More stories

  • in

    Best and Worst Moments From the 2024 Golden Globes

    Lily Gladstone made history, Jo Koy did not. And dressing on a theme proved a hit. These were just some of the highs and lows.The Golden Globes had a lot to prove Sunday night. It was the award show’s return to a primo broadcast time slot after a series of scandals over finances and lack of diversity upended what used to be known as the biggest party of the year in Hollywood. Now privately owned with a greatly expanded pool of voters, the Globes were making a bid for relevance. Did that bid succeed? Well, it helped that this was the first major televised ceremony since the writers’ and actors’ strike brought Hollywood to a halt, and stars and studios looking to goose their Oscar chances turned out after some skipped last year’s event. Then again, this wasn’t the liveliest show. Here are the highs and lows as we saw them.Most Historic Win: Lily GladstoneIn a momentous triumph, Lily Gladstone became the first Indigenous person to win a Golden Globe for best actress, for her turn in “Killers of the Flower Moon” as an Osage woman whose family members are killed in a plot to take their fortune. Gladstone, whose background is Blackfeet and Nez Perce, was only the second Native actress to receive recognition from the Globes: Irene Bedard was nominated in 1995 for “Lakota Woman: Siege at Wounded Knee,” a television movie.After receiving a standing ovation, an overcome Gladstone spoke a few lines in the Blackfeet language, “the beautiful community nation that raised me, that encouraged me to keep going, keep doing this,” she explained in English.“I’m so grateful that I can speak even a little bit of my language,” she added later, “because in this business, Native actors used to speak their lines in English, and then the sound mixers would run them backwards to accomplish Native languages on camera.” She dedicated the award to “every little rez kid” who had a dream. — Esther ZuckermanLeast Suspenseful Rivalry: ‘Oppenheimer’ vs. ‘Barbie’The presenter Oprah Winfrey, far right, watches as the “Oppenheimer” team accepts best drama. From left, Robert Downey Jr., Matt Damon, Emma Thomas, Ludwig Goransson, Florence Pugh, Christopher Nolan and Cillian Murphy. Sonja Flemming/CBSIn the end, the great “Barbenheimer” face-off was a complete fizzle. “Oppenheimer,” with eight nominations, won five trophies — best drama, director, actor, supporting actor and score. After sitting on the sidelines for most of the night, “Barbie,” the ceremony’s most-nominated film, with nine nods, finally got in the game with a win in the rather meaningless category of best blockbuster (“cinematic and box office achievement”). “Barbie” got a second prize in the form of best song, which was kind of a no-brainer because the film’s tunes filled three of the category’s six slots. Time to rev up that Oscar campaign, Babs! — Brooks BarnesBest Looks: Stars Dressing on a ThemeFrom left, Oprah Winfrey, Margot Robbie and Taylor Swift.Getty ImagesJust in case anyone forgot about the “Barbie” effect of last year, which turned entire crowds pink, Margot Robbie managed to out-“Barbie” her own red carpets past in a sequined slither of hot pink Armani paired with a bristling pink tulle boa, all of it inspired by the 1977 Superstar Barbie.As it turned out, however, that was just the beginning of the on-theme dressing. Oprah Winfrey wore Louis Vuitton in the color purple, in honor of — you guessed it — “The Color Purple,” for which she served as a producer. And Taylor Swift wore glimmering Gucci in the sort of bright leafy shade that evoked nothing so much as the color of money and made it impossible to forget just how much green her Eras Tour has generated.Together they made for a more interesting trend than the traditional strapless frocks that also proliferated. (The best of those being Elle Fanning’s vintage Balmain and Rosamund Pike’s not-quite-vintage 2019 Dior: if you’re going to go with the classics, might as all go back to the source). And the theme dressing added a new dimension to the brand-marketing machine that the red carpet has become. — Vanessa FriedmanFlattest Monologue: Jo KoyThe host, Jo Koy, onstage at the Beverly Hilton ceremony.Sonja Flemming/CBSI had high hopes for Jo Koy, the 52-year-old Filipino American comedian who is only the second Asian American to host the Golden Globes. (Sandra Oh was the first, in 2019.) But Koy’s opening monologue felt like a highlight reel of mortifying moments. From a weird joke about being attracted to a plastic Barbie to one about the “Killers of the Flower Moon” filmmakers stealing the plot, Koy’s jokes met an icy reception from the audience. To be fair, he had barely any time to prepare. “I got the gig 10 days ago!” he said from the stage. “You want a perfect monologue?” It’s a shame, but Koy’s jokes will probably end up being best remembered for the memes they inspire on social media. — Christopher KuoFlattest Joke: Koy Riffing on Taylor SwiftWhy you gotta be so mean? The host’s jokes did not really improve as the night went on.