I certainly wish you well, no matter what deep disagreements I have with you, and no matter how amused I am at "mouth-breathing intellectual-hating adrenaline jockey", which is even more sublimely condescending than your previous blanket dismissal of "manic movie fans" as seekers of the "simplistic" and "lowest common denominator". ;)

To pick up on some of your points:

I'm still not clear how an MA in art or your screenwriting degree has a bearing on why you believe fictionalised film is "idiotic", as you put it here, and per your original comment. On the other hand, your NSA background does shed some light on why you might have this belief.

However, please can I ask you to cite an example of a reputable review (ie from a newspaper like The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, New York Times, or a magazine like Empire, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, etc) that labels Oppenheimer "left wing". I've not seen any such review, but if they exist, I'd be curious as to how they have come to that conclusion. My reading of the film is that it is resolutely apolitical, and refuses to do that sort of heavy lifting for the viewer, leaving them to draw their own conclusions.

I don't agree with your assessment that the Oppenheimer screenplay is as predictable as "a horrible television sitcom". Some television sitcoms aren't predictable in the slightest. Or horrible. You've obviously been watching the wrong ones. ;) Seriously, though, how exactly is Nolan's approach, with his Fission/Fusion subjective/objective cross-cutting, non-linear narrative design in any way like a television sitcom?

Regarding your stance on fictionalising, is it absolutely iron-clad in all cases? Since today is Holocaust Memorial Day, for example, how do you feel about a film like Schindler's List? Or more recently, The Zone of Interest? To my mind, both are invaluable, and there can never be enough Holocaust films, considering the tragic antisemtisim and denial that continues to blight the world in certain places.

To take the case of Schindler's List, I'm sure Spielberg (or anyone, for that matter) wouldn't make any claim that it's a definitive document on the Holocaust (documentaries like Shoah would be a much better place for that), but it is an astonishingly powerful, undeniably inspiring true story of how one person made a difference. Why on earth should we be denied a fictionalised version of such a story? Human being are wired for storytelling, and this is a sublime example of one that happens to be true (albeit fictionalised). That film had an profound effect affect on me as an 18-year old during the original release. As for Spielberg, he didn't take a penny from the film, but used his share of the money to found the USC Shoah Foundation, which gathers vitally important Holocaust survivor testimony, and also current stories of antisemitism (for example, most recently, the Hamas atrocities in Israel on 7th October). Are you seriously suggesting the world would be a better place without such "idiotic" fictionalising, given the film's legacy in this respect?

USC Shoah Foundation: https://sfi.usc.edu/

Story about gathering 7th October 2023 testimonies from The Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/spielberg-launches-new-project-to-document-unspeakable-barbarity-of-october-7/

Finally, I put it to you that education and entertainment are not mutually exclusive. This storyteller believes the most important lessons of history are much more likely to be learned and applied if entertainingly presented. To suggest otherwise is, to my mind, snobby at best. That isn't to dismiss straightforward education either. I'd argue both are vital. :)