Written by Grady Fiorio
Original Publishing Date: September 4th, 2023
Rating: Oppenheimer 4/5 Barbie 4/5
I am now become Barbie Girl, living in a Barbie World.
104 million degrees Fahrenheit. 10,000 times hotter than the surface of the sun. Everyone you love, everything you know, vaporized in less than a second. Wiped away from the surface of the earth, with the only trace left being a chared, ghostly, imprint of your body that once was, against the blazing hot ground beneath you. "Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. For this, he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity." As an endless apocalyptic fire rages on screen, these words, and the silhouette of J. Robert Oppenheimer, slowly fade into frame. They say 10 deaths are a tragedy, 10,000 are a statistic, but no number can truly compound the destructive force of the nuclear bomb. Oppenheimer is the newest tentpole blockbuster from fan-favorite director Christopher Nolan. Famous for reinventing Batman with his Dark Knight Trilogy, and consistently bending the reality of time with nearly every movie he makes, Nolan returns to the IMAX screen once again with Oppenheimer. In this venture, Nolan captures one of his most complex subjects, the father of the nuclear bomb. The man who gave the world the power to destroy itself. With a star-studded cast, a three-hour runtime, and a mammoth 15/70mm IMAX print that runs 11 miles long and 600 pounds, Oppenheimer is one of the biggest event films of the summer, both figuratively and literally. However, "one of" are the keywords here. On the opposite side of that firey coin is Barbie. A modern, punk rock adaptation of the classic Mattel toy, exploring the ideas of self-discovery, identity, and what it means to be human, all from the perspective of a doll. Helmed by another fan-favorite director, Greta Gerwig, the mind behind Lady Bird and Little Women, Barbie boasts an equally impressive cast, starring everybody who wasn't in Oppenheimer. Two very different films, one shared release date, and a giant internet buzz that took off more than anyone was expecting. So, how is the double feature of the century? Is Barbenheimer just one giant meme, or is it something larger for the culture of cinema? Are the movies themselves even good? It only took five hours, I think I found out.
Starting off my double feature docket was Oppenheimer. I wanted to start with the heavy film first, so I could end the night on a lighter note with Barbie. This was also one of, if not, my most anticipated film of the year, and it was the one I really wanted to see first. I made sure to witness it in all of its 70mm IMAX glory, at a sold-out screening at the Chinese Theater in West Hollywood. It was great to see a film not only in this grand scale, full 15/70mm IMAX print, but also to see it on opening day, with an excited movie-going crowd, that was there to celebrate an original film pushing new ideas. However, the festivities didn't start there. Going into the film I had a bit of an interesting experience, one that made me question the larger social implications of the film. Outside the entrance of the theater was a group of self-proclaimed, anti-war, socialists. They were street preaching to Hollywood Boulevard about the dangers of nuclear war and the atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was odd because they seemed to be protesting the film by shouting at people walking into the theater and trying to shove pamphlets in our faces. However, their anti-war views were very much in line with the message of the film. I even asked in particular if they were protesting the film, to which I got shouted at and told “No! We are protesting war!” Some of them even attended the screening of the film, and during the credits, they started chanting their anti-war views to the people leaving the theater. I agree with their stance, but they were aggressively preaching to the choir, so I’m not sure what their goal really was. A priest doesn’t convert the already converted by force-feeding them communion. This didn't affect my opinion of the film, but it sure was a hell of a way to start off the day. Even if I were to brush them off as the usual brand of crazies on Hollywood Boulevard, I do think this film will get a unique social response from viewers. Clearly, the politics of the Manhattan Project are still alive and well today.