“We came on after a football doubleheader,” Koy said as the ceremony returned from its first commercial break. “The big difference between the Golden Globes and the N.F.L.? On the Golden Globes, we have fewer camera shots of Taylor Swift.”Koy seemed to swallow the word “camera” as he said it. And when the actual camera, on cue, panned to Swift, she appeared deeply unamused, her lips pursed, her eyes stern as she sipped a drink.It is true that Swift has been shown many, many times on N.F.L. telecasts since she began showing up at Kansas City Chiefs games to cheer on the team’s tight end, Travis Kelce.But Koy’s joke, at the expense of perhaps the most famous person in a room full of famous people, fell flat again. So flat, that he muttered, “Sorry about that.” — Matt StevensMost Historic Double Win: Steven Yeun and Ali Wong of ‘Beef’Steve Yeun and Ali Wong with their trophies for “Beef.”Robyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThey may have gone head-to-head in a bitter feud that crossed 10 episodes of “Beef,” the Netflix road rage comedy that gained a huge online fandom last year, but Ali Wong and Steven Yeun both left the Globes on Sunday with statuettes in hand, as the first actors of Asian descent to win honors for a limited series or TV movie. First, Wong won best actress in the category and delivered an emotional acceptance speech, thanking her ex-husband and children for making it possible for her to be a working mother in Hollywood. A few minutes later, Steven Yeun won best actor in the same category. How do we order up a sophomore outing for Amy and Danny? — Sarah BahrBest Speech With a Twist: YeunThe most entertaining speeches take us on a ride. That’s what Yeun did when he won for actor in a limited series. He started out with a serious and vulnerable tone, saying, “The story I usually tell of myself to myself is one of isolation and, like, separateness.” But then he threw in a twist, saying that once he climbed onto the stage he realized that — wait, that inner monologue “feels a lot like the plot to ‘Frozen.’” It was unexpected yet heartfelt, a joke for his daughter. — Brooks BarnesBest Speeches With a Dose of Honesty: Kieran Culkin and Robert Downey Jr.Kieran Culkin accepting his “Succession” trophy.Sonja Flemming/CBSRobert Downey Jr. accepting his best supporting actor award.Sonja Flemming/CBSAwards show speeches tend to be mash-ups of gushing adjectives meant to communicate maximum gratitude — “amazings” and “incredibles” aplenty — but a couple of actors were refreshingly measured in their delight. This isn’t the Oscars, after all. Winning for his role as Roman Roy in “Succession,” Kieran Culkin told the audience, simply, “This is a nice moment for me.” And when Robert Downey Jr. stepped up to the microphone, he deflected applause for his supporting performance in “Oppenheimer” by addressing the prescription medication powering his nonchalance onstage: “Yeah, yeah, I took a beta blocker,” he said, “so this is going to be a breeze.” — Julia JacobsBiggest Upset: Best Screenplay for ‘Anatomy of a Fall’The previous group of Golden Globe voters could always be counted on to give us a few unpredictable wins, and though they weren’t always welcome swerves, they at least lent the night a charge of anything-could-happen frisson. That feeling was hard to come by this year, thanks to a series of respectable, safe choices, though the unexpected triumph of “Anatomy of a Fall” in the screenplay category certainly woke up the ballroom: In years past, Globe voters almost certainly would have chosen a starrier pick like “Barbie” or “Oppenheimer,” and it was fun to get a worthy upset. — Kyle BuchananWorst Award: The Cinematic and Box Office Achievement GlobeGreta Gerwig, left, and Margot Robbie enjoy their “Barbie” win.Sonja Flemming/CBSThe Globes added a new box-office trophy this year, with nominees required to have earned at least $150 million (or, as the guidelines put it, “commensurate digital streaming viewership”). The whole thing is a little silly, especially in a year in which two huge hits — “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” — were also popular with critics and nominated for many awards. Is it an effort to revive the academy’s widely derided attempt to add a best popular film category to the