Neta Bar is a business senior and Mustang News opinion columnist. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Mustang Media Group.
Destroyer of worlds, savior of cinema. Two starkly different films, one fateful release date. Grossing a combined $368 million in their first week, Barbenheimer will go down in history as the catalyst of the movie theater attendance renaissance. “Attendance” feels like an understatement in this case; it wasn’t attendance, it was anarchy. Millions of moviegoers spent July 21st braving the two hour Barbie spectacle and Oppenheimer’s three hour runtime in one go. I was not one of those brave souls.
However, I did watch both, and this is what a Cal Poly business major – clearly the most renowned film critic you know – has to say. Spoilers ahead, you have been warned. But really, if you haven’t watched both these movies yet, what have you been doing? Living under a rock? Playing with barbies? Constructing the world’s first atomic bomb?
Round 1: Oppenheimer
Those who watched Oppenheimer before Barbie grapple with the inherent weight of human existence on the daily. They down a cup of pragmatic ethics alongside their morning coffee like it’s their job. They entered the theater on July 21st with solemn looks and left with wizened minds.
Oppenheimer is a cinematic triumph; one of fierce dialogue, gripping performances and the first tolerable 3-hour runtime that I’ve seen in years. Christopher Nolan took his notorious style and made it work for the audience – this time.
I’ll be the first to say that I am not routinely an avid Nolan fan. I find his non sequential storytelling to be more cliché than ingenious, but I’m relieved (and ultimately surprised) to say that in this movie, the plot prevails. Christopher Nolan made a movie that made a morsel of sense. Hooray!
Scenes were immersive, disjointing the senses of sight and sound and inviting viewers to undergo an experience of genuine wonder along with Cillian Murphy and the cast. Entire audiences were holding their breath and people literally sat at the edge of their seat; that is what cinema is about and, at this juncture, Oppenheimer outperformed.
My only qualm is the lack of clarity in Lewis Strauss’ vendetta against Oppenheimer. To even the most engaged movie-watcher, I wasn’t sure where his malevolence for Oppenheimer came from, and from what source. At the end of the film, an explanation is hastily delineated, but for such a crucial element of the story’s resolution, the approach was not nearly enough.
Notwithstanding, the rest of the film contained masterful, satisfying and downright prodigious filmmaking. My personal favorite; the invigoratingly written character arc of Kitty Oppenheimer, from alcoholic wife and resigned mother to Robert Oppenheimer’s greatest ally. The greatest moment of dialogue in the movie occurs between her and special counsel Robert Robb.
“Through communist channels,” the woman said. I had to bite my tongue so as to not audibly cheer.
As a viewer, I could tell that Nolan cared deeply about this movie and wanted to leave no stone unturned. With the exception of Strauss’ sloppily spelled out story, I put forth that he succeeded in this goal.
Round 2: Barbie
Barbie is a movie for the masses. It is a script that could be synopsized by “There’s something for everyone!” as a tagline. There comes a time when one must step back and ask whether this approach is healthy movie making. When a film is for everyone, the story must accommodate. Watered down themes, compromised plotlines, and fragmented thesis statements prevail as a result.
Blunders aside, it is my personal experience that Greta Gerwig’s Barbie was a blast. It flew by, and I speak from the heart when I say that as the closing credits approached, I did not want the movie to end. If I was paying slightly less attention, I believe that Barbie’s screenplay shortcomings could have easily passed me by.
Alas, the Barbie movie is no exception for my cinematic scrutiny. Many criticize this film for its on-the-nose messaging or uninventive take on feminism. To that I say: if you expected Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling’s Barbie movie to bring forth groundbreaking themes in feminist ideology, you were, respectfully, kidding yourself. While I do have my plights with the Barbie movie, its “basic” approach to the woes of womanhood is not where my concerns lie.
In brief, the final act of the movie is a wreck. The fire of the story dies out, the buildup leading to too much and consequently nothing at all. The montage of home videos, while moving at first glance, felt like a last-ditch effort to convey… I’m not even sure what. Being a human is poignantly magnificent, sure, but the momentum of the movie did not set the stage for this motif.
Even the transition that precedes the montage, when Sasha bizarrely asks Mattel’s CEO “What about Barbie? What’s her ending?” speaks to the disorganization that would shortly unfold. Fragmented thesis statements are one of my least favorite cinematic defects. They convey an immaturity of sorts, as if no one was watching closely enough in the editing room. And not only are the themes in this movie fragmented, but they are also each respectively undercooked.
Greta Gerwig infused so many ideas into her film that, by the end, the engine sputtered and the vehicle died. But albeit its faults, Barbie was most evidently a movie with heart. It sparkled, it shined; entire theaters cracked up laughing and cried. The Barbie movie may have resembled a mangled car accident by its end, but best believe, this car was still alluring, energetic, alive. A charming spectacle as it lived and as it died.