So, street preachers aside, how is the film itself? It's good, but it is not without its flaws. At its essence, Oppenheimer is a comprehensive look at the life of a man wrought by guilt for the unspeakable danger he brought to the world. It is a three-hour mammoth, text-book deep dive, at the politics, trials, science, and players that all took part in the Manhattan Project, as well as its aftermath. The film is undeniably dense, for better and for worse. To be blunt, the movie is too long. It's my biggest complaint, and it's one of the main critiques I've seen from other viewers. In a lot of ways, it reminded me of The Irishman. Not only because of its unnecessary and unwieldy runtime, (Hot take, I know. Sue me.) but because of its pure density. Oppenheimer is one of the most comprehensive detailings of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life. In some ways, it’s more akin to a textbook or novel, than it is to a film. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it adds a sort of mental weight that the viewer has to carry on top of the emotional toll of the film. It’s very easy to get lost in the details, names, and political theater going on. I found myself consistently lost in many of the names and events thrown at a lightning pace. However, to refer back to Nolan’s previous film Tenet “Don’t try to understand it. Feel it.” Instead of focusing on every detail, I instead paid attention to the larger themes and motivations. While I still found myself getting lost from time to time, I was able to still get the emotional impacts and betrayals, even though some names and dates slipped my mind.
Speaking of the lightning pace, the first act moves much too fast. Oppenheimer's first marriage, divorce, and affair all happened within a 15-minute span. In this first act, some essential characters are blown to the wind before we even get a chance to become attached or connected with their motivations. While the rest of the film continues to move at a very fast pace, it feels in line with the high stakes of the nuclear race. That being said, it still doesn't save it from some second and third-act drag. Even though a lot is covered in these two acts, much of it feels unnecessary. Unexpectedly, Oppenheimer is mostly a courtroom drama, with a significant portion of the film taking place inside two rooms. It's an unexpected move from Nolan and something that was kept from most of the marketing. So much time is spent on these court scenes and interrogations, that the main race against the Axis forces gets lost. In defense of the film, this build-up does start to pay off in the third act, which is the best part of the film. After some character motivations are revealed, it puts the rest of the film in a completely different context and makes these courtroom scenes feel much more engaging. I wish that this was revealed sooner, as it would have made a lot of that build-up, much more tense. However, leaving the film, I still felt that they could have shaved 30-45 minutes off the three-hour runtime. Alternatively, they could have replaced that time with scenes focusing more on the moral quandary that haunts Oppenheimer's nightmares, something that the film surprisingly doesn't touch on that much.
Adding to Oppenheimer's obtuse nature is the narrative structure. Ironically, Oppenheimer is three films in one. The story of the Trinity test, the persecution of Oppenheimer, and the trial of Lewis Strauss. Once again, Nolan goes for a nonlinear structure, bouncing between three different timelines, without a clear indication of which one the story is currently in. Surprisingly this actually works pretty well. Nolan is able to make each timeline feel visually and narratively distinct. By the time I connected all the dots, I actually felt pretty satisfied that this paid off.
Pacing issues aside, the pure visual editing of the film is quite choppy. It's hard to describe without a visual example, but the short version is that the film would cut between different shots that looked very similar, and thus would create edits that felt like awkward jump cuts. This was only enhanced by the film constantly jumping the 180-degree line. A quick film school lesson for the uninitiated, in film you generally keep the camera on one side of your subjects. If you jump in between this line, it can be visually jarring and create spatial confusion for your audience. Like all rules, this can be broken, but you have to be very careful when you do because if done improperly, it can feel like your eyes were hit by an editing flash bang. Maybe it's just because I'm a film nerd, but Oppenheimer's constant 180 jumps would really take me out of the experience.
As the visual experience of Oppenheimer continues, a large portion of the marketing has been given to the film's use of 15/70mm IMAX footage. There's been a whole lot of buzz around seeing this film in the largest format possible. While the 70mm print of the film did look quite good, it felt mostly unnecessary for the experience. The film's more “spectacle” sequences are much too sparse to truly make use of the format, and the more intimate scenes use the IMAX aspect ratio too inconsistently to make it effective. The IMAX shots look fantastic and the 70mm adds a nice atmosphere, but they should have picked one aspect ratio and stuck to it. One of my biggest complaints about modern IMAX films is their changing aspect ratios. Most IMAX films will only use the full 1.43:1 IMAX screen for select sequences or shots, and leave the rest to a tighter 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Oppenheimer is just as guilty of this, changing aspect ratios between shots for seconds at a time, without seemingly a specific purpose. While most people I've talked to don't seem to notice or be bothered by this, it's something I can't help but see. To be fair, as a filmmaker, it's part of my job to be thinking about aspect ratio and its effect on storytelling. The full IMAX 1.43:1 is such a stunning visual, that the dramatic change back to a significantly small frame really takes me out of the film. From a production standpoint, I understand why they changed aspect ratios. IMAX cameras that use that large format are extremely loud and aren't the most practical for dialogue scenes, which this film is full of. That being said, I really would have preferred the whole film in the full IMAX 1.43:1. However, I'm still glad that Nolan is embracing the film format, and emphasizing the craft of filmmaking and its roots. Even though it didn't work for me 100%, I appreciate the love and attention to detail Nolan gives to his films. Without the few filmmakers we have like him. we'd probably lose this format altogether.