Oscars? Or just to get more A-listers in the room (including, yes, Taylor Swift)?Entertainment plaudits are basically made up of vibes and campaigning, meant to create heated discussions. But if there’s anything in movies that’s impossible to argue with, it’s box office receipts and clicks. So what was the undisputed biggest box office achievement in 2023? “Barbie.” Who won this new Globe? “Barbie.” Who else could it have been? — Alissa WilkinsonBest Writers’ Revenge: A Script ‘Written’ by Studio ExecutivesDaniel Kaluuya, left, Hailee Steinfeld and Shameik Moore at the Globes.Sonja Flemming/CBSPerhaps as an ode to the recently settled Hollywood writers’ strike, the presenters Daniel Kaluuya, Hailee Steinfeld and Shameik Moore announced they would introduce the best screenplay nominees with words written by studio executives — although given the dry, stilted language, the script may well have been generated by ChatGPT.“I am relatable,” Steinfeld intoned. “I am enjoy the Golden Globes.”“I do agree,” Moore said.“As do I,” Kaluuya agreed.At least the “executives” generated a few laughs.— Jonathan AbramsLeast Satisfying Reunion: ‘Suits’What is a “Suits” reunion without Meghan Markle? The law-firm drama that has found unprecedented success on Netflix more than a decade after its debut deserved a moment in the sun just for the sheer number of viewers it accrued in recent months. And I’m sure actors Gabriel Macht, Patrick J. Adams, Gina Torres and Sarah Rafferty were thrilled to present the award for best drama series. But where was Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, who was a star of the show and played a key character? She doesn’t live very far from the Beverly Hilton, where the ceremony was held. “Suits” fans had to be thrilled that their beloved cast was alive and well, but without Meghan, can you really call it a reunion? — Nicole SperlingMost Improved Angle: Shots of the Audience Behind the PresentersAmerica Ferrera and Kevin Costner were among the presenters shot from different angles.Sonja Flemming/CBSKeeping things interesting visually during an awards show can be a challenging task. Talking heads. Nominees. Award. Speech. Rinse. Repeat. But on Sunday night, the producers mixed it up by pulling a simple reversal and shooting some of the presenters with the audience in the background. It changed the feel while allowing us at home to peek behind some of the presenters during the more boring banter to check out the celebrities behind them. Who’s paying attention? Who can’t be bothered? One drawback was that the lighting didn’t always favor the presenters at these varying angles. But overall, it felt fun and gave a little jolt to the proceedings. — Mekado MurphyMost Surprising (Apparent) Spoiler: ‘Anatomy of a Fall’“Anatomy of a Fall” took home two Globes for its taut dissection of the frictions in a marriage, exposed when a wife is put on trial and accused of pushing her husband to his death at their home in the French Alps. Under the scrutiny of a court and the couple’s preteen son, Sandra (Sandra Hüller), defends herself as viewers are left to plumb the evidence for signs of whether her husband’s death resulted from an assault, an accidental fall or his own leaping.But as she accepted the award for best screenplay for the film, written with her husband, Arthur Harari, Justine Triet maybe revealed what her script did not. Describing their thinking when they completed the script, she said: “OK we are having a lot of fun but it’s radical and dark, nobody’s going to see this movie. It’s too long, they talk all the time, there’s no score — a couple fighting, suicide, a dog vomiting. I mean, come on.” The (accidental?) disclosure of the manner of death seemed out of step for one of the creators of a film so meticulously built to leave audiences guessing. — Elena BergeronBest and Worst Reinvention: The Globes ThemselvesWith the Globes trying to claw their way to semi-legitimacy, this was a perfectly reasonable attempt, but it all felt perfunctory.High: Intro segments tend toward the cringey at every awards show, and there were plenty of awkward moments here, too, but there were some bright spots: Keri Russell and Ray Romano’s fun repartee, Andra Day and Jon Batiste’s giggly banter and especially Kristen Wiig and Will Ferrell’s goofy dance bit. Ferrell’s signature outburst — “The Golden Globes have not changed!” — was probably the biggest laugh of the night.Low: Kind of everything? The whole ceremony had sort of a blah energy. The speeches were all fine, but none was especially wild. The biggest shock came when the broadcast included what sounded like glasses clattering to the floor. — Margaret Lyons More

