Barbie and Oppenheimer: Thoughts and Conclusions

 Barbie (2023)

Director: Greta Gerwig

Screenplay: Greta Gerwig, Noah Baumbach

"Crash course in feminism for the 6th grade girl."

    I read a reddit comment that said people often use the, "it's just a film about a kids toy" statement to defend Barbie from any thematic criticism. And maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like it's accurate. When I see people giving probably too in depth analyses of the content of the film, I don't see this point brought up as much. It's kind of a double standard. When negatively charged analysis is done,  you're expecting too much from the film, but when analysis for the opposite purpose is done, no one bats an eye.

    In my opinion, Greta Gerwig hasn't directed a good film since Lady Bird (2017), and I don't have high hopes for the rest of her directing career. I know she's only directed three films, but if she continues down the blockbuster path, I just think it's unlikely I'll get very much enjoyment out of her stuff. How that opinion is related to Barbie? Well...

    Barbie is "just a film about a kids toy", and I think that's where the problem lies. I went into Barbie pretty much entirely blind. At least based off of all the promo, as blind as I think I could've been. And I would be lying if I didn't say that going into it I was hoping it could've been some sort of statement. Or at the very least something risk taking. Which is honestly kind of what I expect for almost every movie. But more so for Barbie I think. But really, it's likely shaped around my personal opinions and expectations for Gerwig. I watched Lady Bird, loved Lady Bird. I watched Little Women (2019), hated Little Women. But even even Little Women, I said, "everyone has a few flops.", like a reasonable movie goer. I think it's wonderful and great that Gerwig is a woman who can get blockbusters funded, but I think she's stopped being a creative to Marvel at beyond that one trait. Anyways, maybe she never was in the first place. But I'm not super familiar with her early work and acting stuff anyhow.

    I'll always have a special place in my heart for Lady Bird, because it was like one of the only movies I actually ended up watching from I think the first Oscars that I actually cared about, which is probably telling on myself, but I digress.

    

    But now, lets talk about the actual film. Maybe my expectations were misplaced for expecting this to be any more than this was, but for whatever reason, I like to lean on the side of optimism when I go into movies. Barbie is mostly a hypocritical corporate concrete sidewalk with a coat of feminist pink paint that seeps into the cracks so when you crack it open you still can see the pink, but when you dig all the way down it's mostly just gray. And maybe you don't see the negative in that because at least we got a feminist film in Hollywood at all, and perhaps you're correct, but I don't know I'm just an idealist. Actually it's not even that. I rarely go into blockbuster films with positive expectations (which is why I pretty much avoid entirely the ones made after around 2000), so it kind of feels like I've been duped into thinking Barbie could've been more. Could've meant more, or said more. And that'd probably my fault. But the marketing definitely worked. It made the film feel like an event, but the only thing eventful about it was women in pretty outfits on a big screen which I will always love and appreciate.

    It's cynical of me to look at people feeling seen by the Barbie movie and feel sad because there are better movies out there that could make you feel the same way. Something that doesn't parrot back feminist talking points that have existed for decades with very little to actually say about them. A la America Ferrara's embarrassingly on the nose monologue. I mean it is really just beating your audience over the head with 'how hard it is to be a woman'. Which I won't deny, it's difficult, but I don't consider relaying to your audience a message that you already know that they already believe in is not some masterpiece of filmmaking. Of course, no one is saying that it is, but frankly is it even average filmmaking? I mean that particular moment, not the film as a whole.

    My favorite part was the Ken song. My second least favorite part was when they were like "Margot Robbie is too pretty to feel ugly duhdurr", which I could see the potential meta layers in that moment, but if they exist, I'm sure most of the audience did not get them. Now my least favorite part was that I got duped into watching an hour and 45 minute long ad, and it almost actually worked. Which again is partly my fault. 6/10

    To address the weird conservative outcry: I don't fucking understand it. I didn't really feel the need to bring it up because I just feel that it's so unbelievably brain dead, but I do actually have thoughts about it, so why not share them. Frankly, it just fucking stupid. Barbie is not some radical piece of feminist propaganda . I think Barbie is man hating and misandrist in the way that so many Hollywood films are women hating and misogynistic. But then it has to be viewed in the context that the film exits. Barbie is one blockbuster within hundreds. It's portrayal of men isn't totally sound, but to be so angry about it is just... sad. but it's possible that a lot of the 'outrage' is manufactured by grifters who don't actually give a shit. Although, I'm sure some of it is authentic. Just like... get a life. Not everything has to center men, you know?

Oppenheimer (2023)

Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenplay: Christopher Nolan

    So it's the age old question for any modern film person with a social media presence. Which doesn't really include me... anyways. The question is if you're a Nolan bro, or a Nolan hater. I lean more toward the hater side, but I'm not exactly passionate about it. You won't see me getting into any flame wars. At least not online. I think regarding him as one of our 'greatest living directors' feels like too much credit. Greatest? I'm not sure. Most ambitions? I feel that's a given.

    I liked Inception, Tenet was interesting, but kind of bad, and I absolutely hated Interstellar, and I will never put myself through watching it again even to just see if I might change my mind. And that's all of the Nolan I've seen. Before you tell me to watch his other stuff before I make up my mind; If I've seen three (four now) of his films, and I still don't feel like he's one of the greatest living directors... I don't know what to tell you.