Another much-talked-about element of the film was its use of practical effects, specifically in regard to recreating the Trinity Test nuclear explosion. To be fully honest with you, this scene was a bit underwhelming. This is a moment that has been built up for the past 100+ minutes. Every single decision has led up to this, a moment that would not only be pivotal to ending WW2, but nearly ending the world as well. Then the final countdown commences. 3... 2... 1... FLASH! Silence... We see a pillar of fire. An image while disturbing, has been outmatched by other nuclear images that the film has shown us previously. Throughout the film, we see much more devastating close-up shots of a nuclear blast. These shots are haunting, abstract, and mesmerizing. Like a Jackson Pollock painting, painted with fire and blood. It truly conveys the powerful forces of Pandora’s Box that have now been unleashed upon the world. We only get these shots in small glimpses, so when the final payoff comes, it’s actually a bit flat. However, what is not flat is the sound. In the midst of this silence, we as an audience are forced to sit with the horrific visual in front of us. As the fiery vengeance of God rages on screen, we then hear the inner thoughts of Oppenheimer "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." As the fire begins to wither away, a seismic shock blasts through the New Mexico desert, violently shaking into the nuclear bunker, and out through the screen onto the audience, rattling the theater auditorium. It’s not a sound you forget, and it conveys the message better than the visual. While I still think that Twin Peaks takes the cake for best nuclear bomb VFX, Nolan's use of practical effects certainly makes the sequences visually stunning and his own.
While it might seem like I'm ragging on Oppenheimer quite a bit, the film is still excellently made. When you're dealing with such a high-quality production, the few flaws that are there, shine a bit brighter. From its opening scene till its very end, Oppenheimer stars a killer cast. There is not a single bad performance in this film. Matt Damon, Benny Safdie, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, and of course, Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer himself, absolutely bring the heat on this one. However, the true standout was Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss. RDJ rides the wave of a conniving politician trying to play politics like a marionette brilliantly, and he was easily my favorite part of the film. I know it's still an early call, but I see a Best Supporting Actor nomination (if not a win), in his near future. Of course not only is the cast excellent, but you know when you're seeing a Nolan film, you're getting a technical feat. Long-time Nolan collaborator, Hoyte van Hoytema, comes back to be Nolan's cinematographer, and there is no shortage of eye candy here. The color and detail of the IMAX print looked fantastic. When expanding into the full IMAX aspect ratio, the screen is lit up with a range of color and visual depth that is missing for most films. Even when used in small indoor spaces, the intensity of Hoytema's large format visuals shines through. Of course, the sound effect mix was dominating throughout the theater, and the practical effects were nothing short of stunning. It's to be expected, but Nolan has yet to disappoint on his technical prowess.
Arguably, Oppenheimer is Nolan's best character study, rubbing shoulders with The Dark Knight. As a writer, Nolan has stepped up his game from what felt like a convoluted misstep with Tenet and the emotionally distant Dunkirk (I'm bringing all the hot takes today). Nolan clearly has a great sense of interest and empathy for the man, and it really shows on screen. Oppenheimer is never portrayed as a hero or villain, but rather as the right man in the wrong place, making decisions he'd later regret. But the film has no judgment for him. It's all left for us to decide.