  • in

    Book Review: ‘MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios,’ by Joanna Robinson, Dave Gonzalez and Gavin Edwards

    “The Reign of Marvel Studios” captures how movies based on comic-book properties came to dominate pop culture. At least until now.MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios, by Joanna Robinson, Dave Gonzalez and Gavin EdwardsHollywood doesn’t believe in immortals. From Mary Pickford to the MGM musical, Golden Age cowboys to teenage wizards, the city worships its gods only until their box-office power dims. So it feels audacious — if not foolhardy — to open “MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios” and find its authors, Joanna Robinson, Dave Gonzalez and Gavin Edwards, declaring that it’s difficult to imagine a future where the Disney-owned superhero industrial complex “didn’t run forever.” Even Tony Stark, better known as Iron Man, has yet to engineer a perpetual motion machine.Yet the three veteran pop culture journalists behind this detailed accounting of the company’s ascendancy have the numbers to support it. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, a constellation of solo superhero tales mixed with all-star team-ups, including four installments of “The Avengers,” is Hollywood’s most successful movie franchise of all time — 32 films that have grossed a combined $29.5 billion. By comparison, the book points out that the “Star Wars” series, Marvel’s nearest rival, has notched only 12 films and $10.3 billion.Turning the pages — which are devoid of the usual, and unnecessary, glossy photo spreads — one realizes that superheroes are an X-ray lens into the last decade and a half of Hollywood disruption. Every upheaval gets a mention: corporate mergers; profit-losing streaming services; Chinese censorship; digitally scanned actors; social media cancellations; #MeToo and #OscarsSoWhite; the resurgence of a production-to-distribution vertical pipeline that hadn’t been legal since the 1948 Paramount Decree. Pity there’s no room to examine each in depth.First, the origin story. In the ’90s, the former overseer of Marvel Enterprises, Ike Perlmutter (let’s give him the comic book nickname “The Pennypincher”), empowered his entertainment division to license its biggest stars for cheap, scattering Spider-Man, Hulk and the X-Men across other studios in service of selling more toys. (“MCU” familiarizes us with the marketing term “toyetic.”)The saga of who and what changed the company’s direction involves chancy gambles, pivotal lunches at Mar-a-Lago, rivalrous committees and the waning of Perlmutter’s influence, amid the waxing of Kevin Feige, the book’s hero, a five-time U.S.C. Film School reject who started his production career teaching Meg Ryan to log in to AOL for the romantic comedy “You’ve Got Mail.” To establish their independence, the writers mention at the top that Disney, now Marvel’s parent company, asked people not to give them an interview. Many already had, or chose to anyway, although most shy away from on-the-record quotes about the really salacious stuff. No one will say that the rumored $400-million-plus Robert Downey Jr. earned across nine films factored into the decision to kill off Tony Stark, but the innuendo is thicker than Iron Man’s armored exoskeleton.Signs that the Marvel era is nearing the end of its cultural dominance are everywhere, including in this book. Despite the authors’ rah-rah intro (there are no bad Marvel films, they claim, only “a mix of entertaining diversions and inarguable masterpieces”), they wisely sense that the library’s cinema history section will eventually file Feige next to John Ford as filmmakers who defined the spirit of a moment.“MCU” concedes that three of Marvel’s worst-reviewed films were all made in the last three years, just as one of the studio’s cornerstone creatives, the “Guardians of the Galaxy” director James Gunn, decamped to run DC Studios, the home of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman.Meanwhile, the churn of faster, cheaper superhero content for Disney+ has led the studio’s weary visual-effects workers (whose exhaustion is well documented here) to vote to unionize. Fandom has become a Sisyphean labor as never-ending spinoff series force a once-rapt audience to pick and choose which story lines they’ll bother to follow.To those seismic grumbles, I’ll add another: Today’s teenagers were toddlers when Marvel first seized the zeitgeist. What generation wants to dig the same stuff as their parents?Marvel’s inescapable obsolescence is the best argument for “MCU”; the genre should be studied with the same rigor as film noir. The book’s admiration for Marvel movies works in its favor, freeing the writers to skip straight to the gossip, like the relative who pulls you aside at Thanksgiving to whisper about your cousin’s divorce. If you didn’t understand the plot of “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” before, they’re not wasting space explaining it here.Instead, the book will satisfy your appetite for Marvel’s endless contract negotiations with Sony over the character rights for Spider-Man, which is easy when one encounter climaxes with the former Sony Pictures chairwoman Amy Pascal hurling a sandwich — and an expletive — at Feige. Battles over screenplay credits are even juicier. That’s where you’ll find the most inventive insults.Elsewhere, one has to read several paragraphs past a doctor willing to estimate that “50 to 75 percent” of Marvel’s stars are Hulked-out on performance-enhancing drugs to learn that he has not, in fact, treated any of the studio’s actors. While the hustle to wrap things up before the tome turns into “Captain America: Civil War and Peace” means racing through the most recent projects in a blur, earlier chapters are able to dish the dirt, like whose script notes triggered the collapse of Edgar Wright’s “Ant-Man” and why Feige refused to continue collaborating with the original Bruce Banner, Edward Norton.After all, the authors know a saga is only as exciting as its villain.MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios | By Joanna Robinson, Dave Gonzalez and Gavin Edwards | 528 pp. | Liveright | $35 More

