 Let's jump into Oppenheimer and first I want to talk about the movie and I want to talk about it as a movie that is the, you know, just basically what you would consider a movie review if you will of it and, you know, and then we'll talk about a little bit about Oppenheimer model evaluation of him, the whole project, Los Alamos, the building of the atomic bombs, the use of the atomic bombs, and then we'll talk about Ayn Rand and Ayn Rand's view and the Oppenheimer movie that Ayn Rand wanted to write. Richard asks a relevant question, so I'm going to jump to this, I'm going to jump to this, and he writes, do you think a biopic, biographical film can have a theme? What does it tend to which a director can't validly seek to convey a theme and or take creative license in a biographical, so the answer to that I think is yes, I think it can have a theme to the extent that the, now if it's a pure biopic, if you're just telling the story as it is and the whole story and nothing but the story, then sure, it doesn't really have a theme. But one of the things you do as a filmmaker is you choose what to show. You choose what is important and what is not. You choose what time or period of life to focus on and what periods of life not to focus on. Certainly Oppenheimer, even though it carries, it covers a lot, chooses to focus on certain things and not on others. And through those choices and through those selective choices and your orientation and what you leave out and what you leave in, certainly there is a theme. I think one of the problems with, and then of course there's a broader issue of what the context of which you're telling the story and here the theme could have been around the atomic bomb or Los Alamos, the development of the atomic bomb. There could have been a theme around that where Oppenheimer's story is told in that context, but it's not a story about Oppenheimer. It might, the story might be the atomic bomb, but it's told through the story of Oppenheimer's life. It's not exactly what happens here, but that's part of the problem. Anyway, I mean, first, let me just say, I think you should see the movie. The movie is dramatic, it's powerful, it's beautifully shot, the cinematography is spectacular. There are a few things about the cinematography I don't like, but I'll get to that. There is, it's brilliantly acted. I mean, I think the acting, I hope they get Oscars for this, we'll see, but I think the acting was brilliant. Killian Mofi, who plays Oppenheimer, is excellent. I know Killian from his work on Peaky Blinders. I don't know if you guys have seen Peaky Blinders, but it's an excellent, excellent show that it basically is... Richard, did you ask that question twice? I don't know, it appears here twice for some reason, but you only asked it once. He appears in Peaky Blinders, which is a gangster movie against the series, I think the five or six seasons, and he's brilliant in it. He's just a brilliant actor in it, and he's very good here. He captures a lot of the subtlety of Oppenheimer, a lot of the conflict, and he does it very, very well. Robert Downey Jr. is excellent in this, playing kind of the bad guy, a political wannabe, somebody who's very ambitious, ambitious beyond what he should be, and I think that was a fantastic performance. I mean, even Matt Damon is very good in this. I think he plays his part really well, kind of the understated general who oversees the whole Los Animas project. Rami Malek has a very small bit in it, but he's good in it. Florence Pug, who plays Oppenheimer's girlfriend, and Emily Blunt, who plays his wife, are both excellent. So, great cast, really amazing, beautiful cinematography, very, very powerful, very dramatic. And look, at the end of the day, whatever you think of the story, and whatever you think of the movie even, well, not whatever you think, well, whatever you think of Oppenheimer as a human being, or whatever you think of the movie, the story is amazing. The story is amazing. It tells you the story in highlights, of course, of the development of the nuclear bomb, of the atomic bomb. It's a fascinating story, and it tells you the story of Oppenheimer's communist sympathies, and the trouble he got for those sympathies after the war during the McCarthy era, and how his security clearance was taken away from him. So all of that, you get a period piece. You get a fascinating look at the world of that era, and you get it, and you're doing that through the eyes of one of the great, I think, directors of our time, Christopher Nolan, and you get it in heightened dramatic fashion. It's an interesting movie. It's doing supposedly very well in the theaters. A lot of people have gone to see it. It's raking in a lot of money. And I have to say, it's really surprising. It's surprising because the movie is complex. It's going on in at least three different time periods. You've got different flashbacks and different points in time to different places. You kind of have to stitch it all together and keep a track of everything. So it's not an easy movie to watch. It's a challenge. You're working. And we'll get to that. I think that's actually a problem with the movie. But you're working. You're working to keep track of everything. You're working to keep track of the characters. You're working to keep track of motivation. Which are mainly working just to keep track of the time zone, right? Which time period, the particular scene is happening right now. But it's a movie where dialogue is king. This is a movie of words. It's a super intellectual movie. This is not an action movie. There are no court chases. There's a big explosion. But once, I mean small explosions, otherwise, one big explosion. There's some special effects early on, in a sense, describing I think the mental processes that are going inside of Oppenheimer's head. Again, I didn't particularly like those, but trying to give us a sense there's some genius going on here. But there's no action. There's a little bit of suspense, but it's kind of intellectual suspense. There really isn't any action. There's no real mystery. There is. This is a character study. It's a historical study. It's a commentary on a particular period of time. It's history. Why are people going to see it? I mean, I'm impressed. All I can say is I'm impressed. This is, I wouldn't have expected this kind of energy. I don't think it's boring. I don't think, but I'm surprised in a culture where the next superhero movie is what everybody's interested in. Everybody's talking about. Everybody goes and see where the sequel after sequel after sequel, where the more you blow things up, the better the movie does. An intelligent movie like this is just stunning that is doing so well. I mean, I don't know. I think it's a positive