What the film does take more of a stance on, is the danger of nuclear warfare. However, in what many will find to be an odd comparison, I feel that Metal Gear Solid did the anti-nuclear war message better (I swear I'll do that Metal Gear retrospective one day). While two completely different stories, in two completely different mediums, as a huge Metal Gear fan, I noticed a lot of similarities between the stories of the Trinity Test and of Outer Heaven. For the non-terminally online nerds who may be reading this right now, Metal Gear is a 36-year long-running video game franchise, about a military family involved with a weapon known as Metal Gear, a bipedal nuclear weapons equipped tank, AKA a walking nuke launcher. The series is all about the dangers of nuclear warfare, the war economy, the disinformation age, and the constant struggle for peace in a society fueled by civil unrest. Like Oppenheimer, there are plenty of twists, turns, backstabbings, and of course, political theater revolving around nuclear warfare. All of which is famously directed by Hideo Kojima, a fan-favorite video game director, who'd be the video game equivalent of someone like Nolan. What Metal Gear does, that Oppenheimer doesn't, is that it uses its interpersonal characters and relationships to tie back into its anti-war themes. Oppenheimer instead leaves these two ideas feeling separate. There is the war, and then there is the man, but it doesn't do enough to thematically tie them together. They are separate entities that find themselves on the occasional collision course, without ever fully becoming intertwined. While Metal Gear might be a fictional series with plenty of sci-fi tropes, it's able to ground its story with factual elements of the real world. Before the credits of Metal Gear Solid 1, the screen reads "In the 1980s, there were more than 60,000 nuclear warheads in the world at all times. The total destructive power amounted to 1 million times that of the Hiroshima A-bomb. In January 1993, START2 was signed and the United States and Russia agreed to reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 3500 - 3000 in each nation by December 31, 2000. However, as of 1998, there still exist 26,000 nuclear warheads in the world." When these themes are translated into real-world context and facts, it becomes even more terrifying. Even after decreasing the nuclear arms supply dramatically, it still dwarfs the nuclear powers that be. Oppenheimer's ending takes a more visual route, showing us the effect of an all-out nuclear war with a CGI graphic of the world's nuclear supply being launched all at once. It definitely gets the message across, but it was a missed opportunity to show us the real-world people and statistics that come with the ongoing nuclear arms race.
As Oppenheimer's runtime comes to a close, it becomes abundantly clear that the film is massive, oppressively massive. Not only in its scope and themes but in its runtime and format. For better and for worse, Oppenheimer is Nolan fully unchained. I'm glad it's a film he got to make, and I'm even happier that audiences are so receptive to the material. It has incredible merit and I commend the talent on display, but its unwieldy nature makes it a film I don't see myself returning to anytime soon.
But what about the other side of this coin? You know? The one that's pink and covered in "I HEART RYAN GOSLING" stickers that I most definitely did not place there. While there is admittedly less to say about Barbie, it's no doubt leaving a significant impression on the film-going landscape. Currently, the highest-grossing movie of 2023 (dethroning those damn Italians over in the mushroom kingdom), Barbie has become a cultural phenomenon that I don't even think director Greta Gerwig, saw coming. But is Barbie just an ill-fated fad, or something more? While I think most audiences were expecting something different than blockbuster shlock, given the talent attached to the project, Barbie has proven itself to be a much more complex film than its marketing material lets on. At the heart of Barbie, it's a surprisingly deep film about a doll finding out what it means to be human.
As mentioned, Barbie is backed by a lot of Hollywood talent. Not only helmed by Oscar-winning director Greta Gerwig, the film is also co-written by Noah Baumbach, starring and produced by Margot Robbie, and filled with a stacked cast of Hollywood's best and funniest. Like Oppenheimer, Barbie is brought to life by its supporting cast, the standout of course being Ryan Gosling. Stealing nearly every scene he's in, Gosling is not only incredibly funny but also compelling. He turns what would otherwise be a cheap joke about macho bros, into a relatable character trying to identify what it means to be a man in a mass media culture. The film may be called Barbie, but make no mistake, this is Ken's movie.