  • in

    ‘Oppenheimer’ Review: A Man for Our Time

    Christopher Nolan’s complex, vivid portrait of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the “father of the atomic bomb,” is a brilliant achievement in formal and conceptual terms.“Oppenheimer,” Christopher Nolan’s staggering film about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the man known as “the father of the atomic bomb,” condenses a titanic shift in consciousness into three haunted hours. A drama about genius, hubris and error, both individual and collective, it brilliantly charts the turbulent life of the American theoretical physicist who helped research and develop the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II — cataclysms that helped usher in our human-dominated age.The movie is based on “American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer,” the authoritative 2005 biography by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Written and directed by Nolan, the film borrows liberally from the book as it surveys Oppenheimer’s life, including his role in the Manhattan Engineer District, better known as the Manhattan Project. He served as director of a clandestine weapons lab built in a near-desolate stretch of Los Alamos, in New Mexico, not far from a cabin that Oppenheimer had, he and many other of the era’s most dazzling scientific minds puzzled through how to harness nuclear reactions for the weapons that killed tens of thousands instantly, ending the war in the Pacific.The atomic bomb and what it wrought define Oppenheimer’s legacy and also shape this film. Nolan goes deep and long on the building of the bomb, a fascinating and appalling process, but he doesn’t restage the attacks; there are no documentary images of the dead or panoramas of cities in ashes, decisions that read as his ethical absolutes. The horror of the bombings, the magnitude of the suffering they caused and the arms race that followed suffuse the film. “Oppenheimer” is a great achievement in formal and conceptual terms, and fully absorbing, but Nolan’s filmmaking is, crucially, in service to the history that it relates.The story tracks Oppenheimer — played with feverish intensity by Cillian Murphy — across decades, starting in the 1920s with him as a young adult and continuing until his hair grays. The film touches on personal and professional milestones, including his work on the bomb, the controversies that dogged him, the anti-Communist attacks that nearly ruined him, as well as the friendships and romances that helped sustain yet also troubled him. He has an affair with a political firebrand named Jean Tatlock (a vibrant Florence Pugh), and later weds a seductive boozer, Kitty Harrison (Emily Blunt, in a slow-building turn), who accompanies him to Los Alamos, where she gives birth to their second child.It’s a dense, event-filled story that Nolan — who’s long embraced the plasticity of the film medium — has given a complex structure, which he parcels into revealing sections. Most are in lush color; others in high-contrast black and white. These sections are arranged in strands that wind together for a shape that brings to mind the double helix of DNA. To signal his conceit, he stamps the film with the words “fission” (a splitting into parts) and “fusion” (a merging of elements); Nolan being Nolan, he further complicates the film by recurrently kinking up the overarching chronology — it is a lot.It also isn’t a story that builds gradually; rather, Nolan abruptly tosses you into the whirl of Oppenheimer’s life with vivid scenes of him during different periods in his life. In rapid succession the watchful older Oppie (as his intimates call him) and his younger counterpart flicker onscreen before the story briefly lands in the 1920s, where he’s an anguished student tormented by fiery, apocalyptic visions. He suffers; he also reads T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land,” drops a needle on Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring” and stands before a Picasso painting, defining works of an age in which physics folded space and time into space-time.This fast pace and narrative fragmentation continue as Nolan fills in this Cubistic portrait, crosses and recrosses continents and ushers in armies of characters, including Niels Bohr (Kenneth Branagh), a physicist who played a role in the Manhattan Project. Nolan has loaded the movie with familiar faces — Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr., Gary Oldman — some distracting. It took me a while to accept the director Benny Safdie as Edward Teller, the theoretical physicist known as the “father of the hydrogen bomb,” and I still don’t know why Rami Malek shows up in a minor part other than he’s yet another known commodity.As Oppenheimer comes into focus so does the world. In 1920s Germany, he learns quantum physics; the next decade he’s at Berkeley