statement on the culture. Maybe there is a real desire for dialogue-driven, character-driven, complex plots that tell an interesting, fascinating, amazing story about human beings. Wow. That'd be kind of revolutionary. Let me just take a second to say thank you to Dylan, who just did his first super chat and he did it for $50. Thank you, Dylan. We'll get to the questions at the end once I'm finished with the topic. But thank you. Yeah, we're about halfway to where we need to be in less than half an hour. That's great. So, the movie's super intelligent. It's a smart movie. I think the dialogue is sharp. I think the dialogue is interesting. I think everything about this is interesting. The challenge with the movie is that it doesn't really know what it's saying. It doesn't really have a theme. It has a sense in which it has two basic stories. It has the story of Los Alamos, which primarily is a heroic story, but a heroic story tainted with a sense of responsibility, fear, and angst focused on the fact that a weapon of mass destruction, like mankind had not known before, has just been unleashed. So a certain justification for the angst and the worry. So that's certainly part of the theme and part of it and part of the whole. And you're never quite sure at the end what Aponai thinks of all of it. Is he, yeah, we had to do it, and it's a good thing. And it's very unclear, and he's very focused towards that. We should negotiate with the Soviets, as if negotiating with evil ever works and is ever worthwhile, and we should have control of these things. So it kind of undermines I think part of the heroism and the achievement that is the building of the bomb. So that's one story. It's the bomb, the building of it, the achievement that is to build. I think that it's really fascinating. His attitude towards other scientists, the way they work together, the way they achieve what they achieve. And at the same time, the inner conflict that is within him, which goes throughout the whole movie. That's the one theme that goes throughout the whole movie is the inner conflict about this particular project that Aponai and that never really gets resolved. And maybe the answer that Christopher Nolan will tell us is, well, it just doesn't get resolved. There is no resolution to it. This is a, he's torn, and he always will be torn. And if you ask Christopher Nolan, what do you think Christopher Nolan, he'd probably say I'm torn too. There's no resolution to that. The second theme that runs through much of the movie because of the way it's structured with flash forwards and flashbacks and so on, is this theme of persecution, the theme of political persecution around, actually in a sense there are three themes, right? Three storylines. The second storyline is the storyline of persecution around the fact that he had contacts, that he was sympathetic to communism, then even when he stopped being sympathetic to communism, he had contacts with communists during Los Alamos and afterwards. And this is in the context of that somebody stole the Los Alamos secrets and provided them to the Russians. If you know the history, it's pretty much been proven that it wasn't Aponima. We know who the people were, who, folks, one of the physicists there provided the information to the Soviets, as did a few others. So there was a number of people providing the information, giving the nuclear secrets to the Soviets. They didn't sell them because they didn't need to because they were, they were sympathizers with communism. So it wasn't Aponima. So is that theme of, is he a communist? Was he a communist? Did he, did he commit treason? How do we treat him given that he's an American hero, but at the same time undermined, maybe undermined it, still has maybe some sympathies to communism? How do we, how do we relate to that? And again, the movie is ambiguous. It doesn't really take a stand on, on, on communism and on good, bad, how we should view all this. And then the third is a storyline about a, basically, an ambitious American politician who basically, you know, seeks vengeance because he thinks that, that Aponima has slighted him and seeks, seeks vengeance against him. And in seeking vengeance, there is an opportunity then for Aponima to be redeemed as a hero. So again, a complex story because you have all these three themes. Now all these three add up to anything, and it suddenly seems that they add up to a heroic view of Aponima, a positive view of Aponima, a kind of a non-committal view of, of the affiliation with communism and, and what it all means. Certainly a critique of American politics and the way they were handled and the, the people involved in the American political system and the FBI, because they basically, the harassment of on Aponima. And then, you know, the Schultz guy, the guy played by Robert Downey Jr., Louis Strauss, who, who, who is trying to just seek political power at Aponima's expense. And that, that again is a critique of kind of the, the politics of it all. So it's ambiguous in terms of the political stature. So I think it, I think it, you know, I think a really good movie, a really good movie, you're in the universe, you're right there, you, you, you're emotionally connected with the story, you're mostly connected with the characters and I have to say the jumping around timelines, while interesting, while interesting and, and, and interesting to follow and interesting to, to, to keep track of and, and, and the dialogue is interesting and it's got a pace to it. It leaves you a little bit emotionally removed because instead of just sinking in and being in that world and, and following the story and living that story in that world, you're constantly shifting worlds and you're constantly having to keep track of where you are. I think that's just a problem with these kind of movies that go from, so I find it interesting and stimulating. It wasn't as a emotionally satisfying and emotionally embracing experience. And again I'm not sure and I have to watch it again and, and I probably will watch Aponima again. It's not a complex enough movie worthy of it. I'll probably watch it again because I am interested in the, you know, if it doesn't add up to anything. Does the movie add up to one theme, to one definitive take on Aponima, right, on Aponima. All right, so, so that's the movie. I definitely recommend seeing it. It really is an intellectual movie. It's a movie worth supporting. I'd like to see more movies made like this about serious topics, serious stories, great actors that are dramatic, character and, and dialogue driven. It doesn't completely engage you emotionally because I think of the jumping around. But there's also the fun and the challenge of keeping track of all of that. So definitely worth seeing.