The screenplay is especially inventive. Completely different from anything Gerwig or Bambauch has produced in their careers, Barbie completely understands what kind of film it wants to be, and embraces it fully. It's not a film for the kids playing with Barbies, but rather for the adults who feel like they've lost their inner child. It's an odd sell, but clearly one that has connected with audiences globally. With the political landscape down the toilet, a housing market more reminiscent of 2008 than 1998, and social upheaval causing constant cause for concern, it's no wonder why now more than ever the incoming generation of adults has lost touch with their inner selves. How can you possibly find the time to enjoy your hobbies and passions when student loan payments for a useless degree are constantly around the corner? But the fact doesn't change, if you lose touch with your identity then you'll never find true peace or balance in your life. Barbie embraces this dark and complex question by blasting it with bright pink light. Opening in the idyllic Barbieland, every day is filled with sunshine, dance parties, and quite literal spray-on tans. However, as the days pass it soon becomes apparent to one Barbie, that everything might not be as grand as it seems. This cyclical life of wake up, dress up, run the world, and party, is hollow, and life as a Ken is even worse. Delegated as the number 2 in every part of society, the Kens just exist to be accessories to the Barbies (quite literally). The only way for Barbie to find her true purpose in life is to venture out into the real world to see what living is really all about, even if Ken has to tag along too. Yes, it does cover similar ground to 2014's The Lego Movie (Even casting Will Ferrel as the exact same villain), but the thematic elements remain just as true. Through trial and tribulation, Barbie and Ken become comedic but thoughtfully accurate depictions of the experiences of women and men as we age and find our identities.
While the satire of Barbie reverses traditional gender roles by placing Women at the top of power structures, Gerwig's film uses the lens of Ken to also reflect the experience of men. There are a lot of men that feel like they are "just Ken", but it's not something they can talk about publicly for fear of ridicule. The Barbie power structure is designed to minimize the emotion of the Barbies with an overload of pink, plastic smiles and "girl boss energy". (Spoilers) When roles are reversed, and the Kens gain control of Barbieland, they instead hide their pain with the Regan Era. It's humorous, but also comically accurate. Men have to find nontraditional and more indirect ways of expressing their frustrations, pains, and emotions. I can't tell you how many times I and many others I know have pushed along through extreme emotional pain by saying "It is what it is" and "Fuck it we ball". It sounds comedic (Because it is. I still find it funny, no matter how sad that sounds), but it's also because we use humor as a blanket to hide our pain. There has been a lot of talk about wanting men to open up, but the cold reality is that's just talk. It's something fashionable to say, but not to do. If your emotions don't directly align with the views of others around you, you inevitably become a target.
When the societal politics of gender are discussed, it almost always becomes a war of attrition between men and women, but the reality couldn't be further from that notion. Women are not the cause of men's issues, and hot take, but, men are not the cause of women's issues. Rather, as a society we have allowed ourselves to socially reward those who partake in devaluing others. There's an underlying nature to humans that causes us to separate each other into artificial boundaries that keep us from embracing our true selves. Barbie does an excellent job of showing that life as a human is hard. Man or woman, adult or child. When America Ferrera's character, Gloria, gives a monologue about the struggles of being a woman, not once does she blame men. Society has failed women. and we all contribute to it. We've willingly let the struggle of our fellow humans become the status quo, and when the status quo is set, we bring down those who try to break free of its archaic structure. It is the job of all of us, to empower ourselves and each other to live in a healthy egalitarian society, that values empathy for others.
With Barbie's frank discussion and satire of gender norms, it has found itself in the crosshairs of political controversy, oddly similar to Oppenheimer. There've been many complaints about the film being "woke". While Barbie is without a doubt political satire and not afraid to address modern political issues head-on, the discussion about Barbie is really nothing more than rage bait designed to get clicks and drive ad revenue. When looking deeper into the outrage, it becomes quite clear that it couldn't be more trivial, with political pundits complaining over *checks notes* a transgender actress playing one of many Barbies in the background of a scene. Truly scandalous material. This is another nonsense controversy from the dipshits offended by a "less sexy" green M&M. Really, it makes me wonder when open political discussion died in the free trade of ideas, or if it really ever existed in the first place. If I'm going to be frank, take off the pampers and chill the fuck out.