teaching, bouncing off other young geniuses and building a center for the study of quantum physics. Nolan makes the era’s intellectual excitement palpable — Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1915 — and, as you would expect, there’s a great deal of scientific debate and chalkboards filled with mystifying calculations, most of which Nolan translates fairly comprehensibly. One of the film’s pleasures is experiencing by proxy the kinetic excitement of intellectual discourse.It’s at Berkeley that the trajectory of Oppenheimer’s life dramatically shifts, after news breaks that Germany has invaded Poland. By that point, he has become friends with Ernest Lawrence (Josh Hartnett), a physicist who invented a particle accelerator, the cyclotron, and who plays an instrumental role in the Manhattan Project. It’s also at Berkeley that Oppenheimer meets the project’s military head, Leslie Groves (a predictably good Damon), who makes him Los Alamos’s director, despite the leftist causes he supported — among them, the fight against fascism during the Spanish Civil War — and some of his associations, including with Communist Party members like his brother, Frank (Dylan Arnold).Nolan is one of the few contemporary filmmakers operating at this ambitious scale, both thematically and technically. Working with his superb cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema, Nolan has shot in 65-millimeter film (which is projected in 70-millimeter), a format that he’s used before to create a sense of cinematic monumentality. The results can be immersive, though at times clobbering, particularly when the wow of his spectacle has proved more substantial and coherent than his storytelling. In “Oppenheimer,” though, as in “Dunkirk” (2017), he uses the format to convey the magnitude of a world-defining event; here, it also closes the distance between you and Oppenheimer, whose face becomes both vista and mirror.The film’s virtuosity is evident in every frame, but this is virtuosity without self-aggrandizement. Big subjects can turn even well-intended filmmakers into show-offs, to the point that they upstage the history they seek to do justice to. Nolan avoids that trap by insistently putting Oppenheimer into a larger context, notably with the black-and-white portions. One section turns on a politically motivated security clearance hearing in 1954, a witch hunt that damaged his reputation; the second follows the 1959 confirmation for Lewis Strauss (a mesmerizing, near-unrecognizable Downey), a former chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission who was nominated for a cabinet position.Nolan integrates these black-and-white sections with the color ones, using scenes from the hearing and the confirmation — Strauss’s role in the hearing and his relationship with Oppenheimer directly affected the confirmation’s outcome — to create a dialectical synthesis. One of the most effective examples of this approach illuminates how Oppenheimer and other Jewish project scientists, some of whom were refugees from Nazi Germany, saw their work in stark, existential terms. Yet Oppenheimer’s genius, his credentials, international reputation and wartime service to the United States government cannot save him from political gamesmanship, the vanity of petty men and the naked antisemitism of the Red scare.These black-and-white sequences define the last third of “Oppenheimer.” They can seem overlong, and at times in this part of the film it feels as if Nolan is becoming too swept up in the trials that America’s most famous physicist experienced. Instead, it is here that the film’s complexities and all its many fragments finally converge as Nolan puts the finishing touches on his portrait of a man who contributed to an age of transformational scientific discovery, who personified the intersection of science and politics, including in his role as a Communist boogeyman, who was transformed by his role in the creation of weapons of mass destruction and soon after raised the alarm about the dangers of nuclear war.François Truffaut once wrote that “war films, even pacifist, even the best, willingly or not, glorify war and render it in some way attractive.” This, I think, gets at why Nolan refuses to show the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, world-defining events that eventually killed an estimated 100,000 to upward of 200,000 souls. You do, though, see Oppenheimer watch the first test bomb and, critically, you also hear the famous words that he said crossed his mind as the mushroom cloud rose: “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” As Nolan reminds you, the world quickly moved on from the horrors of the war to embrace the bomb. Now we, too, have become death, the destroyers of worlds.OppenheimerRated R for disturbing images, and adult language and behavior. Running time: 3 hours. In theaters. More

