch next semester. Sound fair?”

Nods spread across the room as Mrs. Haley looked down at her clipboard. “Find your partner once I read your names.” I could feel excitement starting to get the better of me as she started reading names. The kind that made me roll my feet and tighten my fingers. “Sarah Avery and Trevor Littleton.” A whole semester with one person! And through the week I had seen a lot of great dancing from some of the guys. “Mariah Beason and Devon Watson.” Not that it mattered. I’m sure I’d have a great time with whoever I got. It’s a performing arts school! Everyone here wants to dance. That’s what’s important. “Julia Brennen and Alex Garcia.” ...right? 

“Amelia Davenport and Cole Brookstone.”

I peeked out of the crowd only to meet eyes with a pair I’d never seen before. He had messy black hair, dark green eyes, and an uncertain expression playing across his features. We both stepped out of line and walked to the side. I glanced over at him. He seemed nervous.

“It was Cole, right?” I whispered. He seemed caught off guard. 

“Yeah. And Amelia?”

I smiled and nodded. “I haven’t seen you before.”

“I’m usually towards the back,” he shrugged.

“What’s your emphasis?”

“I’m still undeclared. You?”

“Ensemble dance,” I smiled.

“Well, that’s good,” He smirked. “At least one of us will know what we’re doing in this class.” 

I chuckled, trying to stay quiet as Mrs. Haley continued to read names. His sudden confidence seemed to come out of nowhere. “You more of a singer then?” I asked.

“I’m…” he trailed off. “I’m here. Let’s just start with that.” He brushed it off playfully. 

“So, if you’re not a singer, and you’re not a dancer…” 

“Well,” He cut me off, both of us laughing a bit. “I mean, I do sing, and I do dance. I’ve been singing and dancing since I was little. I just… if I had to describe myself, singer and dancer would not be the words I would use.”

“What words would you use?” 

He paused for a moment, thinking it over, as if it were the first time he had considered the question. “Well... I really like hiking, mountain biking, skiing-”

“So, you’re an adrenaline junkie.” I cut him off.

He laughed. “Yeah. Sure, let’s go with that. Adrenaline junkie.” He repeated it, smiling at the thought.

“So, what got you into performance?”

“My dad,” he smiled. “He has crazy-person performer blood. He’s been with the same quartet for years, he’s won the Blade Cup a few times, he’s-”

“The Blade Cup?!” I stopped him. “Really?”

“Yeah, you follow it?”

“Not closely or anything,” I shrugged. “But that’s really cool. The Blade Cup is a real performer’s competition. I mean, I know it’s pretty niche, but it’s a sizable award.”

“What do your parents do?”

“Well,” I hesitated. “They’re both dancers, but they’re in education. They um… they mainly work with really young kids,” I waved it off.

“What’s wrong with that?” he asked, obviously reading my tone.

“I don’t know,” I shrugged. “A lot of people here come from pretty elite families, so when you go up to them and say, ‘my parents work with toddlers’ you get some weird looks.”

“Well, I think it’s awesome.” He assured me. “Getting kids involved in dance is such a wholesome thing to do with your life.” Cole was honestly the first person on campus I had spoken to that wasn’t put off by my parents. Just the tone with which he said ‘wholesome’ made me much happier than it had any right to. “Is that what you want to do?”

“I love my parents, but there’s no way I could do what they do. I’m headed straight for Ninjago City,” I smiled. “I’m gonna be on Broadway someday if it kills me.”

“Well, you’ve certainly got your priorities in line,” he smiled.

“Alright class!” Mrs. Haley broke our conversation. “Everyone has their partner. Most of you have had a minute to chat. Hopefully, you don’t totally hate each other just yet. Let’s get to dancing, shall we? Can we start with just a basic waltz?” Music began to play throughout the studio as Cole took my hands, and we started moving. 

“For what it’s worth, I don’t totally hate you,” I joked.

“Dare I say, things seem to be going pretty well?” 

I smiled, a warm feeling filling me as we danced together.

