"Oppenheimer"

I wanted to hate this film.  In the land of awards season I like to root for the underdog instead of the clear front-runners, as the "big movies" tend to suck up all the oxygen in the room, taking well-deserved attention away from otherwise brilliant films.  Such is the case with "Oppenheimer" which is walking away with truckloads of awards.  And, I have to say, the kudos are warranted.  The film, at three hours, is engaging, is powerful and it is good.  It rises above the challenges of presenting a history we know by giving us, the viewers, ways of seeing the edges of a thing.  The emotion and inner life of the people involved.  In the scientific vein, this film brings new dimensions and complexities to people and history which is very familiar.  When "the moment" comes (and you know what moment I'm talking about), I found myself wracked with tears.  I knew it was coming of course.  But the presentation was spot on.  This is good filmmaking.  It's not perfect.  Christopher Nolan makes "guy" films and this one fits the bill.  In a cast replete with men -- almost universally white men, hard men, emotionally closed-off men, women get the short shrift.  There is the quick nod to the fact that there were women scientists at Los Alamos.  There are the oversexualized scenes with Florence Pugh (who is young) and none with Emily Blunt (who is not young).  Pugh's character is an emotional, needy hot mess.  Blunt's character is a uptight, judgemental alcoholic.  Oppenheimer tells his lawyer that no one should try to understand his complicated marriage -- but this film doesn't let us understand it either.  So, from the feminism standpoint, this film drops the ball.  On all other fronts, it's very ... very ... strong.