    Anyhow, let's move onto Oppenheimer. First things first. WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY SAYING. This is an exaggeration. I could discern the vast majority of the words, but I had to listen very closely. Much closer than I had to for Asteroid City (2023) which I watched in the same movie theater.

    Nolan seems to have this addiction to blasting music for the near entire duration of his films, and it is so obnoxious. I mean actually obnoxious. I think just thinking, if I nominated the film for best original score, would it be because I actually liked the score? Or because he wouldn't STOP PLAYING IT. The few moments where he just the scene play out without the unrelenting dramatic music were cathartic just because I didn't have to struggle to make out any of the words. I could just relax. My problem is that it wasn't a effective creative choice. The way I was feeling didn't actually have anything to do with what was actually happening in the story.

    Maybe I didn't watching it in a 'high tech' enough theatre, or whatever bullshit, but then that makes me think, who the fuck are you making movies for? For the critics? Or for the film bros who'll go out of their way to make sure they view the film in 'the way Nolan intends' just so they can hear the fucking thing? That's bullshit, and if the quality of your movie depends so heavily on the exhibition of it, you're most likely doing it wrong.

    When I watch Nolan movies I pretty much always start out thinking, when will the trailer editing end and the actual movie start? But then I get a few minutes in and remember I'm watching a Nolan film and it will never end. Christopher Nolan films demand your attention, not because they're interesting, but of your mind wanders for even thirty seconds, chances are you'll end up utterly confused. Oppenheimer is no exception. Which sucked because I dozed off like an hour in. But really, there's never any breathing room. It's widely known that Nolan has an exposition problem. And really, the problems in Oppenheimer are the problems he always has in this more modern stage of his career. Underdeveloped characters, absolutely cracked audio (in bad and good ways). More Oppenheimer specific notes include, TELLING and not showing and ineffective exposition.

    What I mean by telling and not showing, he does a terrible job of actually showing the traits of many of the characters. Characters would describe Oppenheimer as one thing, and then there'd just be... no evidence of that. But after they describe him as such, there's usually more actual evidence. But in those contexts, what the characters were saying wasn't really characterization, it seemed more like a way to make up for the lack of characterization up until that point. Oppenheimer was portrayed as some important and brilliant scientist, but we didn't seem him actually being brilliant. Which I can understand why, but it just left me wondering why he was so important, when we haven't seen him doing any more than the other less 'important' scientists. When you want the audience to believe your character is some genius, you have to do more than just have someone say "omg he's a genius." even if it means making up random science jargon that doesn't actually make sense, because at the very least, it gets the point across. 

    Now when the film does show rather than tell, it is in the least subtle ways possible. Want to show Kitty Oppenheimer is an unstable alcoholic? Watch her hold a bottle in every scene she's in and throw a bunch of tantrums! Wanna prove Florence Pugh is also unstable? Watcher her get angry about nothing and then kill herself! And then he fails to give either of these women very much personality beyond those traits.

    Another issue is the sheer amount of time the story takes place over. There are constant time jumps, and a rather nitpicky problem I often have is when films do time skips, but don't put any effort into making the characters looks discernably younger or older. It's time skip after time skip, but there's no point in even indicating them really because it just makes me think, it's been 20 years but they all still wear their hair the same, talk the same, dress the same, and act the same. frankly, it adds more confusion to a story that's already more convoluted than it needs to be. Stories told on such a massive time scale are very difficult to make work especially on film. I think stories like this are usually served much better in books.

    I think what could be Nolan's biggest problem in my opinion, is his priorities. Maybe he needs to figure out what he really wants to focus on in his films. Maybe he wants to make three hour long exposition heavy epics, but if he chooses to make them character studies at the same time, the character elements were shaved down to stubs whether that be to save time, or because he didn't think to add anything, but either way something it lost. Maybe he'd benefit by going all out in one aspect rather than trying to do (and not fully succeeding at doing) both. But that's just my opinion. 7.5/10, maybe 8/10 because of the cool bomb stuff.

Conclusions about the state of Hollywood?

    Maybe Barbenheimer signifies a shift in the state of Hollywood. Actually, I think it does. After Indiana Jones flopped, a lot could be about to change. There's no way to be certain at the moment with the strikes going on, but once they end, we'll have to see what projects get are announced and what projects are released, how they're marketed etc. Maybe they'll try and fail at redoing Barbenheimer (ridiculously likely), or maybe they'll find the real lesson in this (they won't), which is people will go see movies that are good (and also marketed well, sorry Past Lives).

    But it's also not like the odds were ever stacked up against either film. They're both directed by two of the most popular directors of our modern filmmaking era, Gerwig probably being one of the most popular female film directors ever (I have no evidence to back that up its not that serious don't come after me). They're both based around things that already have their own pull separate from the films and directors themselves. They were probably never going to be flops. Their existence isn't some reclamation of high-brow, or high-risk, or whatever bullshit blockbuster filmmaking.

    Maybe it'll be some revolution, but most likely, it'll be exactly the fucking same. At least, that's what the pessimist in me says.

    Conclusion: ":|"