“Look, I don’t know what your schedule is like, but if you’re free after this, we should totally do something together. Of course, if you have class, or are meeting up with friends or what not-”

He laughed. “Oh, I don’t really have friends here.”

I smiled. “That makes two of us then.”

~*~*~*~

I hadn’t thought too much about it. It all seemed like such a distant thing until the moment we arrived. When I finally pulled up the parking brake, I realized how fast my heart was beating. Why was I so nervous? I don’t get nervous about these things. I never did. But here I was, unconsciously holding my breath at the idea of approaching the front door.

“You said she was apartment 14?” Jay asked me, looking out the window. 

“Yeah,” I sighed. “Should be on the right here somewhere.”

“How do we go about this? Should we all go to the door? Would that be overwhelming for her?” Pixal asked from the back. “Do you want to go by yourself first?”

“No! No, she’ll be fine,” I shook my head. “It’ll be fine. It’s probably better, actually, if there’s more people. Just so there are no surprises or anything… right?” I glanced back at Pixal. Her cloaked disguise caught me a bit off guard for about the fifth time this trip. I was never going to get used to seeing her with normal skin.

“You know her best.” Pixal crossed her arms in defiance of my indecisiveness.

“We’ll all go up together. But leave your stuff here, we don’t want to seem pushy or anything.”

“You seem pretty nervous,” Jay turned to face me.

“Let’s just do this,” I sighed, opening the door to escape his comment. My teammates followed as I locked the car and started over to apartment 14. “You guys should know, she’s…” I paused for a moment trying to find the words. “...a lot. She’s a total performer, and she’s high energy, and she’s very touchy. Don’t ask her about any Broadway show unless you want your ear talked off about it. In fact, the less you mention musical theater, the better off you’ll probably be.” As we reached the top step, I turned around to face them. “And she has this pet peeve about brushing your teeth while on your phone so-”

“Cole,” Pixal stopped me. “I think we’ll be alright. Okay?”

“Right…” I sighed, turning back around to face the door. I took a deep breath, knocking before I freaked myself out too much. A moment passed without any trace of movement behind the door. 

“What if she’s not here? What do we do then? What if-”

“Dude, it’s been like two seconds, chill out,” Jay nagged me. 

And before I could get a chance to think about it, there she was, standing on the other side of the door, staring back at me. 

She looked different.

But she hadn’t changed. 

Her hair was put up in its usual messy bun, and she wore a loose shirt hanging just off her shoulders over a pair of yoga pants. Her bangs hung just above her emerald eyes, almost in a forgotten attempt to cover them. But you couldn’t hide those eyes. They were so green. So rich, so vibrant. 

Exactly like I remembered.

And suddenly, I wasn’t nervous anymore. 

“Hi,” I smiled.

She looked at me, still stunned. 

“... Cole?”

“I hope we’re not interrupting anything.”

“What are you doing here? Why…” She looked behind me, seeing that I wasn’t alone. “Oh my gosh! Come in. You guys are probably on a mission, and I’m just letting you stand out in the open!” She opened the door wider, stepping back into her house. “Come in, come in!” She waved us in, promptly closing the door behind us. “What are you doing here? Do you need something from me, is there something wrong? Did I do something wrong? Am I in trouble? I’m sorry,” she shook her head. “I should just let you talk. Why are you here?” 

“The team’s safety is at risk. We needed a few safe-houses to stay at for a few days, and Cole recommended you as a trustworthy possibility,” Pixal explained.

Amelia glanced over at me again, her mind obviously still a bit overloaded at the moment. “Wow. Okay.” She sighed. 

“It would likely only be a few days,” Jay jumped in. “And you wouldn’t have to do anything, but you should know that us staying with you might attract some danger.”

Amelia stood, her eyes glazed over as she stared at the ground, her arms crossed and biting her lip. She was thinking. The room was quiet for a moment as she processed the information, but her head soon popped back up with a smile, energy entering her body again.

“No, this is great! This actually works out really well! My roommate just moved out a week ago, so I’ve got the whole apartment to myself, and a spare bed, and room on the couch, loads of spare blankets and such. Plus, I’ve got the week off. It really shouldn’t be a problem! Do you guys want anything to drink? I just put on some tea-” Amelia’s head shot over to the kitchen.

