The two sex scenes were still weird, don't get me wrong, but the fact that I knew they were there made them considerably less so, and they didn't feel wholly out of place (I'm referring mainly to the hearing scene here) like they did the first time. It's also noteworthy that the audience didn't mildly chuckle during those scenes as they did during my first viewing, so that probably helped in part.

The first third of the film felt very fast-paced during my first viewing, like every line of dialogue was loaded with information. I think that was more because every line of dialogue was, to put it vividly, triggering a citation bubble from American Prometheus in my mind, and I speculated that it therefore may have felt more stuffed than it actually was. I think my second viewing confirmed that speculation; just watching it as a standard character study, the pacing was much more palatable (although maybe that was in part because I now was prepared for how much Nolan includes). Bottom line: no complaints in that department now.

The Trinity scene was better this time. My initial complaint was that it was too obvious that it was a chemical explosion, but I now realize that that "obviousness" was due to a single shot. There's one shot where you see a pillar of flame rising into the sky with no mushroom cloud, and that soured my impression of the explosion for the rest of the scene. But this time, I ignored that one shot and paid closer attention to all the others, and all the others are fantastic (there's one especially of the bright fireball on the horizon from behind Lawrence's head that was incredibly beautiful). It doesn't look like the Trinity test footage - which is what I subconsciously was expecting during my first viewing - but it nevertheless works, and works really well.

The first time, I thought that the third act felt a bit jumbled, but this time it felt considerably less so. I don't really have much to say here, since I can't explain why it felt so jumbled the first time, except that it didn't this time. Everything seemed to have more narrative purpose.

The "new issue" I alluded to above, which I'm debating whether it's a real issue or just something interesting Nolan does, is the fact that almost the entirety of the years between 1946 and 1953 are cut out. There's the introduction to the Institute at Princeton (and the conversation with Einstein by the lake), the radioisotopes humiliation, the GAC meeting after the Soviet test, Strauss' birthday party and the Fuchs revelation, the "scorpions in a bottle" speech, and then suddenly we're off to Borden's letter and the drafting of the charges against Oppenheimer. Unless I'm forgetting something, that's it: no May-Johnson Bill, no Acheson-Lilienthal or Baruch Plan (the former is kind of referenced in the mention by Strauss of "world government" as Oppie's response to the Soviet test, but it's very out of place), no Project Vista and the debate over strategic versus tactical nuclear weapons between the Air Force and the Army, nothing of the H-bomb debate and H-bomb development beyond the GAC scene (although the film does a very good job pointing out that Oppenheimer's opposition to the H-bomb wasn't just due to moral issues but technical and political ones too, and the scene where Robb exposes Oppenheimer's "hypocrisy" in opposing the hydrogen bomb but not the atomic bomb is an expertly crafted scene, and taken directly from the hearing transcripts), none of Teller's behavior after 1945 (except for testifying at the hearings and showing up to get sternly looked at by Kitty in 1963), no opposition to Ivy Mike... and that's just what I consider to be relevant or important. Now, yes, including any of this, let alone all of it, would have ballooned the runtime so much that only die-hard Nolan fans and history buffs would have watched it, and you wouldn't get the staggering box office success that this film is turning out to be. But because these events are excluded, the film doesn't really give an idea of how controversial Oppenheimer was or that he made enemies at all besides Strauss and Nichols (Borden is arguably presented as merely their pawn rather than an active antagonist in his own right). So although the film's focus on Strauss as the instigator of Oppenheimer's downfall is accurate and important, it's also important to show, I think, all the extra context surrounding it. But the fact that it would have made the film inconceivably lengthy means I'm currently leaning on the side of "this is an interesting way for Nolan to adapt the history" rather than "this is a fundamental problem with how the film is adapting that history." Apologies if that was long and rambling!

Oppie gives his speech after the bombs go off in Japan. Such a great use of "visions" by Nolan, and that one scene, more than any, showcased how Oppie must have felt. You could literally show just that one scene to sum up the torture Oppie must have gone through. That was so visceral and emotional, took my breath away.

about Jean dying, and Kitty essentially calls him a bitch. Both actors nailed it there. I can understand why Oppie felt the way he did, and I also totally understand Kitty's reaction because this was an affair.

Did I read this scene right?

Per Nolan, the color scenes are subjective from Oppy’s POV and the black and white scenes are supposed to be objective.

In the scene where they’re at the dinner table having a last minute committee meeting, it’s in black and white and it shows Strauss and Oppy being combative with each other. Strauss moves the flowers on the table to the side to talk to Dane DeHaan’s character (Nichols) but still blocks other people at the table.

Later they show this same scene in color. This time the flowers are moved off the table and Strauss is much nicer to Oppy. The movie later shows Oppy’s naïveté and since this is his POV he doesn’t suspect Strauss holds a grudge against him and sees Strauss in more sympathetic light. Oppy is nicer too here since he probably sees himself how we all see ourselves in a brighter way when he’s supposed to be arrogant objectively.