Even if you ignore the political discussion, Barbie is quite an entertaining film, if not a bit flawed. Gerwig's direction is not only uniquely bold for a studio film, but it's stylish and hysterical. The self-aware humor is consistently clever, if not also ingeniously simple at times. One of the film's funniest gags comes from Gosling's Ken, as he stylishly removes a set of sunglasses, only to reveal that there is yet another set of sunglasses right behind them. It's admittedly a dumb joke, but can you ever truly be funny if you don't dare to be stupid? Little moments like these are the highlight of the film. On top of the humor are the production design, costumes, and elaborate dance numbers. A film about Barbie dolls gives ample room for play in the design department, and Gerwig takes full advantage. Barbieland makes full use of the playful pink aesthetic, while also fitting in tons of clever sight and sound gags into frame. The costumes are extremely creative and funny in design, with the costumes of the third act "Ken Rebellion" being a particular highlight. Both these design elements lead into the film's music and elaborate dance sequences. As someone who is not particularly a fan of musical numbers, I found Barbie's set pieces fantastic, with "I'm Just Ken" and The Ken Beach Fight being particular highlights. Like I said, the Kens steal the show in this one.
As for its aforementioned flaws, Barbie is too long (Ironically, once again like Oppenheimer). Sitting at a cool 2 hours, the runtime isn't unmanageable, but its slick pace starts to slip about halfway through. By the film's third act, it starts to become clear that some time could have been shaved off. Not every joke lands, and some plotlines start to stretch thin. Other subplots would have been better cut out. Will Ferrel's subplot as the CEO of Mattel has its moments, but it doesn't do enough to serve the narrative to feel fully justified. These elements exist at a halfway point of being undercooked, but not fully raw. A tight 90 would have probably been too short for a film like this, but splitting the difference at an hour 45 would have kept things moving a bit more even. Jumping back to the film's deeper message and satire, while the message is positive, its delivery of that message can on occasion be messy, blurring the line between satire and themes. Most media-literate individuals will be able to see where the line exists, but there are times when the writing fails the message, often undercutting with a joke that can muddy the waters. Despite these shortcomings, it's clear to see why audiences love this film so much. It's a good time.
As a double feature, "Barbenheimer" is a lot. Not only is it five hours of cinema, but the whiplash of Oppenheimer to Barbie is quite jarring. After what felt like conquering Oppenheimer's runtime and oppressive tones, I thought to myself "Do I really need to go watch another movie right now? After what I just saw I can't decide if I want a hug or a keg of beer to drown my sorrows." Thankfully after a short break and some dinner at the classic Mel's Diner, I found myself getting back on my feet. Once I got in the theater again and the crowd roared as the movie started, the feeling completely subsided, because Barbie delivers.
So what's the final result? Who's the winner of Oppenheimer v Barbie? Truth be told... both. I know that's a much more anti-climactic answer than most people want, but in all honesty, both films are great in their own right, while still respectably having their own flaws. Barbie is certainly more rewatchable, but a flashy comedy is always going to be more rewatchable than a densely packed, 3-hour biopic. The real winner here is the audience. We got two great, creator-led films, with massive box office receipts, that'll hopefully make clear that audiences want and demand more. Barbie may be based on a toy, but the visions behind both it and Oppenheimer are wholly unique and original. There's a grand misunderstanding that audiences want the same easy junk they've been getting for years, but that's simply not true. Audiences are willing to pay for good, original films, you just have to prove that it's worth their time. If films are well made and marketed, they'll crush any bland IP films that have been watered down by 30 test screenings and a board of executives. With the industry strikes putting Hollywood at a full stop that hasn't been seen since the 60s, it looks like we're due for an industry-wide reset ala "New Hollywood". Amid these trials and triumphs, Oppenheimer and Barbie are a beacon of hope that the soul of the artist is still viable in the business of cinema. So go see a movie. Let your voice be heard.
Oppenheimer
Director Christopher Nolan
Runtime 3 Hr
Format IMAX (15/70mm Film)
Release Date 2023
Barbie
Director Greta Gerwig
Runtime 1 Hr 54 Min
Format Digital (DCP)
Release Date 2023
Comments