“I think we’re alright,” Pixal stopped her, pulling back her attention.

“I’m such a terrible hostess!” Amelia laughed. “I don’t even know your names! I mean, I really should. But I don’t really watch the news much, it’s um…” her eyes glanced over at me for a moment before returning to Pixal. “It can be difficult for me… But maybe I can remember.” She turned to Jay, looking at him for a second. “You’re the blue one, that’s… lightning powers, right?”

“That’s me,” he nodded.

“Hold on, I know this,” She bounced on her heels. “It starts with a J, right?”

“It is Jay.”

“Oh!” She laughed. “That’s right! Jay! And then...” She then turned to Pixal, clearly more stumped than before. “Actually, I’m not sure I recognize you.”

“Maybe this will help,” Pixal deactivated her cloak as Amelia jumped in surprise. 

“Ah! You’re Samurai X!”

“But you can call me Pixal,” She extended a hand, Amelia quickly taking it. 

“That’s so cool! I can already tell we’re going to get along.” She turned to me, a soft smile gracing her face. “...and I know you.”

“I know you.” I smiled back; our eyes now locked on each other.

“Well, I’m going to get our stuff from the car.” Jay announced, heading towards the door.

“Oh, yeah,” Amelia laughed. “I guess you guys would have stuff. Bring it in and we’ll figure out where I’m putting you all.”

“Jay,” Pixal called after him as he exited. “You don’t-” but she was cut off as the door closed. “Have keys…” she sighed. I grabbed the keys from my pocket, tossing them to her as she followed him out. “Thanks.”

As the door closed, I felt arms surround me and a squeak in my ear.

“It’s so good to see you! I missed you so much!”

“I missed you too,” I chuckled as she broke from me. 

“I can’t believe you’re a ninja!” She took my hands, still giddy. “I mean, I can. You’ve been a ninja for years now. But it’s different when you’re right in front of me!”

“And you totally made it to Ninjago City and everything!”

“I always told you I would,” She hit me on the shoulder.

“Are you, like… on Broadway and stuff?”

“Soon! I’ve got an understudy position in an off-Broadway show, but we’re working on moving over sometime next year.”

“That’s so awesome! I can’t believe you actually made it! I mean…” we both chuckled for a moment. “I can. It’s you. But it’s just so surreal now that you’re actually doing it.”

“Oh!” her eyes popped, letting go of me. “I really should go get that tea from the stove before it boils over!” She started towards the kitchen as I followed her, laughing. “What’s so funny?” She asked, moving her pot off the burner. 

“Nothing. It’s just… you’re just as scatterbrained as I remember.”

She turned off the stove, leaning against the counter and taking my hands again. “I really did miss you, you know. It was never the same after you left.”

“I missed you too.” I gripped her hands a bit tighter, our arms swinging to some silent beat running through us both.

“But look at you! You have friends now and everything!” She teased, letting go of me and turning back to her teapot. “Now that’s something I never thought I’d see.” She poured herself a cup as we both chuckled.

“They’re great. I think you’ll really like them.”

“Oh, we’re definitely gonna have some fun.” She turned back around, gingerly holding the warm mug between her hands. “We're having a party tonight for sure.”

“Doesn't that seem kind of counter-intuitive to the whole safe-house thing?”

“Oh, no.” She shook her head. “It’s a Friday night. My neighbors would be suspicious if I didn’t blast music and order pizza.”

[denimbex1986]

'In July, I had the opportunity to see the opening-day double-feature of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” with fellow staff-members of The Michigan Daily. It was a treat to spend time with other writers and see some stunning visuals on the big screen. Each film was a spectacle in its own right, in no small part thanks to the dedication of their respective directors, Greta Gerwig and Christopher Nolan...

