In “Oppenheimer”, like Malick’s “Tree of Life”, Nolan uses quick cuts that jump through the different time’s of the character’s life coupled to very dramatic music to give an abstract feel of the “spirit” of the life. He generally has less poetic “soul” (in Hilman’s sense of soul as concrete detail, spirit as abstract) than Malick, since he doesn’t compose his shots as artfully. Nolan has said he uses plot and narrative complexity rather than artful shot composition to sustain multiple viewings with richness (many of Malick’s films have no plot).
Consequently, Nolan’s films are often criticized for too much exposition and plot over artful shots and camera work. But he uses those IMAX cameras to capture so much richness in the shot that its less artful–and almost “objective” perspective–I think works, especially since his subject is often scientific.
Nolan’s more abstract spirit is definitely more interested in time than space. More interested in sound design, music and cross cuts to create a visceral feeling of abstract duration, rather than visceral poetic detail and imagery. More of a philosophical filmmaker than a poetic one perhaps.
But Oppenheimer is probably his best reviewed work because being focused on one character, we aren’t abstracting out into a maze of sci fi-concepts but into the soul of one man. He is often criticized for his characters merely serving his convoluted plots. His last film, “Tenet” especially, as the main character was simply called “the protagonist”. In “Oppenheiner” the plot is the spiritual/soul perspective of a single character (or perhaps two), so the convoluted plot is not conceptually abstract–though there are many parallels to draw to quantum physics concepts–but the knot of emotions and events of a life as we all tend to see them, especially after death, as a nonlinear riddle of open-ended meaning, something Malick has also done very well.