  • in

    Robert Downey Jr.’s Post-Marvel Balancing Act

    “This summer,” Robert Downey Jr. says, “is the battle for the soul of cinema.” Like a lot of things said by the actor, who co-stars in the thriller “Oppenheimer,” directed by Christopher Nolan and opening in theaters on July 21, that statement was delivered with a soupçon of knowing sarcasm, but there’s truth to it. […] More

  • in

    ‘Sr.’ Review: The Downeys, Father and Son, Compare Notes

    This documentary highlights Robert Downey Sr.’s charisma and curiosity even when it shows him in decline.In the films he directed in the late 1960s, Robert Downey Sr. credited himself as “A Prince.” It was a private joke typical of the antic artist. As he told Johnny Carson (he was one of a very few “underground filmmakers” to get booked on “The Tonight Show”), “I’m too young to be a king.”The man was not, as it happens, consistently courtly. But his son, Robert Downey Jr., the movie star, notes in this picture that his dad was “a very charismatic guy who had different ideas and curiosity.”“Sr.,” a documentary directed by Chris Smith, with Robert Downey Jr. providing a strong production hand and onscreen presence, highlights that charisma and curiosity even when it shows the older Downey in decline. (He died in 2021 of complications from Parkinson’s.) The focus here is divided between the father-son relationship and the father’s groundbreaking work. The elder Downey’s absurdist films, including the furious satire “Putney Swope,” are the connective tissue between underground movies and the Marx Brothers.Downey‌ was a permissive parent in bohemian ’60s mode, and also a cocaine enthusiast in his post-“Swope” years. Downey Jr. had his own harrowing period of addiction that included a stint in prison. “We would be remiss not to discuss its effect on me,” Downey‌‌ Jr.‌‌ says of his dad’s cocaine years. “I would sure love to miss that discussion,” Downey‌‌ Sr. replies dryly. But the details of how the father cleaned up, became a caregiver to his terminally ill second wife and tried to help his son are terribly moving.Downey Jr. speaks of this movie as an exercise in trying to understand his father. But by the end of this short but satisfying exploration, the viewer realizes that he gets him better than he even knows. “He is connected to some sort of creative deity,” Downey Jr. says. It’s an apt summation.Sr.Rated R for language, themes, raw humor. Running time: 1 hour 29 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More