After her previous directorial successes with “Lady Bird” and “Little Women,” Gerwig wanted to go big with her next film. Among her inspirations for “Barbie” were the larger-than-life sound-stage musicals that dominated the Academy Awards between the 1930s and 1950s. Gerwig describes an “authentic artificiality” of theatrical masterpieces such as “The Wizard of Oz,” “Singin’ in the Rain” and “The Red Shoes,” which she strove to capture with her $145 million production budget. The crew spared no expense, filling a London sound-stage with real dream houses, painted skies and a mini Corvette, all in various shades of pink.

Just as real is “Oppenheimer,” which tells the story of the creation of the first atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project. A trademark of Nolan’s film-making is capturing incredible visuals directly on film, often on the largest film format available. To follow up stunts like flipping a semi-truck in “The Dark Knight” or blowing up a real commercial airliner in “Tenet,” Nolan wanted to try his hand at filming, as faithfully as possible, a nuclear explosion. And he did, reportedly without computer generated imagery. A popular spoof edit of behind the scenes footage imagines a world where the production team actually detonated an atomic bomb, which (tellingly) doesn’t seem all that unbelievable.

Clearly, both of these movies take portraying their atmospheres seriously. Visually, this authenticity absolutely pays off. But after seeing each film, I was left grappling with what “authentic” really means, in terms of cost, benefit and practicality.

I planned to see “Oppenheimer” again in Nolan’s intended format, the enormous 70mm IMAX. Even larger and more immersive than standard “large format” IMAX screenings, this version of the film is only projected in 30 theaters worldwide. After shelling out for tickets to Celebration! Cinema in Grand Rapids, however, I grew conflicted. My partner shared a TikTok criticizing the film for its lack of representation of the people who were most impacted by its contents: Indigenous and Japanese communities.

Really, I only wanted to see the movie on that incredible screen because it was the real deal. Its exclusivity and limited-time offer were icing on the FOMO cake. Hearing the criticism, though, it just didn’t feel right to have an “authentic experience” at the expense of the devastating reality of people who lost their homes, families and lives due to the development and deployment of the bomb. Obviously, there are plenty more direct ways to support Indigenous communities than by refunding tickets or writing a column, but we should still be intentional about what we consume and how we do it.

Beyond movies, authentic experiences are a driving economic force. Authenticity is an ideal to strive for and a lifestyle to follow. People spend a lot of time, money and energy in pursuit of “real” experiences, whether they are carefully prepared recipes or visceral excursions abroad...

We can have incredible, inspiring and even life-changing authentic experiences, but our relationship with the ideal of authenticity is complicated. Just as the word “perfect” starts to lose its meaning applied to a vacation or a movie, the pursuit of “authenticity” is a losing battle of diminishing returns and prohibitive expense.

Nevertheless, we should keep trying to capture realness, whatever that happens to mean. I greatly look forward to the next works of art and generation of artists, perhaps inspired by “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” (or a piece with a more modest budget) to express their unique identities authentically...'

[chrisbuys-blog]

Don't Be in Denial, Stage That House And Sell it Fast!

Focus Investment Properties In the present extreme land advertise, you'd be insane to list your home available to be purchased without arranging it first. The vast majority, and I'm sorry to learn, numerous experts that work in land, haven't the foggiest how organizing could profit them. Tragically, many individuals truly accept that organizing a house available to be purchased is pointless. Obviously, whenever asked they would demand that they are enormous professors in home arranging, however then will really proceed to list a house without organizing it, asserting that this house was flawless and didn't should be organized. Home arranging, additionally called land organizing, is the specialty of setting up a home available to be purchased.

When you arrange a house, you're improving a home's appearance and underscoring the highlights that purchasers are searching for, therefore, making an inclination which enables the purchaser to create passionate associations with the property. It likewise characterizes empty spaces using key furnishings and embellishment arrangement. Organizing is additionally a demonstrated methodology that augments your home's intrigue to the purchaser and is a beneficial and amazing promoting apparatus. For real estate professionals with a front line, organizing is an additional worth added administration to offer at each posting introduction. For the vender of a house, organizing will separate you and give you the aggressive edge over different homes recorded available to be purchased in their neighborhood. Thus, organizing will abbreviate the time that your house is available. It truly is a shrewd speculation considering the arrival that you get. Organizing additionally lessens the quantity of home loan installments that the vender should make. Arranging additionally enables a house to sell quick and for as much as possible. Furthermore, here's one that your real estate agent ought to let you know, that the interest in organizing is in every case not exactly any value decrease!

