‘Oppenheimer’ allows us to choose the villains, unlike ‘Barbie’.

“Barbieheimer” weekend went off with a $235.5⁢ million bang. Or did it ‍go up⁢ in a fiery mushroom cloud? Well, that‌ depends on who⁣ you are ​and which of the‍ blockbuster movies you saw.

The “Barbie” reviews were⁤ a ⁤mixed bag. Critics loved it. Most viewers apparently loved it too — except conservatives. While some didn’t ​hate it, others described it as “a flaming piece of dogsh-t.” As⁣ Federalist senior contributor Rich Cromwell wrote ⁤in these pages, the “Barbie” movie is ⁢“more lectures⁤ than laughs” and a total letdown: “‘Barbie’ is a two-hour ⁣grind through a litany of complaints about how the patriarchy is keeping the ladies down.” Among other complaints, the much-anticipated “life ‌in plastic” feature pretended ​a man was a woman, ‌pitted the ‌sexes against each other, and told audiences full of girls that it’s “literally impossible to be a woman.” In other words, it left no doubt​ about who the “bad guy” is: the patriarchy.

There’s apparently little dispute about the quality of “Oppenheimer.” Boasting 94 percent on Rotten Tomatoes from critics and audiences alike, ​the ‌Christopher Nolan masterpiece is, ⁤in⁢ a word, magnificent. Made for an immersive‍ Imax experience, the World War II biopic about the “father of the atomic bomb” wows with stunning ​microscopic visuals, compelling characters, remarkable costumes and cosmetics, meticulous pacing, believable sin and secrecy, a moving score, and a star-studded cast. Even in sold-out⁤ theaters, you could hear a pin drop in the wind-up ⁢to the Trinity test — a beautiful scene worth all the wait and hype.

But perhaps most moving and memorable about the film is the moral conflict and ultimate ambiguity ‌about who exactly are “bad guys.” ⁤Some are more obviously⁤ so, of course. Communism is clearly a foe, ‍as are the Soviets, Nazis, Japanese, and⁣ the rest of America’s World War II‍ enemies. Marital infidelity, too, doesn’t escape scrutiny as a destructive and deadly ⁤evil. Even the politically motivated deep state — along with kangaroo courts and other deniers of due process — receive⁢ a fair ⁤flogging in scenes reminiscent of our political moment.

But unlike in “Barbie,” a singular villain in “Oppenheimer” was less clear — and decidedly so. I left the theater with more questions than answers. Yes, J. Robert Oppenheimer was a victim of McCarthyism, but ⁤does that let him off the hook for evidence of espionage? He was right ⁣to end ⁤his extramarital trysts with Jean Tatlock, but ‍was he wrong to feel doubt or responsibility after her suicide? How about the ethics of civilian ​casualties in a just war? If a husband’s world-shaping work keeps him absent from his home — and possibly contributes to his wife’s alcoholism or abuse of ⁣his children — is his work noble or ⁤neglectful? And what⁢ to do with the complex⁣ Lewis Strauss?

To that end, “Oppenheimer” viewers were likely taken by the striking shift from⁣ color to monochrome ​and back again — and the stark physicality of⁤ an aged, black-and-white Robert Downey Jr. But Nolan wasn’t just having a Victor Fleming moment. His colorization technique had apparently more to do with depicting the human perception⁣ of morality than establishing time and place.

Nolan explained this artistic device to The Associated Press. “I knew that I​ had two timelines that we were running in the film,” he said. “One is in color, and that’s Oppenheimer’s subjective experience. That’s the bulk ⁢of the film. Then the other is a ⁤black and white timeline. It’s a more objective view of his story from a different character’s [Strauss’s] point of ⁤view.”

Thus while some parts of ​the film are⁢ intended to convey a clear picture of the way things are, the bulk of the three-hour story is told from the ⁢view of the brilliant protagonist who isn’t likely to see anything clearly but ​the science. After all, his moral compass is clearly colored by competing interests in lust, politics, and his field, if not in war.

It ⁣goes without saying a movie based on​ the Manhattan Project​ probably has more potential to probe the depths of human nature than one based on Mattel. But when filmmakers decide to wade into morality, they should know ⁢that ‌movies are more ⁢powerful when they implore viewers to think for themselves rather than​ telling them what to believe.