Things being what they are, I ask, how would you be able to not arrange your home before you put it available to be purchased? In any case, it happens constantly, houses go available empty or involved not having that "stunning" factor. Furthermore, that damages everyone over the long haul. The merchant doesn't get as much as possible, and therefore the real estate professional gets less cash-flow. I've seen many arranged homes and none have stood apart as much as the homes that have been organized by a San Diego stager, Tawni Oppenheim from Staged4Sale. The main thing that I saw when entering one of her arranged homes was all the completing contacts. The shades of the cushions just popped! The manner in which she laid her tosses just pulled my eyes in and each room was arranged, not simply the supposed effect rooms. I called Tawni and asked her for what valid reason she organized each room in the house that I saw and she disclosed to me that since the merchant was attempting to sell the whole house that she accepted that each room should have been arranged. That is a really decent way of thinking for arranging. Also, things being what they are, it is, on the grounds that the majority of the homes that she stages sell so quick, it's simply staggering. Tawni revealed to me that she has organized homes that had been perched available for over a year and subsequent to being arranged they got numerous high ideas during the main week.

Real estate agents ought to get an expert stager in on their posting introduction. It's a real estate professional's trustee obligation to offer arranging to the customer directly as it so happens. What's more, it's a crying disgrace when a real estate agent will not offer organizing to their customer since they're worried about the possibility that that they may lose their posting, since they didn't offer it in the first place. A few real estate professionals would prefer to prescribe a significant value decrease as opposed to prescribe organizing to a customer. A decent real estate professional will ensure that a house is organized before it is recorded on the MLS. Venders should remember this when looking for a real estate professional. During a posting introduction, the vender ought to inquire as to whether they trust in arranging and on the off chance that they expect to ensure that the merchant's home is expertly organized before it is recorded. With regards to selling your home, time is cash.

Along these lines, it's basic that the house is expertly cleaned and afterward organized immediately before it is recorded. On the off chance that the house is proficient arranged, a merchant will sell the home for as much as possible. Purchasers aren't dumb. In the event that I purchaser strolls in to your home and see's that your house is grimy and in chaos, at that point they are in all probability going to exit or present a low ball offer. Home Staging resembles whatever else throughout everyday life. When you go to an uncommon occasion, you spruce up and brush your teeth as if they have never been brushed. You have your vehicle definite and go all the way to put your best self forward. Things being what they are, the reason not do likewise to set up your home available to be purchased? Envision your house is a cake and organizing your house resembles adding icing to a cake. Home organizing resembles including a cherry a sundae. In this way, extremely your home doesn't present a completed streamlined look except if it has been arranged. What's more, genuine purchasers in this market are searching for homes that have a completed look. In this way, in the event that you're extremely genuine about selling your home quick, at that point you truly need to have it expertly organized. When talking real estate agents, consistently try to pick a real estate agent who demands arranging your home before it is recorded on the MLS. Never procure a real estate agent who doesn't have confidence in home arranging. The best real estate professionals arrange their postings, since they realize that organized homes sell quick. What's more, homes that sell quick fulfill everyone. Along these lines, recall whether you at any point put your home available to be purchased, have it expertly arranged first.

Here is the map distance between  Focus Investment Properties

View the map location https://goo.gl/maps/GShsXBgJwWQXYDom6

[denimbex1986]

'The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to some estimates, killed in excess of 200,000 people – without even counting those suffering from radiation poisoning-related sickness and death in the years to come.

The fire-bombings in March 1945 of Tokyo which killed around 100,000 civilians and left over one million homeless, and the devastation of Dresden which killed around 25,000, had already shown the world that the Allies were willing and capable of using weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, the atomic bomb was a game-changer.

The firestorm that engulfed Dresden took a concentrated effort from 772 RAF heavy bombers making four raids over three days (13-15 February 1945). It took one plane and one bomb apiece to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only that, the cruelty of the new super-weapon and the sickness caused by radioactive fallout would create a new type of horror in the human imagination.

The creation of the atomic bomb would go on to become one of the most significant events in human history, driving and defining the Cold War and creating a threat that still hangs over us all today. The hydrogen bomb, which began its development in New Mexico under America’s then chief atomic scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer, while the atomic device was being built and tested – would be 1000 times more powerful. A new terrifying epoch had arrived.

Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds

Christopher Nolan’s biopic is a huge achievement. At the heart of this achievement is Nolan and his star Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

It is perhaps one of the greatest characters in modern drama. A character as ambitious as Macbeth and as conflicted as Hamlet; a man whose decisions have consequences that dwarf the petty concerns of princes and would-be kings. With the destruction of the world a possibility and the gruesome agonising death of thousands a certainty, it is impossible to imagine how the stakes could be any higher.

Oppenheimer is a remarkable film about a remarkable man. And like Oppenheimer himself, it is also complicated, contradictory, and flawed. At its best, the film allows us inside the mind of a man, who though incredibly driven, arrogant, and often selfish, also had severe doubts about the project which he led to make atomic weapons a reality.

When asked if he had any qualms about the number killed and maimed in the bombing of Hiroshima he replied, ‘terrible ones’. He was also obviously a quite brilliant scientist and administrator and very charming when it suited him to be so. Cillian Murphy takes this role, undeniably already packed with dramatic potential, and elevates it to remarkable heights. Murphy must surely take home a best-actor Oscar for his performance and a host of other awards besides. They will all be well deserved.

The film is also, as we’ve come to expect from Nolan, a stunning visual spectacle. Relentless, nerve-shredding, and sublime. Sonically, Nolan applies his usual sledgehammer approach, and while there are some transcendent moments of stillness (no spoilers here), the persistent score has a tendency to flatten narrative shape and blurs distinctions between perspective and timelines. The sound and score certainly deliver on intensity and excellent execution even if (as ever in Nolan’s work) they never quite let you breathe. However, that very breathlessness offers us another way into the fizzing anxiety and churning mind of Oppenheimer himself.

First-person perspective

It is interesting to note that the screenplay was written in the first person. This is highly unusual (if not unheard of), and rather than ‘Oppenheimer crosses the room’ – the script states, ‘I crossed the room’. This will have driven every creative decision in the making of the film and it will certainly have provided the platform for Murphy to build his incredible performance.

It does, however, also create a host of other problems in terms of the characterisation of the supporting cast – none of whom are particularly well-rounded or as fully formed as they could be. While the supporting cast is excellent – and it seems from interviews with them, (Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, and others), that ‘supporting’ was absolutely the duty they were expected to perform – the audience is rarely given insight into what motivates and drives these secondary but nonetheless significant players in Oppenheimer’s life.

As a result, his relationships with wife Kitty (Blunt), lover Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh), and brother Frank Oppenheimer (Dylan Arnold), are frequently unsatisfying and you are left admiring the presence and grace of these performers – as opposed to really investing in their stories or believing they’re real people. If this is an attempt to evoke Oppenheimer’s narcissistic personality, it doesn’t quite work; audiences don’t need to be alienated from these people even if the man himself was.

While Oppenheimer himself was (as he is referred to in the film) a ‘womaniser’ and lived in a very male-dominated world, it is also undeniably problematic to have one of the scarce female speaking-parts in the film, within a few seconds of their few lines – cut to a nude, sex scene. Putting us in the shoes of the protagonist is one thing, but modern audiences deserve better. While the carnality and intensity of the relationship between Tatlock and Oppenheimer was obviously one of its defining factors, Nolan has made a tone-deaf misstep here. The scene is saved though, by the implication that Oppenheimer, while clearly conflicted about the bomb, was also aroused by the power it gave him. It is here he quotes ‘the destroyer of worlds’ line to his lover. It’s another contradictory moment in a contradictory film.

This hyper-identification with the experience of Oppenheimer creates more problems still. After the success of the ‘Trinity’ test in the New Mexico desert, the score seems to join in with the jubilation of scientists at their great success. Can this note of triumphalism be explained away by the insistence of Nolan to tell us this story from Oppenheimer’s perspective?

Later of course Oppenheimer’s personal doubts set in, but it’s a moment of ambiguity that speaks of the film’s ambiguity on the need for the bomb, rather than our protagonist’s own story arc.

The problem of politics

Some commentators have condemned the film for its omissions. The test sites in New Mexico where the ‘Trinity’ detonation took place, and years of subsequent atomic weapons research and testing, has had a huge impact on native American people in the area.

In a recent article in Time Magazine, Buu V. Nygren, the President of the Navajo Nation, stated, ‘cancers, miscarriages, and mysterious illnesses [are] a direct consequence of America’s race for nuclear hegemony. It’s an accomplishment built on top of the bodies of Navajo men, women, and children—the lived experience of nuclear weapons development in the United States. But, as usual, Hollywood chose to gloss over them.’

It is also arguably a cop-out not to show the images of the Hiroshima blast victims – while Cillian Murphy’s horrified reactions are shown (and beautifully handled) – it is important when dealing with a story like this to honour the victims through complete candour about the savagery of the bomb. After all, if ever there was a plot device that isn’t simply a MacGuffin, it’s the real atomic bomb.

As the film passes into its final chapter, which focuses on the political machinations that led to Oppenheimer’s fall from grace, one can’t also help wondering if we’re being asked to empathise with the wrong man. The dead Japanese become statistics – our ‘hero’ has to face his worst crisis yet and the dogmatic subjectivity of the film once more shows its limits.

Oppenheimer was also a ‘fellow traveller’ and at times more or less sympathetic to the cause of socialism and communism. A fair amount of screen time is given to this aspect of his early life, and while it’s one of the most open and critical portrayals of McCarthyism and the persecution of ‘reds’ in America, there still remains the whiff of naivety and foolhardy romanticism around the most politically active characters in the film. Nonetheless, the American State doesn’t come out well, and Nolan at least seems piqued by its heavy-handed and undemocratic persecution of those who want a better world.

This film raises a great deal of important questions, some of which are easier to answer than others. Was it right to develop a bomb in the context of World War Two while the Nazi regime was busy developing its own? Once Germany had surrendered, was it right to hasten the end of the war with Japan by dropping the bomb? While it’s clear now that the answer to the latter question can only have been no, it is difficult to give a definitive answer to the first question. Also, were Oppenheimer’s ‘terrible’ qualms about the work he carried out enough to clear him of responsibility for the unnecessary murder of Japanese civilians and the poisoning of Navajo land? Where does the final responsibility lie? Can scientists – as so many of the New Mexico cohort, including Oppenheimer, attempted to do – really set themselves apart from the politicians and military that dropped the bomb?

Can Nolan be excused for lionising a man with so much blood on his hands? For even though the film recognises the man’s flaws– it undeniably does nothing to mitigate the mythic ‘father of the bomb’ status and allure that surrounded the real Oppenheimer – has Nolan minimised the suffering of the distant (non-white) victims of the bomb? Could or should he have done anything differently?

All of these are good questions, and many of them are unanswerable.

What this film has done, however, is to have reminded us of the fraught history of the creation of atomic weapons and shown us – however indirectly – that they are truly awesome and truly terrible. While the film may not go far enough in condemning the use of nuclear weapons, it is by no means a pro-nuclear weapons film. Everyone who leaves the cinema will (rightly) question the still extant threat of nuclear holocaust and challenge politicians who still cling onto nuclear arms. As the conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues, this threat is more real than it has been since the 1980s. It’s a threat which we cannot take lightly.

Last of all, despite all these moral and political questions, and all the questions about the creative decisions Nolan and his team have made, there is something truly transcendent about this film. All its contradictions are at least appropriate to the overwhelming complexity and scale of the subject matter.

In summary, Cillian Murphy’s performance is unmissable and so is this complicated and incredible film.'